Request: Add a rating system to the caches

[+dibbg]

I'd like to see a rating system added to each GC. Something like on YouTube where there are five stars, you just click how many stars you'd rate it, 1 being the worse, 5 being the best.

 

Why? Let's say you're in a new city or location caching, and would like to just grab the coolest caches in the area. Or maybe you're not in it for the numbers, but want to find cool caches in nice locations or something.

 

A 1 -5 system would be better than a "digg" type system where it's thumbs up or thumbs down, 'cause a cache would have to be terrible to get anything other than a thumbs up.

 

But, there have been just "regular" caches that are OK, but nothing great, they might get 3 stars, but if there's a truely awesome cache, that sucker gets five stars.

 

Then add the rating to the PQ's, so you could just get the coolest ones if you wanted.

 

And of course rating would be optional, and you could only rate a cache once.

 

How about that?

 

[+Caching Scout]

It has been discussed here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...2Brating+system

But I think that it's an even number of people on both sides (yea and nay)

[+mtn-man]

I would suggest that you use the search function. It has been discussed several times.

[+dibbg]

It has been discussed here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...2Brating+system

But I think that it's an even number of people on both sides (yea and nay)

 

Ah ok cool, if it's already been discussed and TPTB haven't added it, oh well.

 

Still think it's a good idead, but I'll live without it.

[+Prime Suspect]

"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know."

- Harry S. Truman

[+Markwell]

There's no period after the S...

[+Beaverbeliever]

I use this site. It works very well for rating caches.

[+Naked Baby]

I'd like to see a rating system added to each GC. Something like on YouTube where there are five stars, you just click how many stars you'd rate it, 1 being the worse, 5 being the best.

 

Why? Let's say you're in a new city or location caching, and would like to just grab the coolest caches in the area. Or maybe you're not in it for the numbers, but want to find cool caches in nice locations or something.

 

A 1 -5 system would be better than a "digg" type system where it's thumbs up or thumbs down, 'cause a cache would have to be terrible to get anything other than a thumbs up.

 

But, there have been just "regular" caches that are OK, but nothing great, they might get 3 stars, but if there's a truely awesome cache, that sucker gets five stars.

 

Then add the rating to the PQ's, so you could just get the coolest ones if you wanted.

 

And of course rating would be optional, and you could only rate a cache once.

 

How about that?

 

 

Problem I see is this.

 

Say someone says this is an awesome cache, for whatever reason, say 5 stars, it has lots of good treasures in it. Now a bunch of cachers come visit, and in a few visits, all the good stuff is gone, so now its a 1 star, who will update this information?

 

Max

[+Prime Suspect]

There's no period after the S...

 

:D :D (linky)

[+dibbg]

I'd like to see a rating system added to each GC. Something like on YouTube where there are five stars, you just click how many stars you'd rate it, 1 being the worse, 5 being the best.

 

Why? Let's say you're in a new city or location caching, and would like to just grab the coolest caches in the area. Or maybe you're not in it for the numbers, but want to find cool caches in nice locations or something.

 

A 1 -5 system would be better than a "digg" type system where it's thumbs up or thumbs down, 'cause a cache would have to be terrible to get anything other than a thumbs up.

 

But, there have been just "regular" caches that are OK, but nothing great, they might get 3 stars, but if there's a truely awesome cache, that sucker gets five stars.

 

Then add the rating to the PQ's, so you could just get the coolest ones if you wanted.

 

And of course rating would be optional, and you could only rate a cache once.

 

How about that?

 

 

Problem I see is this.

 

Say someone says this is an awesome cache, for whatever reason, say 5 stars, it has lots of good treasures in it. Now a bunch of cachers come visit, and in a few visits, all the good stuff is gone, so now its a 1 star, who will update this information?

 

Max

 

I was more referring to the cache location rather than what's "in" the cache, which can obviously changes with every find.

 

If I'm visiting a city and know I'll only have time for a few caches, I'd like to find the ones that other cachers think are cool. Like a cool park, or an interesting hide.

 

That's what I was thinking.

[+J-Way]

This is one of the most-often suggested changes to the site, and is favored by many (included me).

 

However, it is very unlikely that this will ever be implemented because of the vocal hordes that oppose this idea. The primary reason for people not wanting ratings is that different people play the game in different ways. Some despise all micros. Some despise all puzzles. Some want to find as many caches as quickly as possible, so would rate a LPC in a Walmart parking lot with easy interstate access higher than cache requiring a 4-mile hike. Someone highly allergic to poison ivy might rate a cache as "Very Bad" because of the presence of a few vines even though the view from the cache is spectacular. And so on and so forth. I believe the main detractors are those that think that their preferred cache hide type would get the lowest ratings.

 

But in spite of all these arguments, a simple ANONYMOUS 3-option system (Bad, Good, Exceptional) or 5-option (Very Bad, Below Average, Good, Above Average, Exceptional) would be a hugh plus for the site, IMHO.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If I'm visiting a city and know I'll only have time for a few caches, I'd like to find the ones that other cachers think are cool. Like a cool park, or an interesting hide....

 

There are two systems that may work.

 

One this site was (and maybe still is) investigating which is a simple "Liked it".

Some caches would rise above the rest of the pack this way, and if you are traveling it's a handy way to find the can't miss caches. The ones that most cachers like regardless of their preferences.

