Rating cache quality

[+infiniteMPG]

If there is a rating system I sure hope they require you to find it before you can rate it.

Definitely!!! Think of it like the rating system for buyers and sellers on Ebay, it's a good way to tell if someone bidding on something you're selling, or selling something you're bidding on, to have a glimpse of what that person is like. Very subjective, very open to abuse, but in the long run, very useful. Have you ever noticed how a seller will pester the heck outta you after you bought something to leave them positive feedback? That's because it's seen as something very important to bring in more business.... same as a higher cache rating could bring in more cachers.

 

Even something as simple as rating your overall experience with the cache as POSITIVE (3) - NEUTRAL (2) - NEGATIVE (1) and you can only pick one when logging a FIND (and you don't have to pick any). I think you'd also find that many owners would strive more to place quality hides and try to get that high rating so when you read a profile. people might post "Owner of 65 caches rated over 2.5!"

[+Cherokee Bill]

I vote...... NO!

[+Exocet]

I've been geocaching for a long time (since Feb 2001) though I have been fairly or extremely selective in what I've gone after. Sometimes, though, there is no choice as to the geocaches I can go after (some areas of the world don't have a lot, shockingly) ...and sometimes, when on holiday, I don't have the time or resources to spend reading all the logs to figure out if a particular cache is "good enough" or not.

 

I'd very happily accept a ratings system and use it. I wouldn't see it any differently than logged comments where people clearly disliked or liked a cache... it'd just be a different way to display that opinion.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Even something as simple as rating your overall experience with the cache as POSITIVE (3) - NEUTRAL (2) - NEGATIVE (1) and you can only pick one when logging a FIND (and you don't have to pick any). I think you'd also find that many owners would strive more to place quality hides and try to get that high rating so when you read a profile. people might post "Owner of 65 caches rated over 2.5!"

 

This system is only useful for one purpose. To find and filter those few caches that rise above (or below) ordinary in a way that has universal appeal. A very few caches do rise above. That concept though is different from caches that YOU would enjoy.

 

If your goal is to filter for the best of the best, or at least avoid the worst of the worst, it can work. If your goal is to focus on the kinds of caches that you like. It's not going to help you much.

[+Inmountains]

I just don't understand everyone saying "NO". I have read nearly all the reasons and NONE of them make logical or sensible arguments. How many of us go online to read reviews of products BEFORE we purchase them? How many of us go to more than one store before we buy a particular product, checking on price, service and availability? Amazon, Ebay, Overstock, Angie's List, Consumer Reports, PC Magazine, and the list goes on and on, all use Reviews as a foundation for their prosperity.

 

Geocaching let's the OWNER select a TERRAIN and a DIFFICULTY, so why not let finders select QUALITY? Owner's get a 5 level rating, let finders have the choice to select one out of five or leave blank.

 

Excellent

Above Average

Average

Below Average

Needs Improvement

 

Geocaching has ratings for FINDERS but no ratings for HIDERS. On each cache page, the finders logs show how many finds they have. So why not have how many HIDES the owner has without us having to go in and look at their profile? Have it show up right after the name, at the top of the cache page.

 

Letting finders rate the caches would do two things. First, it would make hiders try to do a better job. Second, with the competitive nature of most folks, there would be more caches hidden.

[+tozainamboku]

Letting finders rate the caches would do two things. First, it would make hiders try to do a better job. Second, with the competitive nature of most folks, there would be more caches hidden.

I doubt it. More than likely people will still hide crummy caches because these are cheaper and easier to hide. It might have the effect of people copying hides that got higher ratings so that soon what was a clever technique will be seen a the same old boring hide. It also seems unlikely that it would result in more caches being hidden. Some people will think, "Why should I hide a cache if it only means I'll be rated as Below Average or Needs Improvement". Most like a rating system like that would be ignored by the majority of geocachers and it wouldn't have any effect. The people who expect it to help them find caches they would like better will be disappointed either because too few people will participate for the rating the mean anything or caches are not being rated by the "average" geocacher the way they would rate them.

 

I'm not opposed, however, to a system where geocachers can recommend caches that are exceptional, and where one could search for "recommended" caches in an area.

[J.A.R.S.]

I'm not opposed, however, to a system where geocachers can recommend caches that are exceptional, and where one could search for "recommended" caches in an area.

 

That would be bookmarking but very few people use the feature. Does anyone have any theories about why that is?

 

Bookmark lists are not catching on, so what other system where geocachers can recommend caches would you suggest? The only other one that the anti-rating/ranking posters seem to be suggesting is reading all of the logs on all the caches in an area you'd like to cache in.

[+haplo13]

My idea is a bit different but could be used to accomplish a rating system. I didn't look to see if this was already brought up, so I apologize if this is redundant.

 

I propose a tag cloud. Users could tag the cache with whatever they want - perhaps there could be a set of standard tags. The more times a tag is used on the cache, the larger it becomes in the cloud. See flicker's tag cloud as an example: http://www.flickr.com/explore/

 

People could then use the could to assign ratings. The more times it is rated 'Excellent' for example, the larger that tag becomes. But it could also be used to tag it as scenic or child friendly, or whatever.

 

Ideally, then, you could search and generate pocket queries based on tags.

[+tozainamboku]

My idea is a bit different but could be used to accomplish a rating system. I didn't look to see if this was already brought up, so I apologize if this is redundant.

