Feature Request - Rating

[+EvenHunt]

Hi all,

I would like to see a rating system for caches (maybe similiar to the one Amazon or ebay uses).

All finders could rate the cache in terms of fun, difficulty, idea etc ..

 

cheers,

EvenHunt

[+pklong]

Yup agreed - it's been suggested loads of times though.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Me too - any form of rating, or perhaps give each PM a "Favorites" bookmarked list that would be searchable, ie, it would be one of the PQ choices: is on a Favorites List

[+EvenHunt]

I assume this can not be a big deal. Just adding 2 categories where users can key in a rating would be really appreciated. As of now I read through the logs of a cache I'm interessted in and then I check the pics from the gallery. This is quite time consuming and annoying.

 

So pleeeeease add something the users can rate the caches.

 

regards from Germany.

[Skippermark]

The thing is that it's all relative, especially when you're rating fun and difficulty. What's fun for one person may not be fun for someone else, and something easy can be a real challenge for another if they've never seen anything like it.

 

The other downside of doing a rating system is that it makes it easier for people to avoid reading the previous logs.

[CoyoteRed]

Until there is a rating system that can not be countered, at will, by the cache owner I vote no. Folks don't give honest opinions of caches as it is partially because of propriety, but also because some owners will simply delete a less-that-glowing logs.

 

I would advocate un-deletable anonymous "review" logs with a rating if the owner could redact the log text to remove spoilers. Maybe an automated moderation time? The review is held for a week (or some other short time period) for the cache owner to check for spoiler information. The cache owner can hide a portion of the review if they feel it gives away too much. The review log writer can appeal the text is need be. Redacted log text would simply be x'ed out. "Xxxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx x'xx xxx." The review vote or score would stand no matter what, though.

 

The anonymity can optionally be limited in that all of one person's reviews can be linked together--only if they wish--to get a list of cache they voted high or low. Then several lists could be combined to get a master list of caches for you to target--or ignore depending on how you're using the function.

 

Additionally, you could ignore a person's review if the feedback is useless. If all they said was "sucked" on every cache then you could simply ignore that person. (Of course, this is the type of person who not allow his reviews to be linked. Something to work out.)

 

See, the biggest problem is the cache owners power to delete logs. To be able to remove spoilers or bogus logs is too important to toss out, but a more elegant solution is needed. Maybe the automated moderation / redact feature for all logs would help with spoilers while tagging a log as "contested" would help with bogus claims.

[+CBT69]

Agreed. An anonymous "Star" system, like most of the online "review" sites use would be great.

 

Two boxes: "difficulty" and "terrain" that you can do a 1 to 5 and it averages them, and it's not changeable, except by the person who put in the individual rating.

 

Course, it could be spammed, but I doubt that would be a major issue.

 

The issue is, as you said, subjectivity.

 

what is a 2/2 to someone with 1200 caches under their belt may _NOT_ be a 2/2 to someone on their first hunt. (as I found out.)

[+markandsandy]

Hi all,

I would like to see a rating system for caches (maybe similiar to the one Amazon or ebay uses).

All finders could rate the cache in terms of fun, difficulty, idea etc ..

 

cheers,

EvenHunt

And since everyones ideas of what is fun, difficult, etc. varies, it will be about as useless as the rating systems on Amazon, ebay, etc.

 

(edited for errant comma)

Edited September 30, 2008 by markandsandy

[+CBT69]

Hi all,

I would like to see a rating system for caches (maybe similiar to the one Amazon or ebay uses).

All finders could rate the cache in terms of fun, difficulty, idea etc ..

 

cheers,

EvenHunt

And since everyones ideas of what is fun, difficult, etc. varies, it will be about as useless as the rating systems on Amazon, ebay, etc.

 

(edited for errant comma)

 

The problem with Amazon's rating system is it's individual to the review, (I believe). This would be an averaged system, which _might_ give people a better guide.

 

Nothing is going to be perfect!

[+Prime Suspect]

Agreed. An anonymous "Star" system, like most of the online "review" sites use would be great.

And just how anonymous is it when there's just one find, and just one rating?

[+CBT69]

Agreed. An anonymous "Star" system, like most of the online "review" sites use would be great.

And just how anonymous is it when there's just one find, and just one rating?

 

Well, it's really not that big a deal, actually. The complaint above was that cache owners can (and some, apparently do) delete any negative comments they find in their logs. "Thanks for warning me I had to wade through an open sewer!" goes away on the 2/2 cache.

 

But if I'm gonna put my name on there, it doesn't matter whether it's anonymous or not. If there's only 7 Smileys in the log, but 27 individual (yet screened) reviews that say "IT SUCKS!" it should be a clue, eh?

