Quality Rating System?

July 17, 2008

Hello,

I'm new to geocaching so I'm sure this topic has been discussed at length, but I searched the forums but wasn't returned any obvious discussion topics so I'll post it anyway. I understand the rating system instituted here rates terrain and level of difficulty but am not sure if quality is also weighed? Is there a way to rate caches this way on geocaching.com?

For instance, I found this site http://www.ratethiscache.com/waypoint_vote...aypoint=gczzzzz which institutes a type of rating system related to quality, but it looks as though it is independent of geocaching.com. Have there been discussions about merging/incorporating this type of system on geocaching.com?

Thanks,

-J

3.9k · July 17, 2008

A ratings system will be a part of the new version of the website (or so we've been led to believe) when it comes out after Tuesday.

July 17, 2008

A ratings system will be a part of the new version of the website (or so we've been led to believe) when it comes out after Tuesday.

Oh, okay. Great!! thanks!!

19k · July 17, 2008

A ratings system will be a part of the new version of the website (or so we've been led to believe) when it comes out after Tuesday.

Huh?!? Got a link to that news? I just scanned the website forum and nothing regarding the upgrade popped out at me.

3.9k · July 17, 2008

A ratings system will be a part of the new version of the website (or so we've been led to believe) when it comes out after Tuesday.

Huh?!? Got a link to that news? I just scanned the website forum and nothing regarding the upgrade popped out at me.

Sure. A thread about V2.

The new ratings system is also discussed there. See the top post on page 2.

3.5k · July 17, 2008

A ratings system will be a part of the new version of the website (or so we've been led to believe) when it comes out after Tuesday.

Huh?!? Got a link to that news? I just scanned the website forum and nothing regarding the upgrade popped out at me.

Sure. A thread about V2.

The new ratings system is also discussed there. See the top post on page 2.

After Tuesday? Is that like "free beer tomorrow"?

8.9k · July 17, 2008

He never said which Tuesday.

18.9k · July 17, 2008

After Tuesday comes Wednesday then Thursday and eventually Sunday and then comes August and then September and then 2009 and then 2010 and then at some point 2100 and 2101 and then......

1.6k · July 17, 2008

He never said which Tuesday.

Most importantly, he never said how long after Tuesday. The problem is, the OP's reply sounded like he/she believed the answer and will look forward to a release in the near future. But oh well.

July 23, 2008

I tried this 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 they could 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.

July 23, 2008

I tried this rating system and it didn't work.

I'm assuming you are referring to the rating system here http://www.ratethiscache.com/waypoint_vote...aypoint=gczzzzz? Yes, this is far from ideal because a person does not need to create an account to submit a rating for a cache. However, I think the scale including criteria questions are fine.

Ideally, Groundspeak should incorporate this rating scale into their current system. But from what I can gather from the comments in this thread I do not feel that confident that the new "geocaching v. 2.0" Web site will be released anytime soon.

It's too bad because this particular feature would be fairly easy to implement (programmatically speaking) and would be a great enhancement (IMHO).

July 23, 2008

Hello

Bookmark lists are a kind a rating system available to cachers. If you are a premium member you can make lists of the caches you found enjoyable (or those you didn't like, or those you need a boat find, or train themed caches, etc.). If you find a cache you like then look to see if there are bookmarks on the cache page. If there are it may be by someone who liked the cache and has a list of other caches like it in a bookmark.

3.3k · July 23, 2008

I rate caches by putting them on one of my public bookmarks. If more cachers would take the time to create "favorites bookmarks," weeding out crappy caches would be much easier.

Kit Fox's top 5%

Kit Fox's favorite Hike to caches

Cache at your own risk!

I personally asked Jeremy (at GW6) about a cache rating system. He told me that he was considering a system where cache owners could voluntarily add or remove the rating system on their cache page.

Here is an example of a geocache on mulitple favorite caches list. Hill 582 - A Tribute to Railroading!

July 23, 2008

Hello

Bookmark lists are a kind a rating system available to cachers. If you are a premium member you can make lists of the caches you found enjoyable (or those you didn't like, or those you need a boat find, or train themed caches, etc.). If you find a cache you like then look to see if there are bookmarks on the cache page. If there are it may be by someone who liked the cache and has a list of other caches like it in a bookmark.

Yes, but are bookmark lists sortable and searchable? For example, it would be nice as a premium member to be able to search for 4 or 5 star caches in a particular area in one of my pocket queries. Rating systems like the particular one proposed in this (and another thread on this board) are extremely common on eCommerce Web sites and software portals (see hotscripts.com for an example) across the Internet.