 

I propose a tag cloud. Users could tag the cache with whatever they want - perhaps there could be a set of standard tags. The more times a tag is used on the cache, the larger it becomes in the cloud. See flicker's tag cloud as an example: http://www.flickr.com/explore/

 

People could then use the could to assign ratings. The more times it is rated 'Excellent' for example, the larger that tag becomes. But it could also be used to tag it as scenic or child friendly, or whatever.

 

Ideally, then, you could search and generate pocket queries based on tags.

I've suggested this as well. The current bookmarking system is like a tag where premium members can create bookmarks for any purpose and add caches to them. If one could search bookmark list by keyword you'd be able to find caches on various peoples bookmark lists. Tags and tag clouds have worked on photo sites and elsewhere to form a user defined categorization. Clouds show more popular (and presumably more useful) categories larger. So your are really not voting for the pictures but for the tags. If there was a LPC cache bookmark list/tag it might show up very big in a cloud because (supposedly) there are so many of them.

[+haplo13]

 

I've suggested this as well. The current bookmarking system is like a tag where premium members can create bookmarks for any purpose and add caches to them. If one could search bookmark list by keyword you'd be able to find caches on various peoples bookmark lists. Tags and tag clouds have worked on photo sites and elsewhere to form a user defined categorization. Clouds show more popular (and presumably more useful) categories larger. So your are really not voting for the pictures but for the tags. If there was a LPC cache bookmark list/tag it might show up very big in a cloud because (supposedly) there are so many of them.

Yes, except I am saying that the tag clouds are scoped to a single cache. The flicker example isn't perfect in this regard. In essence, there wouldn't be a cloud until you navigate to a specific cache. Once on the cache page, the tag cloud appears and the size of the tag shows how often that particular cache was tagged with that particular tag. Searching on a tag would either incorporate a threshold for how often a tag must be used on a cache, or use some algorithm taking distance and tag popularity for the cache into account automatically to try to give the most relevant results.

 

A universal tag cloud could be set up as well since the infrastructure is all there, but I personally think the above would be more useful.

[+J-Way]

That would be bookmarking but very few people use the feature. Does anyone have any theories about why that is?

Because not everyone is a premium member. And although I do have a few public lists, I mainly use bookmarked lists for personal use. Like all the "ToDo" lists for places I visit occasionally, and my "DNF - Try Again" list.

 

One problem with a rating system is that the vast majority of caches are of average quality. That's to be expected, and is kinda the definition of the word "average". Unfortunately, everyone thinks the caches they own are above average.

 

So if you have a 3-tier rating system (something like Poor, Average, Good), people will get offended by a rating of "Average". Think of the eBay system. I pay for something and receive it when expected. A typical, "average" transaction, nothing exceptionally bad or good. So this should be rated "Neutral", right? NOOOOO. Anything less than "Good" is considered an insult.

 

The only way a 3-tier rating system would work is to skew the ratings to the good side. Something like "Below Average", "Good", "Exceptional". The default should be "Good" (the worst day caching is better than the best day working right?). Below Average should be reserved for something like a hide-a-key hidden under the dumpster at a restaurant that uses lots of grease. Exceptional should be reserved for caches that are, well, exceptional.

 

But ultimately, enough vocal forumites are LOUDLY against any sort of rating system (for various reasons), and TPTB are against it. It'll never happen.

[+rayhiker]

I definitely vote in favor of some rating system. I'm just thinking about getting back into caching, but I don't think I should have to waste time reading about every cache around where I live just to find the ones that local users consider the best. This is an idea whose time has come -- and will motivate people to hide great caches! For those who don't like the idea, they don't need to participate in rating caches.

[+wkmccall]

Unless one's goal is simply to rack up cache stats, I think most of us prefer to find caches that are cleverly done or are hidden in interesting places. I'd like to have a way to anonymously rate a cache at the time I log a "find" ...maybe on a scale of one to ten, then have the average quality rating appear on the cache page.

 

This accomplishes a couple of things:

 

1. It may make people give more thought to the quality of the cache when they hide it

 

2. If quality was a searchable criteria I could ignore caches with a low rating

 

I realize that quality is entirely subjective. That's why we should only post the average for a cache. I trust that well done caches, overall, would tend to have higher ratings.

 

Thoughts?

 

What would keep a member from making a hundred or so sock-puppet accounts to either up their own cache rating or downgrade another member's caches?

I mean, all it takes is an email account and for someone that owns a domain, setting up email accounts for each sock-puppet account would be pretty easy.

All that's left would be creating a server-side script to log in and run a list of caches to "rate".

Now that this scenario is out, would the rating system be editable - would we be able to delete the "bogus" ratings?

If we can, then what would keep anyone from deleting the bad ratings and only keeping the good ones?

 

Are you asking that GC.com police each Vote: - one IP address - One Vote?

If that's the case, it's easy enough to chain proxy servers together and get by that.

 

This may sound like a lot of trouble to go through just to get around a "rating" system; but it's actually not that big of a deal.

One Server and One Script kicked off to run over-night and the next day, all the "High" quality caches a particular member once had now have been averaged out to be only "Average" or "Below Average" caches.

 

Is this the kind of "Rating" system you're looking for??

[+emmett]

.

 

I vote no

 

It is comical to see the numbers of posters on this and other threads who are adamant and closed-minded to various proposed enhancements. The idea is not of interest to you so therefore it is a bad idea. What is your problem!!!???

 

The naysayers want to oppose or ban anything that does not meet their particular interest and it is astounding how many of these people are eager to offer their "two cents." Unless an idea would do some harm, why the need to be so negative?