 

The other is a netflix style system that compares what you like to what others like and can guess what you may like out of the caches that are unfound.

 

When ratings start trying to take into account preferneces. Urban, Hikes, Scencery, Difficulty etc. then it gets very complex trying to make the rating system both useful to the people looking at ratings and ther raters who make the system work.

[+TotemLake]

Nah. Still wouldn't work for the very subjective reasons you posted. the idea of "Awesome" to "Bad" is as subjective as opinions are no matter how you try to rate it, it doesn't work well, and it doesn't stay valid for long.

 

I could easily point you to a rating of an off-brand GPS that really picked up a shotgun hit of bad reviews. I bought it for my FIL and my experience with it has been nothing but positive.

 

Expectations for everybody is different. Perceptions for everybody is different. The end result is opinions are very different. Ratings will fall into the blackhole of these opinions and never really truly reflect the reality of the cache for you or myself without actually going out to see it for ourselves.

 

As such, I have learned to ignore the rating systems for their entirely complete inability to reflect what I'm really after.

Edited May 15, 2008 by TotemLake

[+rock_rat]

I think the ideal solution is to implement a system similar to netflix. They use your own ratings to evaluate how likely you are to want a particular movie. For instance geocaching.com may see that you like caches a, b, and d however you hated cache e and had no opinion on cache c. They would look at other cachers who rated the same caches in similar ways and give a higher rating to caches those people liked. It eliminates the fear that certain caches would be rated down because of bias. If you rated mostly micros as good then the ratings for micros would go up for you, if you rated them poorly they would go down.

[+baloo&bd]

Current rating system works quite well, don't break it.

[+edscott]

 

Problem I see is this.

 

Say someone says this is an awesome cache, for whatever reason, say 5 stars, it has lots of good treasures in it. Now a bunch of cachers come visit, and in a few visits, all the good stuff is gone, so now its a 1 star, who will update this information?

 

Max

 

I assume the tech guys could set it up to crunch those numbers faster than you can refresh your screen.

[+edscott]

Current rating system works quite well, don't break it.

The only quality rating system we have now is to read the logs. Sometimes people are brutally honest, but more often awful caches get vanilla politically correct logs that do nothing to warn the future hunters of what awaits them. Bring on a rating system. Wouldn't bother me if it was tied to a "archive" button that would automatically kick in if the ratings dip below a set standard. We could call it the NoCacheLeftBehind policy. There will be standards for the number of sticks to be used, or the minimum diameter of the hollow log to be used. Appropriate tick and snake warnings will be posted along the route to the box and all poison ivy plants within 500 meters of the cache will be tagged with warning labels. C'mon Baloo&bud.. we gotta make some progress here or this sport will never make the Olympics.

[+Morning Dew]

First of all an averaging rating system WOULD work once the data set was large enough. It's like some of you have never calculated an average.

 

If a cache had 100 finds with a 4.7 out of 5 stars there is a very very high chance that you would enjoy that cache.

 

Please don't give me the "Everyone enjoys something different arguement..." Well, duh! We all know that.

 

But if you see a cache with 100+ finds and a 4.9 out of 5 rating we would all hope you're smart enough to know that there is still a chance you might not like it when you get there. Right? But, it sure beats the heck out of what we have now. On the other hand, we all agree that there is a much higher probability that you will like it. I hope we can all agree on that.

 

The reason this feature is so requested because it's simply a fantastic idea. That's what happens with good ideas and/or improvements made to websites, they get asked over and over and over again. It won't stop being asked. You can post "Please use the search function 'til your blue in the face." But as long as new geocachers continue to join they will continue to ask for what seems like an obviously VERY popular idea. Just about every website on the planet has some form of it. Must be a reason why.......

 

There is simply no reason this cool and great feature shouldn't be added. Just think of all the possiblities. Traveling to a new state or city. Bam! PQ the top ten rated caches with over 100 finds! Find the highest rated cache within 100 miles of your house with over 25 finds!

 

I guess I have to add the following disclaimer "This doesn't necessarily mean you're GUARANTEED to walk away with an orgasmic experience, it just means several others felt this was a cool cache in comparison to others who didn't find it so cool."

 

And finally, if the rating system bothers you that much.....heres a really off the wall, crazy, out of the box thinking solution for ya........wait.....wait.......

 

Don't use it or look at it. Wa la. The nay sayers are happy because they know of it's existance but don't use it, so how could it possibly bother them and The ya sayers have a rating system.

 

As always providing simple solutions for complex problems....

Edited May 16, 2008 by Morning Dew

[+ReadyOrNot]

Im not going to get into another debate on this topic, but I would like to point out that TPTB did announce that the new version 2.0 of the website will have a cache ratings system. Well, not a ratings system, but a awards system. They have not released very many details, but you will be able to give awards to caches and hopefully you will be able to search for caches based on the awards received.

 

Can't wait!!!

[+Morning Dew]

And this should come as no suprise to anyone......just read my post above. It'll will probably take about 1 year for the data to shake out but I'm really looking forward to finding out what others think are the BEST 10 caches in let's say a 300 mile radius.

 

That undeground cache in one of the southern states looks VERY cool and I'm sure it will get a lot of awards if it remains active.