[+Renegade Knight]

Hi all,

I would like to see a rating system for caches (maybe similiar to the one Amazon or ebay uses).

All finders could rate the cache in terms of fun, difficulty, idea etc ..

 

cheers,

EvenHunt

And since everyones ideas of what is fun, difficult, etc. varies, it will be about as useless as the rating systems on Amazon, ebay, etc.

 

(edited for errant comma)

 

A Solution is to use a netflix style system. Then you can see what your expected rating would be based on the ratings of other folks who rate (and like) caches similar to you. That would be handy.

 

A simple "best of" (or "one of my favorites") rating would also work. However what it would do is make the caches that have universal appeal (some do) stand out. Then you would see those caches that for whatever reason stand head and shoulders above the others.

[+Parabola]

Hi all,

I would like to see a rating system for caches (maybe similiar to the one Amazon or ebay uses).

All finders could rate the cache in terms of fun, difficulty, idea etc ..

 

cheers,

EvenHunt

And since everyones ideas of what is fun, difficult, etc. varies, it will be about as useless as the rating systems on Amazon, ebay, etc.

 

(edited for errant comma)

 

A Solution is to use a netflix style system. Then you can see what your expected rating would be based on the ratings of other folks who rate (and like) caches similar to you. That would be handy.

 

A simple "best of" (or "one of my favorites") rating would also work. However what it would do is make the caches that have universal appeal (some do) stand out. Then you would see those caches that for whatever reason stand head and shoulders above the others.

 

That's a great idea. Kind of like a recommended cache list made by how you vote, compaired to others.

[+WRASTRO]

Hi all,

I would like to see a rating system for caches (maybe similiar to the one Amazon or ebay uses).

All finders could rate the cache in terms of fun, difficulty, idea etc ..

 

cheers,

EvenHunt

And since everyones ideas of what is fun, difficult, etc. varies, it will be about as useless as the rating systems on Amazon, ebay, etc.

 

(edited for errant comma)

 

A Solution is to use a netflix style system. Then you can see what your expected rating would be based on the ratings of other folks who rate (and like) caches similar to you. That would be handy.

 

A simple "best of" (or "one of my favorites") rating would also work. However what it would do is make the caches that have universal appeal (some do) stand out. Then you would see those caches that for whatever reason stand head and shoulders above the others.

I know I would be thrilled to know what my expected rating should be. Oh, wait. No I wouldn't. I guess you can tell I don't use Netflix. I am not in favor of a cache rating system simply because there are not enough finders of any given cache to make it valid. And then there is the whole concept of rating the reviewers. Messy, meesy, messy. I read the logs and the cache description, then I form my own preconceived notion about the cache. If and when I hunt for the cache I offer up my own opinion about it. So far this system has worked for me.

[+Prime Suspect]

Agreed. An anonymous "Star" system, like most of the online "review" sites use would be great.

And just how anonymous is it when there's just one find, and just one rating?

 

Well, it's really not that big a deal, actually. The complaint above was that cache owners can (and some, apparently do) delete any negative comments they find in their logs. "Thanks for warning me I had to wade through an open sewer!" goes away on the 2/2 cache.

 

But if I'm gonna put my name on there, it doesn't matter whether it's anonymous or not. If there's only 7 Smileys in the log, but 27 individual (yet screened) reviews that say "IT SUCKS!" it should be a clue, eh?

Considering that some cachers can be a bit vindictive, it actually does matter. And do you really think people are going to sacrifice a find-count bump in order to make an anonymous comment?

 

I doubt any rating system would be put in place that didn't require an accompanying log. The potential for abuse would be too high.

[+Isonzo Karst]

There is a rating system on Wherigo carts, by the way. It's an option to rate from 1 - 5 stars. Most folks either don't rate, or rate 5 stars! this may be because of the Shiny New quality of Wherigo for most finders...

 

I've found 3 Wherigo caches. I rated one of them (4 stars) I'd rate one of the others 1 or maybe 2 stars, and the other zero stars (negative stars) if I were gonna rate 'em, which I'm not....

 

I mention this because it's a rating system on a Groundspeak site now. Perhaps over time, those Wherigo ratings will mature, as people have more experience with Wherigo. Currently, ratings tend to be high. This does worry me about GC.com ratings. I suspect novice cachers, still excited about caching in a general sense, will tend to rate high, and cranky old timers, more than a touch jaded, will tend to rate low.

 

This is why I'm fondest of The Leprechaun's suggestion of a searchable (via PQ) Favorites Bookmarked list. It takes a bit more effort to bookmark something. It might actually separate the more memorable from the less...