As a new person who recently discovered geocaching, I am a bit perplexed as to why this hasn't already been implemented on geocaching.com.

3.3k · July 23, 2008

Hello

Bookmark lists are a kind a rating system available to cachers. If you are a premium member you can make lists of the caches you found enjoyable (or those you didn't like, or those you need a boat find, or train themed caches, etc.). If you find a cache you like then look to see if there are bookmarks on the cache page. If there are it may be by someone who liked the cache and has a list of other caches like it in a bookmark.

Yes, but are bookmark lists sortable and searchable? For example, it would be nice as a premium member to be able to search for 4 or 5 star caches in a particular area in one of my pocket queries. Rating systems like the particular one proposed in this (and another thread on this board) are extremely common on eCommerce Web sites and software portals (see hotscripts.com for an example) across the Internet.

As a new person who recently discovered geocaching, I am a bit perplexed as to why this hasn't already been implemented on geocaching.com.

Don't feel bad, there is a decent sized group of us that have been asking for years to improve our ability to weed out caches we wouldn't like. Sadly, there have been little improvements on the bookmark lists. You still need to open each cache page to see if a cache has been bookmarked.

I even created a thread called Recipe for fun. Share your techniques for avoiding caches you dislike.

1.1k · July 23, 2008

I rate all geocaches as "excellent"

If you don't love the sport, then you can quit any time......

July 23, 2008

I rate all geocaches as "excellent"

If you don't love the sport, then you can quit any time......

I'm not sure I understand your point. Why would the proposal of a rating system imply that someone doesn't "love the sport?" Many would argue just the opposite, I imagine...

1.1k · July 23, 2008

I rate all geocaches as "excellent"

If you don't love the sport, then you can quit any time......

I'm not sure I understand your point. Why would the proposal of a rating system imply that someone doesn't "love the sport?" Many would argue just the opposite, I imagine...

You would argue the oppostite of my love of caching? If you hate it, then why are you here? Everyone has a cache type that they like, and a cache type they like less (or not at all) but this differs from cacher to cacher. I will find and log anything , fom a LPC to a long hike to a puzzle...

8k · July 23, 2008

I rate all geocaches as "excellent"

If you don't love the sport, then you can quit any time......

I'm not sure I understand your point. Why would the proposal of a rating system imply that someone doesn't "love the sport?" Many would argue just the opposite, I imagine...

You would argue the oppostite of my love of caching? If you hate it, then why are you here? Everyone has a cache type that they like, and a cache type they like less (or not at all) but this differs from cacher to cacher. I will find and log anything , fom a LPC to a long hike to a puzzle...

thebigrocketboy sees a lot of cache to find. He enjoys some more than others. In order to maximize his enjoyment he is looking for tools to find the "better" caches which he is more likely to enjoy. wesleykey enjoys all cache (I doubt this is true) but his point is that different people like different kinds of caches for different reasons. Any simple ranking system would result in people who like diffferent caches than you like rating caches you don't like high and people who don't like the kind of caches you like rating these low. It may be there are some caches the most cachers like. And if you are like most caches such a system might be able recommend caches for you to find. A problem is that the number of finds per cache is often small enough and the sample of cachers rating the caches is such that the rating has no relation at all to what most cachers would rate a cache. You'd still have to look at the individual cache page to decide if you really wanted to that cache or not. You will undoubtely see caches you think are lame getting a high rating at least initially.

July 23, 2008

I rate all geocaches as "excellent"

If you don't love the sport, then you can quit any time......

I'm not sure I understand your point. Why would the proposal of a rating system imply that someone doesn't "love the sport?" Many would argue just the opposite, I imagine...

You would argue the oppostite of my love of caching? If you hate it, then why are you here? Everyone has a cache type that they like, and a cache type they like less (or not at all) but this differs from cacher to cacher. I will find and log anything , fom a LPC to a long hike to a puzzle...

Your original quote seems to imply I "don't love the sport" because I proposed a rating system. I would argue just the opposite, that I do love the sport because I want to make it better.

I don't relate to the argument that different people like different caches and there's no way to accurately rate a cache because people like different things, etc. If that's the case, why do ratings work on sites like amazon, cnet, etc.? People have differing perspectives towards products but that works in favor of the diversity of the overall system. And sure, people post ratings that are bogus or fruitless all the time, but people can see right through them because the rule of the majority always filters out the chafe of the few.