 

In this case, a rating system, regardless of its flaws would be of benefit to many, especially those traveling to new areas and to those who do not cache often in their home areas.

 

But ultimately, enough vocal forumites are LOUDLY against any sort of rating system

 

No question about that ... maybe there should be a rating system for forum posts.

 

,

[+tozainamboku]

Jeremy has reacted favorably to a number of specific rating systems. It is likely that a system for recommending caches will be implemented at sometime. He also has hinted at a awards system for recognizing cachers who contribute to the game. These enhancements are a lower priority than some others. I believe Groundspeak is planning a major overhaul to the geocaching data based that they refer to as Geocaching 2.0 or Project Phoenix and that suggestions/awards systems will have to wait till those changes are made.

 

Most people suggest the simple cache rating system. Rate the cache from 1 to 5 and then display the average rating. This kind of rating system may work on Netflix or other sites where there are large numbers of people rating each item. Here many caches are found by relatively few people and even fewer would bother to rate them. This allows for "stuffing" the ballot box. A few friends could get together and rate each other's caches and influence the results unduly. In addition, there is great diversity is what people like in geocaches. A cache with a high rating would not be one you necessarily like. Now the the same is true for movies. However you usually can tell if the movie is an action flick, a romantic comedy, or some other genre. So you probably make a decision by first selecting the type of movie you want and they looking a the rating. Netflix and some other sites actually have systems that look at what you have rated and make suggestions based on the movies you have already rated. That would be hard to implement in geocaching, especially for recommending caches when you travel, because there would be few cachers that have found caches in both areas to do the correlation.

 

There is already a way for premium members to recommend caches. A premium member can create a bookmark list of favorite caches and make this public. The link to the bookmark list will appear on the cache pages of all the favorite caches. One of the systems that has been talked about would give a cache a rating based on how many favorite lists it appears on and allow you to search for caches that have a certain number of recommendations. In order to reduce the amount of ballot stuffing or vote trading, the number of caches a person could put on their favorites list would be limited. Another system may allow anyone (or maybe just finders) to rate the cache but the rating is hidden. Based on the rating each cache page (that has some good ratings) would have a list of recommendations (e.g., if you liked this cache you may also like these).

 

People respond "no" when rating systems are requested because they understand that adding a rating system without considering the issues involved is not the answer. Over time a number of better suggestions for recommending caches have been worked out. It is now just a matter of Groundspeak implementing one or more of these suggestions.

[+bflentje]

Maybe what some of those "no vote" cachers are worried about is a boatload of average or mediocre caches.

 

Using the Geocache Rating System, I am seeing that response is low. I don't know if cachers are lazy, don't care, or aren't seeing it on the cache listing. Either way, it is a nice experiement.

[+rayhiker]

There are easy ways to deal with vote stuffers. Votes by frequent cachers should weigh more.

 

Look at IMDB's weighted rating system: They just say that they deal with the problem without giving details: http://www.imdb.com/ratings_explained -- but they used to show the below formula on their page. Key point: Movies with more unique votes by regular voters are adjusted less.

 

"The formula for calculating the Top Rated 250 Titles gives a true Bayesian estimate:

 

weighted rating (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

 

where:

 

R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)

 

v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)

 

m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 1300)

 

C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 6.7)

 

for the Top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered."

[+flask]

i hate the idea of a rating system each and every time it comes up.

 

yes, i have considered it with an open mind and i don't like it. "open-minded" doesn't mean you like everything.

 

not only do i not like it, but i will attempt to subvert any rating system that is put in place. i'm fun that way.

[+Len & Cheri]

Unless one's goal is simply to rack up cache stats, I think most of us prefer to find caches that are cleverly done or are hidden in interesting places. I'd like to have a way to anonymously rate a cache at the time I log a "find" ...maybe on a scale of one to ten, then have the average quality rating appear on the cache page.

 

This accomplishes a couple of things:

 

1. It may make people give more thought to the quality of the cache when they hide it

 

2. If quality was a searchable criteria I could ignore caches with a low rating

 

I realize that quality is entirely subjective. That's why we should only post the average for a cache. I trust that well done caches, overall, would tend to have higher ratings.

 

Thoughts?

 

What would keep a member from making a hundred or so sock-puppet accounts to either up their own cache rating or downgrade another member's caches?

I mean, all it takes is an email account and for someone that owns a domain, setting up email accounts for each sock-puppet account would be pretty easy.

All that's left would be creating a server-side script to log in and run a list of caches to "rate".

Now that this scenario is out, would the rating system be editable - would we be able to delete the "bogus" ratings?

If we can, then what would keep anyone from deleting the bad ratings and only keeping the good ones?

 

Are you asking that GC.com police each Vote: - one IP address - One Vote?

If that's the case, it's easy enough to chain proxy servers together and get by that.

 

This may sound like a lot of trouble to go through just to get around a "rating" system; but it's actually not that big of a deal.

One Server and One Script kicked off to run over-night and the next day, all the "High" quality caches a particular member once had now have been averaged out to be only "Average" or "Below Average" caches.

 

Is this the kind of "Rating" system you're looking for??

 

Are all Geocachers as dishonest as you've suggested? Maybe I'm hanging out at the wrong place.

 

I say yes to a rating system. Seems most of the veterans are saying no and noobs are saying yes.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Len & Cheri

[+bflentje]

i hate the idea of a rating system each and every time it comes up.