[+TotemLake]

I think the ideal solution is to implement a system similar to netflix. They use your own ratings to evaluate how likely you are to want a particular movie. For instance geocaching.com may see that you like caches a, b, and d however you hated cache e and had no opinion on cache c. They would look at other cachers who rated the same caches in similar ways and give a higher rating to caches those people liked. It eliminates the fear that certain caches would be rated down because of bias. If you rated mostly micros as good then the ratings for micros would go up for you, if you rated them poorly they would go down.

That makes the assumption all caches will be correctly categorized in the same manner as netflix.

 

I'll ask you to take a look at the older caches and see that the majority ain't gonna happen with the current categories already in place.

 

Taking that into perspective, the rating system will inaccurately tell me something I'll like and cause me to miss those that I would otherwise seek out.

[+WRASTRO]

I think the ideal solution is to implement a system similar to netflix. They use your own ratings to evaluate how likely you are to want a particular movie. For instance geocaching.com may see that you like caches a, b, and d however you hated cache e and had no opinion on cache c. They would look at other cachers who rated the same caches in similar ways and give a higher rating to caches those people liked. It eliminates the fear that certain caches would be rated down because of bias. If you rated mostly micros as good then the ratings for micros would go up for you, if you rated them poorly they would go down.

That makes the assumption all caches will be correctly categorized in the same manner as netflix.

 

I'll ask you to take a look at the older caches and see that the majority ain't gonna happen with the current categories already in place.

 

Taking that into perspective, the rating system will inaccurately tell me something I'll like and cause me to miss those that I would otherwise seek out.

 

Hey TL. I am being dense right now because I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you expand it a bit for me?

[+tozainamboku]

First of all an averaging rating system WOULD work once the data set was large enough. It's like some of you have never calculated an average.

 

If a cache had 100 finds with a 4.7 out of 5 stars there is a very very high chance that you would enjoy that cache.

 

Please don't give me the "Everyone enjoys something different arguement..." Well, duh! We all know that.

 

But if you see a cache with 100+ finds and a 4.9 out of 5 rating we would all hope you're smart enough to know that there is still a chance you might not like it when you get there. Right? But, it sure beats the heck out of what we have now. On the other hand, we all agree that there is a much higher probability that you will like it. I hope we can all agree on that.

 

The reason this feature is so requested because it's simply a fantastic idea. That's what happens with good ideas and/or improvements made to websites, they get asked over and over and over again. It won't stop being asked. You can post "Please use the search function 'til your blue in the face." But as long as new geocachers continue to join they will continue to ask for what seems like an obviously VERY popular idea. Just about every website on the planet has some form of it. Must be a reason why.......

 

There is simply no reason this cool and great feature shouldn't be added. Just think of all the possiblities. Traveling to a new state or city. Bam! PQ the top ten rated caches with over 100 finds! Find the highest rated cache within 100 miles of your house with over 25 finds!

 

I guess I have to add the following disclaimer "This doesn't necessarily mean you're GUARANTEED to walk away with an orgasmic experience, it just means several others felt this was a cool cache in comparison to others who didn't find it so cool."

 

And finally, if the rating system bothers you that much.....heres a really off the wall, crazy, out of the box thinking solution for ya........wait.....wait.......

 

Don't use it or look at it. Wa la. The nay sayers are happy because they know of it's existance but don't use it, so how could it possibly bother them and The ya sayers have a rating system.

 

As always providing simple solutions for complex problems....

The problem is that the only caches that get 100 finds are park 'n grabs like LPCs. I happen to like hiking caches. My favorite caches are ones that only 2 or 3 peopl find per year. Sure the average rating of the 6 finders on those caches will be high. I guess if there is a cache with 100 finds that has a high average rating it would likely have to be an exceptional cache. But it seems silly to have people rate caches when only a few caches would get enough ratings to indicate on average people like this cache. If I'm not average, I'm still not going to like the cache no matter how many people rated it high.

 

Markwell had proposed an approach where premium members could have a bookmark list they designated as their favorite caches. The system would then count the number of favorites list that each cache was on. If the cache was on more than some threshold number it would be a recommended cache and you could run a PQ on recommended caches. That would work much better than a rating system that would only give you what the average cacher thought of the cache. It now show the caches that got recommended by many people. You could look at the description of the caches along with the ratings and see if this is a recommended hiking cache, a recommended puzzle, or a recommended park 'n grab.

 

The other system would be to let people rate caches in a Netflix style system and have it recommend to you other cache based on ratings from people who have given similar ratings to caches you have rated.

 

Before implementing any rating system you need to know what you want to use it for. If you are looking for what an average cache thinks of a cache or a cache popularity contest, you could go with a simple rating system. If you are looking for a method to find recommended caches to do there are better ways to go about it.

 

The nay sayers of course can ignore the ratings. But there is only a limited amount of programming resources that Groundspeak has. The nay sayers would rather this be spent on other features they feel are more useful. As ReadyOrNot pointed out, there is something in the works for the new version 2.0. Jeremy has hinted that they may be both an affinity (Netflix type) rating system and a awards system similar to Markwell's use of the favorites list.

[+TotemLake]

I think the ideal solution is to implement a system similar to netflix. They use your own ratings to evaluate how likely you are to want a particular movie. For instance geocaching.com may see that you like caches a, b, and d however you hated cache e and had no opinion on cache c. They would look at other cachers who rated the same caches in similar ways and give a higher rating to caches those people liked. It eliminates the fear that certain caches would be rated down because of bias. If you rated mostly micros as good then the ratings for micros would go up for you, if you rated them poorly they would go down.