Heck, I created my own photography Web site that includes a rating system. I know that not everyone will like my pictures, and many people post negative ratings, but I don't really care because more often than not the overall ratings turn out to be pretty accurate after enough votes are tallied.

I guess some people here are worried that their caches may get a few low ratings and they'd prefer not to be subjected to this type of criticism.

Edited July 23, 2008 by thebigrocketboy

2k · July 23, 2008

Most rating systems I've seen proposed are near to useless. They have many weaknesses. Not all will of us have the same opinions on what makes a good cache. Some enjoy long hikes. Some love a quick micro. Others love puzzle caches. What I call lame could be your favorite sort of hide.

I'd like to see a recommendation sort of system. Something along the lines of "Rate this cache 1 to 10." The average result is not displayed. What is returned is something like "Those who rated this cache similarly enjoyed these caches." When you click on "these" the system returns a list of caches similar to the list of "nearby caches that I haven't found." Sort of like the Ammazon system that says "Those who purchased this widget also bought that space taker-upper." I think it would be more useful than "This cache has an average rating of 4." Rated by who? The 37 people who have found it that love that type of cache? Or the three people who found it that like the same sort of cache that I do?

July 23, 2008

What constitutes a "good" cache? That has been a subject loong debated in this forum. Is it a puzzle cache? Some people love them, some people hate them. Is it the trickyness of a micro? Some people love them, some people hate them. Is it a long hike? Some people love them, some people hate them. Hard to rate something when people can't agree. Since people like different things how can you compare? You might be able to rate the caches voted most liked overall, but it gets tricky after that.

are bookmark lists sortable and searchable? For example, it would be nice as a premium member to be able to search for 4 or 5 star caches in a particular area in one of my pocket queries.

Don't know if there is a way to search bookmarks. In the Mid- Atlantic forum they have pinned a thread with bookmarks listings by people in that area so people can find them easily.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Luckless

July 24, 2008

How about adding the rating system to the same page that you log your find on? That way you have to log the cache as either found or not found or whatever to submit rating information. It could be something as simple as a few drop down boxes and not mandatory but optional. The ratings could be sumerized at the top of the cache page and on the individual log entries you could see who rated the cache and how they rated it and who didn't. just my thoughts

6.7k · July 24, 2008

Define the phrase "quality cache".

Ask 10 geocachers at random to define the phrase "quality cache"

I strongly suspect that you will now have 11 different definitions to choose from.

I found one tonight, a pico in the woods; nothing interesting about the location, you park on the roadside, walk 20' into the woods under heavy tree-cover, one of several sticks laying on the ground has a pico stuck in a hole in the end of it.

I thought it was great... evil in fact, a fun find, especially at night - but I suspect that such a cache would rank pretty dang low on most people's "quality cache" rating!

3.7k · July 24, 2008

I thought it was great... evil in fact, a fun find, especially at night - but I suspect that such a cache would rank pretty dang low on most people's "quality cache" rating!

I totally agree: but if the cache was in the category "Evil Hides", then you'd know in advance what the intention was. It would then be silly to rate the cache low because it was frustrating to search for. In this case it could also be in the category "Creative Cache Containers"

I think that cache categories would not entirely solve the problem of judging the merit of caches, but it would at least be a simple way of cutting out the ones that you're unlikely to enjoy. Without a clear indication of the intention of the cache hide, how can you judge whether it's "good"? All you can say is what you personally thought of it, which means little to others. OK, some cache descriptions are carefully written so you know what the intention is, but this is hardly searchable and is often ambiguous.

1k · July 24, 2008

A ratings system will be a part of the new version of the website (or so we've been led to believe) when it comes out after Tuesday.
Oh, okay. Great!! thanks!!

Poked all around the new website and don't see anything referencing a rating system or rewards system and doesn't appear to be anything new on the log entry page either. Is there going to be a "new" new website? And when you're on a cache listing page the GC logo in the upper left is only partially displayed and that is the only way to return to the main GC page as the "home" link in the upper left is gone.

3.2k · July 24, 2008

I don't relate to the argument that different people like different caches and there's no way to accurately rate a cache because people like different things, etc. If that's the case, why do ratings work on sites like amazon, cnet, etc.?

You're actually proving the point you are arguing against. The rating systems you mention do not work. There are many authors or artists that I like that many do not. I have also been to a cache or three that I had heard was horrible, only to find out it was somewhere between good and excellent. We havve a rating system at a group near me. Odd thing is that the higher rated caches are the people active in the group. Seems more like a personal poularity than a actual useful guide.