[+Renegade Knight]

...I know I would be thrilled to know what my expected rating should be. Oh, wait. No I wouldn't. I guess you can tell I don't use Netflix. I am not in favor of a cache rating system simply because there are not enough finders of any given cache to make it valid...

 

It doesn't work quite like you are thinking. Any one cache doesn't matter so much. But if you and Cachers X, Y, and Z have roughly the same taste and like and dislike the same caches. It can see what X, Y, & Z thought about a cache you haven't found and then you can see what you might enjoy. Fool proof? No. It just skews the odds of enjoyment in your favor.

 

On the movie side, once you run out of movies you want to see, it can be useful to pick the movies you may like to watch next. You can of course hate a movie it thought you would like. But once you rate that move it gets factored into the bigger picture.

 

It would work better where there are more finders than less. If you live in PoDunk USA it would have a harder time getting enough data to venture a good guess. OTOH at worst you are no worse off than not having a rating at all.

[+CBT69]

Hi all,

I would like to see a rating system for caches (maybe similiar to the one Amazon or ebay uses).

All finders could rate the cache in terms of fun, difficulty, idea etc ..

 

cheers,

EvenHunt

And since everyones ideas of what is fun, difficult, etc. varies, it will be about as useless as the rating systems on Amazon, ebay, etc.

 

(edited for errant comma)

 

A Solution is to use a netflix style system. Then you can see what your expected rating would be based on the ratings of other folks who rate (and like) caches similar to you. That would be handy.

 

A simple "best of" (or "one of my favorites") rating would also work. However what it would do is make the caches that have universal appeal (some do) stand out. Then you would see those caches that for whatever reason stand head and shoulders above the others.

I know I would be thrilled to know what my expected rating should be. Oh, wait. No I wouldn't. I guess you can tell I don't use Netflix. I am not in favor of a cache rating system simply because there are not enough finders of any given cache to make it valid. And then there is the whole concept of rating the reviewers. Messy, meesy, messy. I read the logs and the cache description, then I form my own preconceived notion about the cache. If and when I hunt for the cache I offer up my own opinion about it. So far this system has worked for me.

 

No. I meant "anonymous" in that you cannot see who voted what number of stars directly. Obviously, if there's only one log, it's not "anonymous". But once you get in the 10 or more log range, you are now dealing with an average.

 

"* 1 cacher.

*** 5 cachers

***** 4 cachers"

 

That's the most it would break down to.

 

Anyone who wants to be vindictive is going to do it in the log, anyway, I would imagine.

[+baloo&bd]

No. I meant "anonymous" in that you cannot see who voted what number of stars directly. Obviously, if there's only one log, it's not "anonymous". But once you get in the 10 or more log range, you are now dealing with an average.

 

"* 1 cacher.

*** 5 cachers

***** 4 cachers"

 

That's the most it would break down to.

 

Anyone who wants to be vindictive is going to do it in the log, anyway, I would imagine.

 

As established in the other threads and previous messages here regarding this, aside from the fact that the current rating system is working quite well, rating systems do not work.

 

In particular, anonymous systems are ripe for abuse. If you can not stand behind your comments or rating, don't post it. We already have the anonymity afforded us by "handles" and nicknames, what more is needed?

 

We have a series of caches in the area by a particular cacher that are not to well liked by the majority in the area, however it appears to be more the fact that they get preachy and the caches have a heavy agenda to them (allowed in our area) rather than the attributes of the given hide. I suspect these would have a unearned low rating because of that since I am in a fairly rural part of the state.

 

The closest to something that might work other than the current rating system would be the "other cachers who liked this also liked..." type system.

[+Brassine Family]

The thing is that it's all relative, especially when you're rating fun and difficulty. What's fun for one person may not be fun for someone else, and something easy can be a real challenge for another if they've never seen anything like it.

 

The other downside of doing a rating system is that it makes it easier for people to avoid reading the previous logs.

 

The thing I would also be concerned about is that some would be less likely to do the search due to a low score.

 

And I agree with Skippermark 100% on the comments quoted.

 

Although I am a newbie here and very impatiently waiting for my gps to arrive, I could see where one would be "well, that one doesn't have a very good score, so I am not even gonna waste my time to try and find it."

 

and from what I have seen is that the caches with trackable items get the most hits.

[CoyoteRed]

The thing I would also be concerned about is that some would be less likely to do the search due to a low score.

 

...

 

Although I am a newbie here and very impatiently waiting for my gps to arrive, I could see where one would be "well, that one doesn't have a very good score, so I am not even gonna waste my time to try and find it."

Umm... That's the whole point! Why should I waste my time on caches with a low score?