 

yes, i have considered it with an open mind and i don't like it. "open-minded" doesn't mean you like everything.

 

not only do i not like it, but i will attempt to subvert any rating system that is put in place. i'm fun that way.

 

I'll remember that next time I am in the Vermont area..

[+sbell111]

Unless one's goal is simply to rack up cache stats, I think most of us prefer to find caches that are cleverly done or are hidden in interesting places. I'd like to have a way to anonymously rate a cache at the time I log a "find" ...maybe on a scale of one to ten, then have the average quality rating appear on the cache page.

 

This accomplishes a couple of things:

 

1. It may make people give more thought to the quality of the cache when they hide it

 

2. If quality was a searchable criteria I could ignore caches with a low rating

 

I realize that quality is entirely subjective. That's why we should only post the average for a cache. I trust that well done caches, overall, would tend to have higher ratings.

 

Thoughts?

What would keep a member from making a hundred or so sock-puppet accounts to either up their own cache rating or downgrade another member's caches?

I mean, all it takes is an email account and for someone that owns a domain, setting up email accounts for each sock-puppet account would be pretty easy.

All that's left would be creating a server-side script to log in and run a list of caches to "rate".

Now that this scenario is out, would the rating system be editable - would we be able to delete the "bogus" ratings?

If we can, then what would keep anyone from deleting the bad ratings and only keeping the good ones?

 

Are you asking that GC.com police each Vote: - one IP address - One Vote?

If that's the case, it's easy enough to chain proxy servers together and get by that.

 

This may sound like a lot of trouble to go through just to get around a "rating" system; but it's actually not that big of a deal.

One Server and One Script kicked off to run over-night and the next day, all the "High" quality caches a particular member once had now have been averaged out to be only "Average" or "Below Average" caches.

 

Is this the kind of "Rating" system you're looking for??

Are all Geocachers as dishonest as you've suggested? Maybe I'm hanging out at the wrong place.

It would not require all geocachers to be dishonest for the results to be made useless. It would actually only take one. In fact, I would argue that it would take none, since this type of rating system is inherently flawed anyhow.

I say yes to a rating system. Seems most of the veterans are saying no and noobs are saying yes.

Perhaps this is because the idea has come up so many times in the past that the 'veterans' have already hashed through it. Edited December 18, 2008 by sbell111

[+JBnW]

Seems most of the veterans are saying no and noobs are saying yes.

 

Here's one noob (six months and counting) that is not in favor of a rating system. And before being criticized as "close-minded", "not having thought it through", or being a member of some sort of "group-think", allow me to explain.

 

I am my own person, and everyone is different. My background, personality, and life's experiences help to define what I consider "quality" or fun in this game. If someone else gets something else out of this game, good for them! If someone likes/dislikes looking for particular types of caches, good for them; and all the tools to do so are already available. For me, part of the fun of this game (but not all of it), is the surprise at the end of the search. Personally, I do not wish to have someone else's rating of their experience skew in any manner, or even develop a hint of a preconceived notion, about what awaits me at the end of journey. It would simply deminish my experience at every cache.

[+emmett]

.

 

i hate the idea of a rating system each and every time it comes up.

 

yes, i have considered it with an open mind and i don't like it. "open-minded" doesn't mean you like everything.

 

not only do i not like it, but i will attempt to subvert any rating system that is put in place. i'm fun that way.

 

A perfect example of my earlier post. He does not offer any explanation, does not care what might be of interest to others. Rather than move on to another discussion, he can't help but throw in his "two (negative) cents."

 

As for me, I have no interest in finding stash, and have noted even those caches that started with nice stash are plundered in short order by the masses who care not about trading equal or up.

 

Therefore, taking up the "flask" school of logic, I hate the idea of stash every time it is discussed, and yes I have considered the discussion with an open mind. Nevertheless, I shall hereafter empty every cache container I find and rid it of everything inside except for the log book and pen. I'm kind of fun that way.

 

.

[+sbell111]

Seems most of the veterans are saying no and noobs are saying yes.

 

Here's one noob (six months and counting) that is not in favor of a rating system. And before being criticized as "close-minded", "not having thought it through", or being a member of some sort of "group-think", allow me to explain.

 

I am my own person, and everyone is different. My background, personality, and life's experiences help to define what I consider "quality" or fun in this game. If someone else gets something else out of this game, good for them! If someone likes/dislikes looking for particular types of caches, good for them; and all the tools to do so are already available. For me, part of the fun of this game (but not all of it), is the surprise at the end of the search. Personally, I do not wish to have someone else's rating of their experience skew in any manner, or even develop a hint of a preconceived notion, about what awaits me at the end of journey. It would simply deminish my experience at every cache.

Just to build on this post, I don't always enjoy the same thing. One day, I might think something is awesome. The next, it bores me. I can't imagine how a ratings system would consistently give me something that I like given that I don't always like the same thing. Similarly, I can't imagine how the ratings system would handle the fact that my reporting on the caches that I visited would be horribly inconsistent.

[+sbell111]

i hate the idea of a rating system each and every time it comes up.

 

yes, i have considered it with an open mind and i don't like it. "open-minded" doesn't mean you like everything.

 

not only do i not like it, but i will attempt to subvert any rating system that is put in place. i'm fun that way.

A perfect example of my earlier post. He does not offer any explanation, does not care what might be of interest to others. Rather than move on to another discussion, he can't help but throw in his "two (negative) cents."