That makes the assumption all caches will be correctly categorized in the same manner as netflix.

 

I'll ask you to take a look at the older caches and see that the majority ain't gonna happen with the current categories already in place.

 

Taking that into perspective, the rating system will inaccurately tell me something I'll like and cause me to miss those that I would otherwise seek out.

 

Hey TL. I am being dense right now because I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you expand it a bit for me?

In order for a netfllix kind of rating to work, the caches have to be properly categorized.... just like the movies you rent. Most caches are not categorized and some are even miscategorized. So, the shortfall is, the only ones that get recommened will be the categorized ones. If I were to depend on that, I would ultimately miss the caches I am really interested in.

 

With netflix, the movies are categorized. Thus, the recoemmendations are based on that categorization. The categorization with the caches today is a voluntary effort by cache owner. It isn't a required data point. That makes the netflix styled rating system useless in our current situation.

[+WRASTRO]

I think the ideal solution is to implement a system similar to netflix. They use your own ratings to evaluate how likely you are to want a particular movie. For instance geocaching.com may see that you like caches a, b, and d however you hated cache e and had no opinion on cache c. They would look at other cachers who rated the same caches in similar ways and give a higher rating to caches those people liked. It eliminates the fear that certain caches would be rated down because of bias. If you rated mostly micros as good then the ratings for micros would go up for you, if you rated them poorly they would go down.

That makes the assumption all caches will be correctly categorized in the same manner as netflix.

 

I'll ask you to take a look at the older caches and see that the majority ain't gonna happen with the current categories already in place.

 

Taking that into perspective, the rating system will inaccurately tell me something I'll like and cause me to miss those that I would otherwise seek out.

 

Don't know where my post went. I get the Netflix explanation but don't understand the reference to older caches. Not trying to be difficult.

 

Thanks, that helps me a bit with the Netflix thing since we don't do those. I still don't understand the reference to older caches. I really am not trying to be difficult here. Sorry.

 

Hey TL. I am being dense right now because I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you expand it a bit for me?

In order for a netfllix kind of rating to work, the caches have to be properly categorized.... just like the movies you rent. Most caches are not categorized and some are even miscategorized. So, the shortfall is, the only ones that get recommened will be the categorized ones. If I were to depend on that, I would ultimately miss the caches I am really interested in.

 

With netflix, the movies are categorized. Thus, the recoemmendations are based on that categorization. The categorization with the caches today is a voluntary effort by cache owner. It isn't a required data point. That makes the netflix styled rating system useless in our current situation.

Edited May 16, 2008 by WRASTRO

[+WRASTRO]

I tried twice but the system doesn't seem to want to let me reply. Maybe tomorrow.

[+Morning Dew]

First of all an averaging rating system WOULD work once the data set was large enough. It's like some of you have never calculated an average.

 

If a cache had 100 finds with a 4.7 out of 5 stars there is a very very high chance that you would enjoy that cache.

 

Please don't give me the "Everyone enjoys something different arguement..." Well, duh! We all know that.

 

But if you see a cache with 100+ finds and a 4.9 out of 5 rating we would all hope you're smart enough to know that there is still a chance you might not like it when you get there. Right? But, it sure beats the heck out of what we have now. On the other hand, we all agree that there is a much higher probability that you will like it. I hope we can all agree on that.

 

The reason this feature is so requested because it's simply a fantastic idea. That's what happens with good ideas and/or improvements made to websites, they get asked over and over and over again. It won't stop being asked. You can post "Please use the search function 'til your blue in the face." But as long as new geocachers continue to join they will continue to ask for what seems like an obviously VERY popular idea. Just about every website on the planet has some form of it. Must be a reason why.......

 

There is simply no reason this cool and great feature shouldn't be added. Just think of all the possiblities. Traveling to a new state or city. Bam! PQ the top ten rated caches with over 100 finds! Find the highest rated cache within 100 miles of your house with over 25 finds!

 

I guess I have to add the following disclaimer "This doesn't necessarily mean you're GUARANTEED to walk away with an orgasmic experience, it just means several others felt this was a cool cache in comparison to others who didn't find it so cool."

 

And finally, if the rating system bothers you that much.....heres a really off the wall, crazy, out of the box thinking solution for ya........wait.....wait.......

 

Don't use it or look at it. Wa la. The nay sayers are happy because they know of it's existance but don't use it, so how could it possibly bother them and The ya sayers have a rating system.

 

As always providing simple solutions for complex problems....

The problem is that the only caches that get 100 finds are park 'n grabs like LPCs. I happen to like hiking caches. My favorite caches are ones that only 2 or 3 peopl find per year. Sure the average rating of the 6 finders on those caches will be high. I guess if there is a cache with 100 finds that has a high average rating it would likely have to be an exceptional cache. But it seems silly to have people rate caches when only a few caches would get enough ratings to indicate on average people like this cache. If I'm not average, I'm still not going to like the cache no matter how many people rated it high.

 

Markwell had proposed an approach where premium members could have a bookmark list they designated as their favorite caches. The system would then count the number of favorites list that each cache was on. If the cache was on more than some threshold number it would be a recommended cache and you could run a PQ on recommended caches. That would work much better than a rating system that would only give you what the average cacher thought of the cache. It now show the caches that got recommended by many people. You could look at the description of the caches along with the ratings and see if this is a recommended hiking cache, a recommended puzzle, or a recommended park 'n grab.