Any system is too subjective and would require an opt out option, which would make it even less than useless. The only system close to being viable is a "if you liked this, you might like this" type system, and even then it is too subjective and open for abuse.

The current rating system that is in place on GC has worked great for most cachers through the years and give pretty good results when used properly.

1k · July 24, 2008

The current rating system that is in place on GC has worked great for most cachers through the years and give pretty good results when used properly.

The current rating system is based on only one person's opinion, the owner. If there was even a basic user applied rating system then it could help in some situations as I am sure have been discussed here previously. Such as the owner who places a cache and his teenage son can scamper to the cache like nothing so he rates it kid friendly. The next cacher along has a 6 year old who can't even get to the hide with help from their parents. Also it would help flag caches that sound nice on paper but when you arrive are a shabby Tupperware box thrown under a bush off the side of the road with no allure to the area. Ratings for creativity, uniqueness of the surroundings, child friendliness, technique or other things would be nice. And they could get some skewed ratings but it would settle out after a quantity of finds. Also at times locations degrade from increasing muggle activities or areas get trashed and the ratings by users would reflect that trend. And from an owner point of view, I would use it to see what caches people like more then others and plan future hides along that methodology as what I think is a good hide might not be what the majority think. And only allow ratings entered via a note, find or DNF on a cache site so someone can't go in and secretly load the ratings.

Just my 2-1/2 cents

Edited July 24, 2008 by infiniteMPG

8.9k · July 24, 2008

When I first started a little over 7 years ago, there were 17 caches less than 40 miles from my home, with the closest at a little more than 7 miles. One of the things that intrigued me the most was that for the first 3 years or so, each cache took me to new places where I said "Wow - that was a neat location that I didn't know about, and probably wouldn't have gone to without Geocaching." Now as of my last pocket query dump, there are 3,472 caches within 40 miles of my home that I haven't found. Many of the locations are average at best and have no discernable reason for having a cache other than the fact that there wasn't one already there within 528 feet.

So I've had to change. I personally have discovered that there are certain "types" of caches I like based on my lifestyle. My free time for personal pleasures like geocaching is very limited. I'm also not in Olympic Sport shape (but I'd love to be). When I have my kids along, they like the trading items, and I occasionally move travel bugs around. Gas prices are soaring, so I don't like to drive tremendous distances out of my way for a cache.

That leaves me with caches probably within somewhere around 5 latitude and longitude coordinates outside of the normal square from my office to home (and some of the other places I usually drive), then I would probably choose traditional caches with a size of small, regular or large, and limit difficulty to a range of 1 and 3.5 and terrain from 1.5 to 3.5. That gives me 152 caches to go out and find, a fair number. Will I be disappointed with some of them? Sure. But by whittling it down to the types of hunts I really enjoy, I still have a good number to go out and find and know that MOST of the time, these will be the type of cache hunts I enjoy. If I have questions about any of these caches, I can go online and read the logs.

===========================

But as I've stated in the past, recommendations or favorites or "quality ratings" - no matter what iteration - aren't really for the regular cacher that resides in the area that's been around for a while, and plans to be around for a long time. Rather, I see them as a benefit for 2 types of cachers, and a general benefit:

Type (A): The New Cacher

New cachers can be daunted by the sheer volume of caches in a cache rich area. They don't KNOW what type of caches they like to find. If my neighbor came on and said "I'll go find some of these. How many are within 10 miles of my home?" the return of 416 possible caches can seem overwhelming. So they chose the closest ten - but what if these 10 were placed by someone that likes to hide caches behind trash bins and dumpsters? Wouldn't it be nice for them to start off with some of the ones that a consensus of cachers think is a decent one?

Type (B): Cacher On a Trip

Let's say my office sends me to San Francisco for a two week seminar and lands me at the corner of Market Street and Van Ness (N 37° 46.512 W 122° 25.152). I apply those same rough criteria as I mentioned above to a 20 mile radius since I'll have two weekends free to do what I want and unlimited mileage on my rental car. A PQ would return 500 caches at 17.3 miles. Sure, I wouldn't be disappointed with any of the caches in my PQ, but I'd really like to have a great experience while I'm there - above the mundane. I have a friend there, and I could ask him, but it would be great if there were some way I could see if any of these 500 caches were considered above the norm, and really make an effort to hit those.