 

As for me, I have no interest in finding stash, and have noted even those caches that started with nice stash are plundered in short order by the masses who care not about trading equal or up.

 

Therefore, taking up the "flask" school of logic, I hate the idea of stash every time it is discussed, and yes I have considered the discussion with an open mind. Nevertheless, I shall hereafter empty every cache container I find and rid it of everything inside except for the log book and pen. I'm kind of fun that way.

Do you have any interest in reading other people's thoughts on the matter? If so, you could do a forum search and read where others have commented over and over again. Perhaps the fact that this gets rehashed so frequently leads some of us to give brief answers like "won't work. no thanks."

 

We may not be motivated to flesh out our responses completely since we already did so eleventeen times in recent memory.

Edited December 18, 2008 by sbell111

[+wavector]

Therefore, taking up the "flask" school of logic, I hate the idea of stash every time it is discussed, and yes I have considered the discussion with an open mind. Nevertheless, I shall hereafter empty every cache container I find and rid it of everything inside except for the log book and pen. I'm kind of fun that way.

 

flask doesn't like the idea of rating caches and truth be told there is probably some substance in her observations even if she manages to rub you the wrong way with her words.

 

I looked at that Internent Movie Database site linked above and it told me that the "Godfather" was the second highest rated movie and the "Godfather II" was the third highest rated movie. If I rented the Godfather and the Godfather II thinking I was getting two of the best movies I have ever seen I would be greatly disappointed, but I can allow that is just me.

 

I think that is the point flask was making but she can speak for herself. Years ago I didn't understand the logic behind experienced geocachers rejecting a rating system, now I do.

 

Here are two logs taken from a cache I own, they are side by side, one was made immediately after the other;

 

Log 1

We enjoyed the little walk and the find for the first part but I can't say the same about the second part!!!

Log 2

Another great hide.

 

Some people will tell you that the perfect cache is a well thought out medium hike, nice location, scenic view cache with lots of nice swag. The next cacher may be caching from a wheel chair and doesn't trade items when they cache. Ther eis no way to let people rate a cache that would reflect the nature of the hunt accurately. A system of Terrain and Difficulty ratings might help people distinguish the hides and hunts they enjoy from those they might not and we have that.

 

One of the best ways to find caches you like is to hunt caches on Bookmark lists or hunt caches with multiple watchers. Watchers are usually a sign that people enjoyed that hunt and want to read about others also enjoying that same hunt. However there is a caveat even there, thinking that you would enjoy Quantum Leap just because it has 200+ watchers would be a real mistake.

[+Markwell]

Seems most of the veterans are saying no and noobs are saying yes.

 

Not really. It's just that those of us that have argued for some type of cache rating system or rewards system in the past know that we'll be shot down by the crowd that believes "every cache has merit".

 

This post from over four years ago suggests a method where cachers can list favorites and that list can be aggregated. It even mentions that I had the idea back in April of 2002.

 

Later in that thread, Jeremy recognized the need.

There is an apparent demand for a way to filter the wheat from the chaff, so how would you address this need? In my eyes it isn't a particularly competitive reason that raised these questions but a practical one. If there are 1,000 caches in the area and you only have a limited amount of time to go caching, how do you determine whether a cache is a drive-by or a well-placed cache.

 

On the same note, why wouldn't other geocachers want to recognize folks who take a lot more time and energy to make their cache something to remember?

 

So - while I've been a proponent of a "favorite cache" system since at least April of 2002, I'm not sure I want to jump back in and be slammed by the same nay-sayers every time another thread pops up.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Markwell

[+wavector]

So - while I've been a proponent of a "favorite cache" system since at least April of 2002, I'm not sure I want to jump back in and be slammed by the same nay-sayers every time another thread pops up.

 

I have wanted a feature that eliminates the importance of numbers for awhile, I feel the current system really doesn't allow those who play for fun to demonstrate that the numbers are a meaningless adjunct to an otherwise fun activity. I would like to eliminate your numbers on my cache and my numbers from view.

 

Yet here you are seriously proposing a system that would allow those with high find counts to choose lots of Favourites and would restrict the ability to choose Favourites for those with low find counts?

 

Is there any particular reason you feel that the people in my community should be penalized for the fact that we don't have ten thousand lamp post caches to find? Do you think our observations are less valid? we should be weighted lower in the overall scheme of things because even if we have found every cache within a hundred miles our observations about which are our favourites are limited by the fact that we haven't found some arbitrary number of identical caches that you feel warrants granting us the ability to choose favourites?

 

This is some serious bias against those with low find counts yet you propose this as a reasonable solution to the problem of flitering out some 400 magnetic keyholders hidden on newspaper boxes?

(A lot of cacher will understand this reference.)

 

Do you have any ideas for a system that doesn't emphasize the superiority of cachers with high find counts, something that I think is a meaningless adjunct to an otherwise fun activity.

[+tozainamboku]

Seems most of the veterans are saying no and noobs are saying yes.

 

Here's one noob (six months and counting) that is not in favor of a rating system. And before being criticized as "close-minded", "not having thought it through", or being a member of some sort of "group-think", allow me to explain.

 

I am my own person, and everyone is different. My background, personality, and life's experiences help to define what I consider "quality" or fun in this game. If someone else gets something else out of this game, good for them! If someone likes/dislikes looking for particular types of caches, good for them; and all the tools to do so are already available. For me, part of the fun of this game (but not all of it), is the surprise at the end of the search. Personally, I do not wish to have someone else's rating of their experience skew in any manner, or even develop a hint of a preconceived notion, about what awaits me at the end of journey. It would simply deminish my experience at every cache.