 

The other system would be to let people rate caches in a Netflix style system and have it recommend to you other cache based on ratings from people who have given similar ratings to caches you have rated.

 

Before implementing any rating system you need to know what you want to use it for. If you are looking for what an average cache thinks of a cache or a cache popularity contest, you could go with a simple rating system. If you are looking for a method to find recommended caches to do there are better ways to go about it.

 

The nay sayers of course can ignore the ratings. But there is only a limited amount of programming resources that Groundspeak has. The nay sayers would rather this be spent on other features they feel are more useful. As ReadyOrNot pointed out, there is something in the works for the new version 2.0. Jeremy has hinted that they may be both an affinity (Netflix type) rating system and a awards system similar to Markwell's use of the favorites list.

 

Why do you guys insist on making this so darned difficult. I just used 100 because it's a nice round number. Like I said in my earlier post, a rating system still requires some common sense on the users part. It's like you want the system to be PERFECT and grab you by the scruff of the neck and say "Go cache Here!" Any system is going to take some common sense from the user but the fact is it most likely will still be better than the system we don't have now. Is it a make or break feature for the website...no...but it would be a great addition to the website. And besides once the system is in place it could still evolve to be even better as more feedback pours in.

 

Of course, if it's a 4 star terrain cache their will be very few finds but if everyone is rating it a 5 and the description says "hiking" involved, don't you think there is good chance you'd like it. It's not an absolute, it's just another tool to help the paying customers.

 

For example, you find 2 caches 30 miles from a spot your vactioning at in opposite directions and both involve hiking. You only have time to do 1 of them before you have to return home. Wouldn't it be nice to know one is rated a 1.6 and the other is rated 4.8 and they both have the same number of ratings?

 

Sure, it's possible YOU'D like the cache rated 1.6 ten times better than 4.8 and possibly you could discern this from the caches descriptions but if you couldn't, it would just be another helpful piece of information for you, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise, you'd be flipping a coin.

 

And you say you like hiking caches. So do I, I wish we could add a feature that allowed cache owners to flag their cache as a hiking cache. EDIT: I NOW SEE THIS FEATURE ALREADY EXIST. GREAT MINDS MUST THINK ALIKE. Would it be perfect....no, your idea of hike isn't equal to my idea of hike but if you combined that feature with a rating system you could quickly sort the top 10 "liked" hikes in your area. That would be cool.

 

Finally, what other features do you feel are more important. I'd probably like to join your plight to get them added. Groundspeak has to keep adding and subtracting features for this to be a sucess and I'm sure they are keenly aware of this.

 

I've actually been part of other websites where the paying members (not geocaching related) would go to an offsite website where a member had put together a list of "feature requests" and you could rate each one 1 to 5. Basically, implying how badly you wanted that feature implemented to the website. You could only take the survey once per month. This kept people from "stacking the vote." He then compiled all the data and kept it up to date on his website and then emailed a link of each months results to the owners of the website to let them know what the paying customers wanted to see for added features. It had bar graphs with trends and everything. It was pretty slick.

 

Of course, this is just another rating system so I don't know how you'd feel about that....but I thought it was a great idea. Thousands of members went to the site and filled out the poll, some just once and several did it faithfully each month.

 

Low and behold when the next major upgrade of the website was published 9 of the top 10 highest ranked requests were implemented.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Morning Dew

[+WRASTRO]

I like the idea of the off site poll. I do believe I would go there and vote.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The problem I always have with rating systems:

people tend to rate certain types of cache highly, and others naturally get "average" ratings.

 

So if it's a standard micro, nicely hidden away from muggles but easy to find and convenient for a car park in an interesting area off the normal tourist trail, it will never get top rating. If it's a beautifully-camo'd ammo box in a little-known but spectacular cave with fantastic scenery and an epic multicache approach with adventures and surprises all the way, and the cache placer had clearly spent days setting it up: chances are it will be highly rated.

 

But what if I'm in the area for a couple of hours and want a cache or two that shows me a bit of town that is reasonably interesting, without any major challenge (a common scenario for me, at least)? Which one is the "better" cache out of the two examples? But if I check the "top ten" caches in the area, I'll be disappointed to see that it's populated by epic adventures, or creative puzzles, or fabulously well-camouflaged hides. None of which actually suit - so I'd be back to choosing a couple at random in the hope that they fit the bill.

 

Some caches are of no interest on a particular day no matter how "great" they are: some would suit perfectly but appear to be no better than average.

 

If I could search the site based on what requirement cache owners actually intended their cache to address: then it would be useful. The nearest we get at the moment is where you chance upon a bookmark list that suits your current needs ("great caches in Seattle that take less than twenty minutes", "most devious hides", "most epic caches" etc.).

Edited May 16, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+TotemLake]

 

Please don't give me the "Everyone enjoys something different arguement..." Well, duh! We all know that.

 

The reason this feature is so requested because it's simply a fantastic idea.

 

There is simply no reason this cool and great feature shouldn't be added.

 

The nay sayers are happy because they know of it's existance but don't use it, so how could it possibly bother them and The ya sayers have a rating system.

 

As always providing simple solutions for complex problems....

 

The nay sayers of course can ignore the ratings.

 

Why do you guys insist on making this so darned difficult.

 

=-=-Freely edited to make a point of the direction this thread seems to be taking.-=-=

 

First of all, I really resent the term naysayers. IT implies we have nothing better to do than argue against an idea. What most of us have done is provided arguments why one style or another won't work. Even the people who are for a rating system here can't agree upon a single solution.

 

Secondly, If you don't get this hammered out here, you won't have a satisfactory solution implemented. MOST people will be unhappy because it WILL NOT implement their idea of an ideal solution. Did I mention the people who are for a rating system here can't agree upon a single solution? Think about that. Work it out and accept there are opposing opinions that are valid enough to consider.

Edited May 16, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Have read all of the above - it seems everyone (well most) would not be adverse to the idea of some kind of rating system. Just cannot decide which one. And those that don't want one don't have to use it - it's just another guideline you can choose to use/ignore as you please. Just how accurate do you think the "Hiking" attribute is? A 2 mile hike so some is a "walk" while to others it's a "hike". But it's better to have the attribute available than nothing.

 

Personally, I liked the Markwell proposal mentioned above where premium members could have a bookmark list they designated as their favorite caches. The system would then count the number of favorites list that each cache was on. Of course, this would require PMs to actually maintain their own bookmark lists.

 

If you settle on a 1-5 plan, you could have the system throw out the HIGH and the LOW to normalize the data and give some idea on the statistical accuracy (such as using the number of ratings as a guide).

 

Lastly, you could have the ratings maintained by category of cache (Trad, Mystery, Multi) or by Terrain/Difficulty. Those people that don't like micros wouldn't/shouldn't be looking for them as much so they wouldn't/shouldn't be in the rating pool as much.

 

It's an idea that should be incorporated somehow. 'Tis better to have something to tweak after implementation than to just keep bickering back and forth and never have anything. Better to "Plan, design, implement, assess, redesign, etc. than to "plan, plan, plan, plan......".

Edited May 16, 2008 by Cache O'Plenty

[+TotemLake]

Have read all of the above - it seems everyone (well most) would not be adverse to the idea of some kind of rating system. Just cannot decide which one. And those that don't want one don't have to use it - it's just another guideline you can choose to use/ignore as you please. Just how accurate do you think the "Hiking" attribute is? A 2 mile hike so some is a "walk" while to others it's a "hike". But it's better to have the attribute available than nothing.

 

Personally, I liked the Markwell proposal mentioned above where premium members could have a bookmark list they designated as their favorite caches. The system would then count the number of favorites list that each cache was on. Of course, this would require PMs to actually maintain their own bookmark lists.

 

If you settle on a 1-5 plan, you could have the system throw out the HIGH and the LOW to normalize the data and give some idea on the statistical accuracy (such as using the number of ratings as a guide).

 

Lastly, you could have the ratings maintained by category of cache (Trad, Mystery, Multi) or by Terrain/Difficulty. Those people that don't like micros wouldn't/shouldn't be looking for them as much so they wouldn't/shouldn't be in the rating pool as much.

 

It's an idea that should be incorporated somehow. 'Tis better to have something to tweak after implementation than to just keep bickering back and forth and never have anything. Better to "Plan, design, implement, assess, redesign, etc. than to "plan, plan, plan, plan......".

 

What I'd like to see avoided is

 

"Plan, design, implement, bickering-it's-not-good-enough, assess, redesign, more-bickering, etc.

 

It's better to hammer out the ideas here and reach a better than a onsey twosy idea rather than rollout an implementation that doesn't satisfy the flexibility this site allowed in the past 7 years now.

 

I'm not saying the bookmark idea is a bad one. It is the simplest solution because it has the smallest level of data to work on and modify as needed. You're more likely to get categorization and user ratings implemented easier because the bookmark owners are usually going back to reassess their lists and people have learned to click on them to see what else is there. There are some exceptions to the lists and owners of course, but not nearly as widespread as 1/2 million caches that need to be implemented properly to make the rating system work right and be useful. That being said, I have concerns bookmarks could pop up to abuse and influence ratings against others.

 

One more thing to consider; Cache pages are already very busy to add another piece of generalized information on it that may or may not be useful to all walks. The rating system would have to take that into consideration which may require redesigning what is on the page and what is not. An opt-in capability so folks can choose to use the rating system would be a good thing.

Edited May 16, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Isonzo Karst]

I've seen three ratings suggestions for this site that I like.

 

1) the awards system that Jeremy referenced. Something where you could give points to caches. Only positive

 

2) the Favorites bookmarked list - something with special coding such that cache that appeared on multiple Favorites lists would be searchable

 

3) the length of log system suggested by CR. This would pick up caches that have longer logs then usual - a decent indicator of better caches.

 

Anything would be better than nothing.

[+TotemLake]

I've seen three ratings suggestions for this site that I like.

 

1) the awards system that Jeremy referenced. Something where you could give points to caches. Only positive

 

2) the Favorites bookmarked list - something with special coding such that cache that appeared on multiple Favorites lists would be searchable

 

3) the length of log system suggested by CR. This would pick up caches that have longer logs then usual - a decent indicator of better caches.

 

Anything would be better than nothing.

To be honest, there's something about all 3 that I like.

 

If we work with the rewards system:

Set up so bookmarks can receive a one through five rating - have that add points to the cache

 

The length of the logs could be daunting (maybe just at first) because of the indexing that would be required just to handle that kind of system. The other problem I see with that is it will need to discern between a DNF and a Find. I have seen and written some pretty lengthy DNFs.

[CoyoteRed]

The length of the logs could be daunting (maybe just at first) because of the indexing that would be required just to handle that kind of system. The other problem I see with that is it will need to discern between a DNF and a Find. I have seen and written some pretty lengthy DNFs.

I have something set up in GSAK that does something similar. Of course, there are caches where I don't have all of the logs and that is a problem. I do only use the logs from finds to come up with a score.

 

It's also interesting to look at the number of days between finds, too.

 

You can adjust the length of log with how frequent a cache is found. A cache that is not found very often, but has smaller logs, might not be as entertaining as a cache that gets found a lot with even shorter logs. Quick and easy cache, even if entertaining, gets shorter logs.

 

It's the cache with very short log averages that you can safely ignore if you're looking for entertainment value unless you look at the log frequency as well.

 

A plus of this scheme is the data is already there. A minus is if it goes main stream it will become less useful as folks will "game" the system.

 

I've always been fond of the "recommend this cache" with a maximum number of recommendations set at 50% of your finds. Only your top 50% of finds make your list. Not everyone's list is going to be the same and that very much expected. The idea is if a cache get very few recommendations then you can skip it with the confidence you're not going to like it. But if a cache has a very high percentage then it is a "must do." The reason I'd only a maximum of 50% is so folks don't simply give every cache a recommendation and so owners don't try to force a finder's hand.

[+Glenn]

I use this site. It works very well for rating caches.

 

I see a couple of problems with that site. Anyone can rate a cache. Not just those that visited. Even someone who had never heard of geocaching can rate the caches listed there. This means that a cache owner can list their cache, give it a rating of 5.00 across the board. If the owner gets a couple of friends or uses a number of different computers with IP addresses (i.e. home, work, school, library, free wifi location, etc.) that 5.0 rating will be very hard to reduce if the cache really isn't a 5.0 cache. Also as far as I can tell anyone can list a cache. Which means that someone who is not the owner of the cache can list it and give it a 1.0 rating across the board. Get a couple of friends or use a number different computers... well you get the point. A really good cache could get a very low rating from a single disgruntled person.

 

I do like seeing the total votes and how the votes break out. It is helpful in determining if something fishy is going on and that you should ignore the results even if it isn't helpful in determining the real votes vs the fake or revenge votes. For example if you see 5 across the board 5.0 votes and 1 across the board 1.0 you can't tell if the 5 5.0 votes are real votes or just someone trying to boost the cache rating. Also if you see 5 across the board 1.0 votes and 1 across the board 5.0 you can't tell if the 5 1.0 votes are 5 people who really don't like the cache or 1 person getting back at the owner because of a disagreement.

 

If I ran that web site I wouldn't allow completely anonymous votes. Results would be anonymous but the admins would still be able to see which login cast which vote. I would also work with Groundspeak and find a way to notify a cache owner when their cache is listed for rating and have an option for the cache owner to have their cache removed from the rating web site.

[+bodenseepingu]

I do not know if someone here is german and knows the opencaching.de site.

 

They have a rating system I like very much

• after 10 founds you can give a star to any cache you have found while logging or later if you have already logged
  
• In the cache listing you can see the number of stars a cache has in summary
  
• there are special pages where you can see the overall rating with a calculated point system - you can see the formula on that side
  
• no one knows who has given a star and who not (ok if the first finder gives a star that is not true...)
  
• at any time you can take away a star from a cache (if it was your star) and give it to another immediately or next week or whenever you want
  

Edited June 24, 2008 by bodenseepingu

[+sbell111]

- no one knows who has given a star and who not (ok if the first finder gives a star that is not true...)

Actually, anyone paying attention to the cache would pretty much know if a specific logger chose to give the cache a star. If the cache has nine stars prior to a new person logging it and ten stars afterward, guess who gave the cache a star? If it still has nine, the cache owner may choose to remember that fact when he is logging his finds to that cacher's hides.

[+TrailGators]

I've seen three ratings suggestions for this site that I like.

 

1) the awards system that Jeremy referenced. Something where you could give points to caches. Only positive

 

2) the Favorites bookmarked list - something with special coding such that cache that appeared on multiple Favorites lists would be searchable

 

3) the length of log system suggested by CR. This would pick up caches that have longer logs then usual - a decent indicator of better caches.

 

Anything would be better than nothing.

It is a daunting task to try to target the best caches in a cache rich area without using these tools. Right now it's easiest to ask the locals in the local threads which ones are must-dos. If they have an award for the funnest caches someday, I think those will end up being the same caches as the favorites. It all comes down to how big a smile a cache puts on your face. We have been tracking favorites down here long enough to know that it works very well! You can also easily sort that list by terrain, difficulty, type and container to further narrow it down to your liking.

 

P.S. CR can you please post a link to the log-length macro? I messed with it a long time ago and can't find the link. I'd like to try it again when I'm on vacation next week!

[+BlkFt]

I've seen three ratings suggestions for this site that I like.

 

1) the awards system that Jeremy referenced. Something where you could give points to caches. Only positive

 

2) the Favorites bookmarked list - something with special coding such that cache that appeared on multiple Favorites lists would be searchable

 

3) the length of log system suggested by CR. This would pick up caches that have longer logs then usual - a decent indicator of better caches.

 

Anything would be better than nothing.

It is a daunting task to try to target the best caches in a cache rich area without using these tools. Right now it's easiest to ask the locals in the local threads which ones are must-dos. If they have an award for the funnest caches someday, I think those will end up being the same caches as the favorites. It all comes down to how big a smile a cache puts on your face. We have been tracking favorites down here long enough to know that it works very well! You can also easily sort that list by terrain, difficulty, type and container to further narrow it down to your liking.

 

P.S. CR can you please post a link to the log-length macro? I messed with it a long time ago and can't find the link. I'd like to try it again when I'm on vacation next week!

 

I would like to see a way to search caches according to the Difficulty and Terrain is there a way to do that?

[+ArcherDragoon]

I would like to see a way to search caches according to the Difficulty and Terrain is there a way to do that?

Thanks for the clarification...

 

D/T...

 

As a Premium Member, you can do that now using a Pocket Query. About halfway down the page, it askes you for info regarding Difficulty and/or Terrain. Once submitted, you can take a look at all the results...

 

I am sure someone will have a better explaination about this then me just saying yes ...they may even include a screen shot!!!

Edited June 25, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+Casey's Mom]

Wow! What a hot topic this one is....

I'm new here, and have very few finds. So forgive me if I'm missing something with my logic. But from my view.... I think something set up similar to the feedback/stars system that is used on e-bay would be quite versitile for a rating system. You could have rating catagories/stars for things such as:

 

easy to access from road/highway

area very populated with people at times

natural/wooded area with extensive hiking

easily accessible wooded area

enjoyable surroundings

quick micro

container size

very challenging and time consuming

 

Like I said, I'm new here, and there is still much I don't know. But from just browsing through this topic.... this is my thought.

This would also allow cache owners to be able to see how a particular cache is viewed by the people who visit in a constructive and honest way. That way, if they are wanting to have a certain type of appeal/image for their cache, they can see how to improve it.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Casey's Mom

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Many of the categories you have suggested are already covered by the "Attributes" set by the cache owner. Now, granted, they aren't rated by the finders but they do give you information about the cache. However, the find logs should be able to give the owner the feedback (presuming they are honest). But too many people really don't log very well - all they say is "Caching in the area today. TFTC".

[+TotemLake]

Wow! What a hot topic this one is....

I'm new here, and have very few finds. So forgive me if I'm missing something with my logic. But from my view.... I think something set up similar to the feedback/stars system that is used on e-bay would be quite versitile for a rating system. You could have rating catagories/stars for things such as:

 

easy to access from road/highway

area very populated with people at times

natural/wooded area with extensive hiking

easily accessible wooded area

enjoyable surroundings

quick micro

container size

very challenging and time consuming

 

Like I said, I'm new here, and there is still much I don't know. But from just browsing through this topic.... this is my thought.

This would also allow cache owners to be able to see how a particular cache is viewed by the people who visit in a constructive and honest way. That way, if they are wanting to have a certain type of appeal/image for their cache, they can see how to improve it.

 

Similar attributes are already in place for the PQs, a couple of them are part of the cache description. Most active cache owners use them on their cache descriptions once they have been made aware of their exsitence.

[+Casey's Mom]

Thanks for the info. I haven't yet become familiar with all the info./options on the site yet.... good to know.

[CoyoteRed]

P.S. CR can you please post a link to the log-length macro? I messed with it a long time ago and can't find the link. I'd like to try it again when I'm on vacation next week!

I never did post the one I use. It's a mess of a cobbled together code. I pretty much borrowed snippets from other folks' scripts. I'll clean it up and PM you the code.

[+elrojo14]

I tried the www.ratethiscache.com rating system and it didn't work.

 

Basically to sum it up feedback needs to be linked to a user to be effective. I have a cache that only one person has ever found because it is in the middle of no where. 30 minutes after I added the link for the ratings system, it was graded a 5 5 5 5. You would think I would be stoked, but I know it was bum feedback for two reasons. #1, the cache is not a 5 5 5 5. #2, I don't know the cacher who found it and he is not in my circles so I know he didn't rate it.

 

Since then all of my feedback has been random 1 1 1 1 ratings. I know my caches don't suck that bad. Basically since it is anonymous, any tool can come along and give me worthless feedback.

 

I like the idea of a numbers system, but it would have to be linked back to someone. If someone is abusing it, then they can be held accountable. If you give someone a 1 1 1 1 then the owner can contact you and ask specifically what made the cache suck so bad. If you can't give them justification why, then we know you are a sour grapes rater.

 

Or we could just leave the system as it is. If you don't like a cache, post the reasons why in your comments. They are public, they can be debated, and there is no hiding.

 

I like the www.ratethiscache.com number system and rating guidelines. If it were implemented in GC and feedback was linked to actual users, it might be effective.

 

The only negative you have to consider is think about this rating system along the lines of this discussion forum. How do you address abuse? Does GS really want to hire another staffer or host of staffers to handle abuse complaints of this feedback system? They would have to make it a simple design to avoid it being labor intensive to maintain and police.

 

You could always do a simple yes or no vote. "I would recommend this cache to others." Yes, no, or see comments. If a cache has mainly yeses, then you should probably go find it. If it has more noes, then skip it. If it has a bunch of see comments, read the logs.

 

In the end I don't plant caches that suck. I try to plant caches that people will want to find. So if someone trashed my caches in a rating system, I probably wouldn't care anyway because if the cache sucked that bad, I wouldn't have planted it in the first place.