(C): General Benefit

Caches right now have no quality control, reviewers (rightly so) don't make these type of judgment calls. Cachers have this "code" of writing short logs on caches that have no particular enjoyment ("TNLN TFTC" vs writing a 600 character essay on the adventure). But there's nothing encouraging cachers to really put thought into creating a better cache than personal pride - and without some type of extrinsic motivation, people settle on the least effort and the barest passable quality (as I see throughout my whole interaction with people every day). I believe that people wanting to have a recommended cache - a cache that other cachers thought was "cool" however you define that - would be just enough extrinsic motivation for someone to think twice about a second copy-cat cache in that Mega Mart parking lot as opposed to scoping around for a neat park that no one knows about.

The "current" method doesn't really work for any of these three situations. But I still have yet to see anyone convince me of how geocaching would be HURT by some type of recommendation system.

July 24, 2008

You're actually proving the point you are arguing against. The rating systems you mention do not work.

I totally disagree with your comment. Rating systems on amazon and other sites which include unbiased, thought provoking comments made by other consumers have helped me make informed decisions on many, many products over the years. I will rarely purchase an item now without reviewing what people have to say about it beforehand. They do work and I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way.

Some here seem to believe that people can't think for themselves and will blindly take what another person says regarding a rated object (cache, product, etc.). That's not how I use comments and ratings, myself. Comments and ratings are just another tool that can help people make informed decisions. If one person says it's good and one person says it bad, I analyze the context and meaning of how the comments were made and go from there. If you ask me, rating systems aren't as much about identifying the "good" as they are about shedding light on the "bad." It's difficult for poor products to hide when there is a ratings system in place.

After giving it some thought, I feel the bookmarks feature on geocaching.com could be better utilized (or better explained) in this regard. Until someone mentioned it during this discussion, I never even considered creating a bookmark AFTER visiting a cache. To me, a bookmark is something I would set prior to visiting a cache. My guess is most people who use geocaching.com don't use bookmarking as a way to make comments regarding a cache after they find it. Perhaps if it was titled as "Favorites" it would be more clear as to how it can be used to comment on caches post discovery. I didn't realize that there is an identifier actually placed on a cache's page after someone bookmarks it. I was under the impression that bookmarks were only listed as part of an individual user's profile. Based on this newfound discovery, I'll be more apt to use bookmarking now that I know more about how it can be implemented.

3.2k · July 24, 2008

I totally disagree with your comment. Rating systems on amazon and other sites which include unbiased, thought provoking comments made by other consumers have helped me make informed decisions on many, many products over the years. I will rarely purchase an item now without reviewing what people have to say about it beforehand. They do work and I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way.

Some here seem to believe that people can't think for themselves and will blindly take what another person says regarding a rated object (cache, product, etc.). That's not how I use comments and ratings, myself.

This is going to come across as picking on you. It is not, however the last line negates the preceding comment.

You do use their rating systems and comments to make your decisions from your statement. You're "blindly" believing that the person making the comments has similar taste to you. There have been many movies that if you asked me after I initially saw it, I would have panned. Bad day at work, worrying about one of my sons, fight with my boss (i.e bd) all can have an impact. Heck, everybody panned Star Wars when it came out.

As an example, I have not looked at it in a while (I never look at the ratings anymore) but a few years ago I went to Amazon to buy an additional set of tapes from Tom Hopkins, easily one of the best instructors in sales to ever be published. Best Selling and, after 30 years, still sells out seminars. All but one comment (at that time) panned it saying it was worthless. Sarah Vowell, an author who is an acquired taste, often gets panned in a similar manner however she is one of the best humorist around. Is my one recommendation going to override a bunch of negative ones? Too bad, my tastes may be EXACTLY like yours.

As I said, I would put more stock in a "people who found this cache also found this cache" system than any other. If people find what they like, than there is you recommendation. Before you say it, the people that hunt all caches (i.e. me) won't skew the numbers because, like me, they will not bother to rate it or will simply rate every cache the same.

The current quality rating system, which unlike a previous poster said, the cache owner has absolutely no control over has worked for quite some time quite well. Since most cachers think that system is too much trouble, why would they read "thought provking" comments in the rating system?

In the end, we don't have any real say in it, however if some sort of ratng system is put in place, I would hope the decision is made to allow cache owners to opt out.

July 24, 2008

people arguing ratings systems don't work obviously have not seen the "web2.0" revolution happening.

After a hundred people vote on something, anomalous results tend to get flattened out and a consensus appears. Ratings are a no-brainer afaic.