I'd prefer to look at the reasons people keep bring up a rating system. If the reason is simply to get recommendation then design a system to allow cachers to recommend caches.

 

Wait. We already have such a system - at least for premium members. Premium members can create public bookmark list of their favorite caches or of recommended caches. Others - both regular and premium members - can look for these list and get recommendation. Perhap they can find someone who has similar tastes and use their recommendations. The main problem we have now is finding these bookmark list. Instead of adding a rating system, Groundspeak should provide tools to help people find bookmark lists that could be useful in selecting caches to find. One suggestion that has been made in the past by Markwell and others is to display a star or other indication on caches that are recommended on several different people's favorites bookmark list; perhaps even providing a capability to search for caches that appear on multiple favorites lists. There have been suggestions about limiting the number of caches that one could recommend this way to reduce the amount of ballot stuffing.

 

Using a rating system to rank caches in order doesn't seem to provide any useful information. wavevector gave the example of the imdb movie ranking that lists The Godfather and The Godfather II as the number 2 and 3 ranked movies. He didn't seem to agree with that ranking. If the imdb had simply listed the 250 most often recommended movies without ranking them, I suspect his objection would be less. Sure his favorite movie may not have made the list and there could be one or two movies he hated on the list but if he were to watch movies from this list it could increase the likelihood of him enjoying the movie versus just picking a movie at random.

 

Some people may want to have a way to indicate caches they didn't feel were all that good. They would give these a low rating. A cache with a low average rating would be one to avoid. Terracaching has such a system where if caches don't get a high enough rating they get removed from the system. Many people oppose this system. Just because a cache gets a below average rating doesn't mean there aren't people who would like to find it. Really bad hides seem to not last long anyhow and those hide them either eventually become better hiders, stop hiding caches, or quit caching altogether. There doesn't seem to be a real need to vote caches out. If you really want to warn people about a bad cache and you can't say that in your log because the cache owner will delete the log, you could create a bookmark list of caches to avoid. You can even make this public so it appears on the cache page. The cache owner might be able to appeal to TPTB to get a list removed but I don't know of any cases where this has happened.

[Clan Riffster]

I think as long as TC exists, it serves as proof that a rating system can work, and work very well, at limiting the overall numbers of those cache types not preferable to the majority. That has value to me, over there, as the current TC majority happens to see eye to eye with me regarding what is, and what is not, an enjoyable caching experience.

(Yes, I realize that stinkers still get created over there. They just don't last very long before they get voted off the island)

I'm not sure if having a rating system here would have the same result. Our population here at GC is fraught with folks who lean toward what my biased viewpoint thinks is somewhat less than enjoyable. Since their "votes" would carry as much weight as mine, I'm forced to wonder if 1/1 P&Gs would eventually rise to the top of the food chain, in a GC rating system.

 

I can picture the log now:

I'm subtracting points due to you making me walk more than 10' from my car. I'm subtracting points due to you forcing me to put up with nature. I'm subtracting points due to you creating a cache that cost me over an hour of my time to find, during which time I could've found a dozen P&Gs. I'm subtracting points because you had the audacity to camouflage your cache, making it even harder to find, instead of just covering it with a bundle of sticks. I'm subtracting points because you used an ammo can, and I ruined my manicure pulling it open. And, I'm subtracting points because your cache was full of pesky swag, causing me to lose precious P&G time searching for the log.

If you wanna earn some real points playing this game, you better stick to film canisters under lamp post kilts!

-BillyBobNosePicker

[Clan Riffster]

One suggestion that has been made in the past by Markwell and others is to display a star or other indication on caches that are recommended on several different people's favorites bookmark list

I like that idea! A lot! If I could look at a GC map, and while seeing all the various icons, I could see some sort of indicator that a cache made it to a bookmark list, (or even several lists), that could seriously aid my cache hunting decision making process.

[+Kit Fox]

One suggestion that has been made in the past by Markwell and others is to display a star or other indication on caches that are recommended on several different people's favorites bookmark list

I like that idea! A lot! If I could look at a GC map, and while seeing all the various icons, I could see some sort of indicator that a cache made it to a bookmark list, (or even several lists), that could seriously aid my cache hunting decision making process.

 

Unfortunately, many geocaches are bookmarked these days because they are in the "right county, Thomas Guide page, or meet some othe requirements for a "Challenge cache." You'll still need to check to see if the cache is also on a "favorites bookmark."

 

Using the current system available, the most effective method to rate a nice cache is a "favorites bookmark." Taking the time to write why you liked the cache helps other cachers find the type of geocaches they like most.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+technetium]

Hello,

 

The system that was used on the dutch site (www.geocaching.nl) the Geo d'Or. Was working very nice. For each 20 caches you logged, you could give one Geo d'Or to a cache you'd visit. Past tense because, unfortunately the data on the dutch site isn't updated for a few months now.

 

Probably this is easyly impemented by some sort of extension of the TB/GC system. For each 20 unique caches you log you receive a GD, that you can drop in a cache.

 

Then you can select the "best" caches on absolute GD's or relative (GD's divided by number of logs). And a mathmetician could with some graphs (as in the english word for the dutch grafen) get even more useful information.

 

Unfortunaltly I don't speak asp, else I would have offered to program it myself.

 

Greetings Tc

[+Markwell]

So - while I've been a proponent of a "favorite cache" system since at least April of 2002, I'm not sure I want to jump back in and be slammed by the same nay-sayers every time another thread pops up.

...Yet here you are seriously proposing a system that would allow those with high find counts to choose lots of Favourites and would restrict the ability to choose Favourites for those with low find counts?

...

This is some serious bias against those with low find counts yet you propose this as a reasonable solution to the problem of flitering out some 400 magnetic keyholders hidden on newspaper boxes?

I actually snorted with laughter when I saw this. Did you take the time to look at my find count and compare it with yours?

 

Wavevector - Member Since: Saturday, January 04, 2003

Total Caches Found 578

 

Markwell - Member Since: Friday, March 09, 2001

Total Caches Found 387

 

I'm confused by an attitude of not wanting to allow cachers that have found more caches than I to have more favorites than I (as a percentage).

 

The reason I indicate a top 10% is not to penalize those that have a low find count - rather it's a scope of an individual's finds. Without some limiter, users could conceivably mark ALL of their caches as favorites. Arguably, if someone has 1 cache, this is true. But once someone finds a second cache, in their mind they either say "this was better than the last" or "this wasn't as cool as the first", and they've established subconsciously that one is a favorite above another.

 

I don't begrudge people that find tons of lamp-post caches. Those that have found thousands of caches DO HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE than I do. I have longevity, but they have plain and simple found more than I have. That's why I'm looking at a 10% mark, which some say is really low. If a cacher only has 10% of their finds to mark as "favorites" they're going to be choosy. You would have 57 (almost 58). I would have 38. I would be hard pressed to pick 100 caches to be my "favorites".

 

When I started caching there were 16 caches in the entire Chicagoland area. I found 11 of those. I couldn't afford to be disciminatory to caches because their weren't that many around. When I first proposed some type of rating system in April of 2002, there were 122 caches in Chicago area. When I made the post I linked above there were 1400 caches, and currently, there are 4,235 caches. Over the entire history of the area, there have been 6,920 caches in the Chicago region. I have found or placed 302 of those caches.

 

Are you saying that I should have the ability to either...

(A) Rate as many caches as I want up to the entire 7,000 caches as my "favorites" or

(B) Rate all 302 caches in the Chicago Region as my favorites? - Or even

(C) Rate all 387 caches (including events) that I've found as favorites?

 

There was a wise Newspaper editor that once said "If everything is bold, nothing is bold". If the favorites aren't based on some limiting factor due to something on the the account, then everything will be bold.

[+J-Way]

 

10% is a good number.

Edited December 18, 2008 by J-Way

[+Harry Dolphin]

I rather like the "Favorite 10% List". This would require Geocaching to set up a Favorite 10% Bookmark List. And have it show on each anointed cache page. Hmm... What are my favorite 186 caches?!? I would, of course, list several archived caches... Now, I need to review all my finds for my favorite 10%???

[+Len & Cheri]

sbell111,

 

You are probably correct on your point about how the veterans have hashed it over many times before.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Len & Cheri

[+sseegars]

I am sure it has been said but:

 

Your experience while caching is what you make of it. Every time I cache I have a good time.

 

'Nuff Said?

[+flask]

since my reasoning has been called into question (and defended, thank you), i thought i might just say that i was simply asking the question.

 

there was no "school of thought" explained, nor my reasoning.

 

i also do not belong to the "every cache has merit" crowd.

 

the main reason i am against a rating system is that i feel that like many public rating systems, we're going to have an epidemic of "rate my cache! rate my cache!" there will be pandering for points.

 

AND there will be point wars about good hikes vs. LPC's.

 

i read logs. i look at bookmarks. often i cache blind. sometimes i see a trashcache and sometimes i get gold.

 

but gold is subjective.

 

i find that usually when there's a "do you have a blog/facebook page/myspace account?" thread what the asker really means to say is "i have a blog/facebook page/myspace account and i want you to look at it and rate it and be my friend".

 

it is largely for this reason that i don't want cache ratings or commentaries on the photo galleries.

 

i hope that those of you who felt my earlier answer failed to have reasoning behind it are satisfied.

 

me, i was just answering the question. why is it that when you have a negative opinion of someone's pet project that you immediately get pigeonholed as being negative and without proper reasoning?

 

rate me! evaluate me! i need external validation! i need to know how much everybody loves me and my cache! i need to feel popular! i need more friends on facebook!

 

well, i don't. i put out the kind of cache i want to put out and if you like it, fine. if you hate it, fine. it's STILL the cache i wanted to put out.

 

 

i maintain a bookmark list of the best caches i've ever been to. i don't advertise it and i don't care if you read it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm not opposed, however, to a system where geocachers can recommend caches that are exceptional, and where one could search for "recommended" caches in an area.

 

That would be bookmarking but very few people use the feature. Does anyone have any theories about why that is?

 

Bookmark lists are not catching on, so what other system where geocachers can recommend caches would you suggest? The only other one that the anti-rating/ranking posters seem to be suggesting is reading all of the logs on all the caches in an area you'd like to cache in.

 

Probably because bookmarks pale in comparison to the usefulness of Pocket Queries.

 

I'd probably use bookmarks more if it support the ability to batch move entries in one bookmark to another.

 

For example, bookmarking a interesting waypoint is really easy and fast. However, I would like to be able to bookmark lots of interesting looking caches into a default bookmark, then select a set of them and move them into another bookmark file (for example, puzzle and multi caches).

[+wavector]

Did you take the time to look at my find count and compare it with yours?

 

The reason I indicate a top 10% is not to penalize those that have a low find count

 

Are you saying that I should have the ability to either...

(A) Rate as many caches as I want up to the entire 7,000 caches as my "favorites" or

(B) Rate all 302 caches in the Chicago Region as my favorites? - Or even

(C) Rate all 387 caches (including events) that I've found as favorites?

 

Actually no. I had no idea how many caches you had found until you told me.

I just don't think it is relevant to geocaching, this isn't golf or tennis, it is geocaching - there is no way to keep score, you can't win, you can't be better at geocaching than someone else because there is no objective way to define "better".

You think that people who have achieved a higher Find count are more experienced and that just isn't true, it is pretty easy to find 10000 identical caches today. I used lamp post hides as an example with no intention of disparaging lamp post caches, my intention was to point out that finding one cache that is identical to another cache with the exception of the location is not "geocaching experience", it more like woking in a factory and doing the same action over and over and over and over and over and over again.

 

I understand the dedication that some geocachers apply to finding caches and I don't wish to detract from the fun they are having but that doesn't mean that the fun they are having is the fun that is found in geocaching, enjoyment in this game is entirely subjective.

 

Perhaps you have no intention of penalizing cachers with a low find count but your system would. If I find a cache that I really enjoyed I wouldn't even be able to recommend it without finding ten more caches or deleting one I have already recommended.

 

The way it works now is pretty simple, you can Bookmark any cache you want, you can add it to your Favourites Bookmark list if you have created one, you can recommend all of the caches you have found or none of the caches you have found. There is no bias in this system, there is no limiting factor and there are no restrictions, so yes, I am saying that you can do all those things that you have on your list and it would make no difference to me. If you recommend everything your recommendations would have little value to anyone so the limiting factor is built-in.

 

I think a good addition to the Bookmark feature would be a Bookmark List that was actually coded to be a list of "Favourites" and a series of check boxes (like attributes) that allowed a geocacher to indicate why they liked that cache. Make it a list that can only be viewed via a profile, neither "private" nor "public", just a list visible in a geocachers profile. Once that existed the only thing necessary would be to encourage all geocachers to use it. This is a simple system and it would work for everyone, geocachers who didn't want to make a list of favourites wouldn't have to and those recommending caches could recommend away.

People who thought the numbers were important wouldn't look at your list of favourites or mine, we don't really register on that scale.

This system couldn't be skewed nor would it create a bias in favour of ever more "numbers".

 

Encouragement goes a long way, I almost always ask people to log their find online, it is a rote phrase on my cache pages, I almost always tell people not to use a TB' secret tracking number in a log. I encourage other local geocachers to make a bookmark list of their favourite caches. I encourage people to use the "Watch Listing" feature as well, it is presently the second most valuable tool for finding good caches with the best one being, find old caches.

[+The Leprechauns]

For years, I've been an advocate of a special "favorites" bookmark list with features coded into it, sort of the opposite of an Ignore list. Up to X percent of your finds could appear on this list. Each cache would have a data field saying how many people put that listing on their Favorites list. Users could then search (via pocket queries) for only those caches that are on Favorites lists. The limit is needed to prevent people from saying every cache is their favorite cache. The "positive rating only" is needed to prevent good caches from being down-rated for reasons unrelated to the cache (such as a personal dispute with that cache's owner).

 

This is one of several cache rating systems which Groundspeak has commented on favorably in the past.

 

For an example, see my linked "Top 5% List" in my signature line. I take great care to keep it clear of archived caches and to add or remove caches where my opinion has changed over time. With all that care, at the moment I cannot find five percent that are worthy of inclusion. I have 3700-something finds, meaning there should be 185 or so caches on the list. I can only identify around 150 that meet my standards. I find a lot of lamp post caches while I'm on my way to hike in the nature preserves!

 

Props to Markwell, whose Top 10 percent list gave me the inspiration to create my own list way back in 2003. Mine is now pointed to by others as a good example. Whether you have 370 finds or 3700, this method works.

 

The topic comes up so often, and has dragged on for so many years, that I rarely bother posting to this sort of thread anymore.

[+wavector]

This is one of several cache rating systems which Groundspeak has commented on favorably in the past.

For an example, see my linked "Top 5% List" in my signature line.

 

I looked at your list and that is the type of list I use but mine only has 15 caches. I see no reason to limit the number of caches that can be marked as "Favourites" and I completely reject the notion that I have to "find" more caches to "gain the right" to mark a cache as a favourite, that is just number-centric thinking and it isn't reasonable IMO.

On the other hand if every profile had another tab next to the Bookmark List tab that said Favourite Caches people might mark favourites more often, I tihnk this would be a beneficial feature.

I maintain a second list of caches that are placed along the Yellowhead Highway and I have had those lists receive two ratings. The first was made a couple of years ago and it was a positive rating, I suppose the cacher liked the fact that the list was a compilation of every cache marked as a YLHD cache. The second person to rate the list did so just a short while ago and said they didn't like the list, it served no purpose, it cluttered up the cache pages and that if I wanted to have a list I should make a list of favourites.

Edited December 19, 2008 by wavector

[+sbell111]

... For an example, see my linked "Top 5% List" in my signature line. I take great care to keep it clear of archived caches and to add or remove caches where my opinion has changed over time. ...

How do you identify caches that have gotten junky, for whatever reason, so that you can remove them from your list?