July 24, 2008

people arguing ratings systems don't work obviously have not seen the "web2.0" revolution happening.

After a hundred people vote on something, anomalous results tend to get flattened out and a consensus appears. Ratings are a no-brainer afaic.

Amen!

3.9k · July 24, 2008

A ratings system will be a part of the new version of the website (or so we've been led to believe) when it comes out after Tuesday.
Oh, okay. Great!! thanks!!
Poked all around the new website and don't see anything referencing a rating system or rewards system and doesn't appear to be anything new on the log entry page either. Is there going to be a "new" new website? And when you're on a cache listing page the GC logo in the upper left is only partially displayed and that is the only way to return to the main GC page as the "home" link in the upper left is gone.

The new updates to the site are not the new version, they're just fixes to the old version. The new version, V2, will have the rewards system and will be released at some point after Tuesday. Keep a lookout for it.

8k · July 24, 2008

people arguing ratings systems don't work obviously have not seen the "web2.0" revolution happening.

After a hundred people vote on something, anomalous results tend to get flattened out and a consensus appears. Ratings are a no-brainer afaic.

The only caches I see that get a hundred finds are LPCs. The kinds of caches I like to find get one or two finds per year (or less). I doubt you'd see enough votes to average out the outliers.

I tend to think there are so many reasons for geocaching that there is no such thing as an average cacher. The people who want a simple rating system must believe there is an average cacher and that they are going to have likes and dislikes very close to the average cacher. I know a lot of people who love every LPC they find. These are easy and quick and fun to do when you go with some friends and your objective is to find as many caches as you can that day. I know a lot of people who hate every LPC. These are boring and and there is no redeeming value, like a nice view, in the parking lots where they are hidden. Based on the people I've talked to every LPC would rank as average - when in fact not one would rate one as average. They'd either be very good or very bad.

I was looking at a hiking site the other day. There were 4 people who had rated the hike. One person though the hike was too short and rated it a 2. One person went on a hot day and didn't take enough water and rated it a 1. One person went with their child on a nice day an thought this was a great hike to take a child on and rated it a 5. And the last person went on a totally different hike that went through the same area and enjoyed seeing all the wildflowers and rated it a 4. Had the hiking site just told me that the hike was rated a 3, I wouldn't have known anything. But of course they posted the comments of each person, so I knew that I should take plenty of water because there is no shade and go in the springtime when there are lots of flowers and that if I wanted a longer hike I could start a different trailhead and take a slightly different route.

July 24, 2008

A rating system that allows the cachers that find the cache to rate it would be a great idea, maybe that would help do away with so many lame caches!

3.9k · July 25, 2008

A rating system that allows the cachers that find the cache to rate it would be a great idea, maybe that would help do away with so many lame caches!

Be careful what you wish for. What if your definition of "lame" is what a bunch of other people enjoy and think geocaching should be, and what if the kinds of caches you like to find get slowly done away with because they're not getting good reviews by these folks?

Hmmm??

6.7k · July 25, 2008

I like the movie rating critics. Almost without exception if they hate it I will like it. It works really well, just in reverse.

July 25, 2008

A rating system that allows the cachers that find the cache to rate it would be a great idea, maybe that would help do away with so many lame caches!

Be careful what you wish for. What if your definition of "lame" is what a bunch of other people enjoy and think geocaching should be, and what if the kinds of caches you like to find get slowly done away with because they're not getting good reviews by these folks?

Hmmm??

Oh they won't, I have read in several of the lame logs that others felt the same way! Bring on the ratings!

3.7k · July 25, 2008

A rating system that allows the cachers that find the cache to rate it would be a great idea, maybe that would help do away with so many lame caches!

Be careful what you wish for. What if your definition of "lame" is what a bunch of other people enjoy and think geocaching should be, and what if the kinds of caches you like to find get slowly done away with because they're not getting good reviews by these folks?

Hmmm??

That's why the cache owner should set the cache category before visitors can rate it. Only he/she knows the reason for setting the cache, and what category of cache it's meant to be.

If you like some sort of great experience when caching and you find a standard micro in a parking lot, you might call it "lame" and give it 1* out of 5. If it's been placed in the "strictly for numbers" category by the owner, then it's suddenly not "lame" because you know to either ignore it, or to look for it expecting no more than a quick find that boosts your numbers easily. You'd only be justified in giving it a poor rating if it turned out to be a long walk, or too hard to locate, or in a really nasty area with better ones nearby.

Quality Rating System?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation