What about this idea?

[+frefel]

I like to use geocaching as a means to explore places new to me since caches are often placed in sites of particular interest using local knowledge and ones frequently overlooked by guide books. Upon arriving at such an area with a large number of caches and a limited amount of time to hunt it can be overwhelming to exclude caches of less interest.

 

I realize there have been many suggestions to rate caches and none have caught on. I don't know if this idea of mine is original but I see it as a refinement to geocaching to make it more appealing to those who want to use their time for more than just accumulating numbers of finds.

 

Therefore I suggest that at the bottom of the "I Found It" login page there be a check box (or several) to designate that cache as one of notable worth in terms of, for example, cleverness, beauty, challenge, etc. There could also be a line to describe in a few words what it is that makes that cache stand out. I would prefer several categories but one would be a vast improvement. Now the lengthy list could be filtered to show only the recommended caches, paring it considerably I suspect.

 

Of course a checked cache would be the subjective opinion of that finder but I still see that as valuable, especially if many agree. It would probably eliminate from my search list the umpteenth micro at the base of a light pole in a WalMart parking lot - a definite benefit.

[+TrailGators]

I like to use geocaching as a means to explore places new to me since caches are often placed in sites of particular interest using local knowledge and ones frequently overlooked by guide books. Upon arriving at such an area with a large number of caches and a limited amount of time to hunt it can be overwhelming to exclude caches of less interest.

 

I realize there have been many suggestions to rate caches and none have caught on. I don't know if this idea of mine is original but I see it as a refinement to geocaching to make it more appealing to those who want to use their time for more than just accumulating numbers of finds.

 

Therefore I suggest that at the bottom of the "I Found It" login page there be a check box (or several) to designate that cache as one of notable worth in terms of, for example, cleverness, beauty, challenge, etc. There could also be a line to describe in a few words what it is that makes that cache stand out. I would prefer several categories but one would be a vast improvement. Now the lengthy list could be filtered to show only the recommended caches, paring it considerably I suspect.

 

Of course a checked cache would be the subjective opinion of that finder but I still see that as valuable, especially if many agree. It would probably eliminate from my search list the umpteenth micro at the base of a light pole in a WalMart parking lot - a definite benefit.

The site is working on a feature to give awards to caches. I have no idea when it will be available.

[+StarBrand]

Its not really a rating system or searchable - but you can already create a bookmark list titled - "my favorite caches" or whatever - then add those caches that are special to you with a note as to why. Future visitors to that listing page will see it is on your list and possibly several others and know it is a quality cache.

 

Some have proposed turning that simple fact into a searchable rating system. Allow each user to add up to 10% of thier finds to a "favorites" list and then make the number of such lists on a cache searchable.

[+frefel]

Trailgators, I hope you realize I'm not proposing some kind of compensation for a cache well done but rather a system where others can easily access such caches and avoid the mundane ones.

 

StarBrand, I see what you are saying but it sounds cumbersome to have to survey other finder's lists to gain that info. With my system it would automatically be a part of the stats of that cache's home page and could be filtered instantly if it were an attribute of GSAK for example.

[+TrailGators]

Trailgators, I hope you realize I'm not proposing some kind of compensation for a cache well done but rather a system where others can easily access such caches and avoid the mundane ones.

They are proposing virtual awards that you could use to to gauge a positive rating by seeing how many awards a cache has been given. So it is a positive only rating. The problem with normal ratings is that they don't want to bag on the mundane caches.

[+jesperqvist]

I would just like to say that I agree. I like finding special cache containers and rating the container could be implicit in your suggestion.

 

I hope it will be accepted and will work soon.

 

Jesper - Denmark

[+frefel]

I would just like to say that I agree. I like finding special cache containers and rating the container could be implicit in your suggestion.

 

I hope it will be accepted and will work soon.

 

Jesper - Denmark

 

Thanks for your support Jesperqvist.

 

I'd like to keep this thread alive until we see a response from the Geocaching.com people giving some indication that they are interested in improving the experience for their users.

[+sTeamTraen]

I like to use geocaching as a means to explore places new to me since caches are often placed in sites of particular interest using local knowledge and ones frequently overlooked by guide books. Upon arriving at such an area with a large number of caches and a limited amount of time to hunt it can be overwhelming to exclude caches of less interest.

 

A good general rule of thumb is that the interest of the cache is proportional to the length of the description and/or the logs. I'm sure there's a GSAK macro which can sort caches by descending order of average log length.

 

Cache size is a pretty good measure, too. There are a few great micros, but generally speaking if a cache owner thinks that a location is special, they will place a "worthwhile" box.

 

Therefore I suggest that at the bottom of the "I Found It" login page there be a check box (or several) to designate that cache as one of notable worth in terms of, for example, cleverness, beauty, challenge, etc. There could also be a line to describe in a few words what it is that makes that cache stand out. I would prefer several categories but one would be a vast improvement. Now the lengthy list could be filtered to show only the recommended caches, paring it considerably I suspect.

 

This is still a rating system. The rating is on a integer scale of 0 to 1 for each category (clever, pretty site, etc) rather than an overall 0 to 9 or whatever, but it's still a rating system and will have all of the disadvantages which have been extensively discussed here since, well, since the site began. And you'll have lots of people saying they want a checkbox for their particular interest ("I'd like to see caches rated as to whether you can safely do them with one active 4-year-old and a baby in a stroller").

 

As for adding "a few words [to say] what it is that makes the cache stand out"... that's what the log is for. I don't think there will be many cases where the logs aren't worth reading but the "why this is a nice cache" comments are.

 

For what it's worth, I'm in favour of a rating system, as long as it's anonymous and very, very simple; simple enough that the substantial percentage of cachers who only ever write a log of ten words or less, will actually take the time to fill it in. Perhaps a single checkbox "cool cache" (or not). But I can also list half a dozen disadvantages of that, compared to any other rating system, or none at all.

[Skippermark]

The site is working on a feature to give awards to caches. I have no idea when it will be available.

 

Interesting. Our local forum awards caches with top picks and things like that. You can put a link to it on your cache page.

[+Kit Fox]

frefel,

 

Here is a duplication of what I posted on another ratings thread.

 

I created a thread called Recipe for fun that addresses methods for finding caches that you like.

 

I've always noticed that the caches I enjoyed most, were bookmarked by numerous other cachers, and they almost always have large photo galleries.

 

11 finds, 102 images

3 finds, 114 pictures

2 finds, 288 pictures

 

Now if we can only implement PQ functionality that searches for caches with large photo galleries, and multiple favorite bookmarks.

 

I realize there have been many suggestions to rate caches and none have caught on. I don't know if this idea of mine is original but I see it as a refinement to geocaching to make it more appealing to those who want to use their time for more than just accumulating numbers of finds.

 

Ive tried a similar method with my hides. I've written long descriptions, posted numerous pictures to the gallery (as did finders) and I still get few finders looking for my caches. Six finds in two years, but the logs are all nice and long.

 

frefel,

 

Help other cachers by bookmarking your favorite caches, and taking the time to post nice pictures. This helps cachers like me who look for caches of better quality.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+frefel]

These ideas make a good point or two but, in my humble opinion, are inferior to mine. Trying to judge a cache by indirect methods such as the length of logs, number of photos, where it is hidden, whether it is a micro or not, etc. are all imprecise at best and certainly add work with the need to review comments and sort by macros and bookmarks.

 

My idea is quick and easy both for the person developing the cache and the person seeking it. It does not reflect negatively on other caches and is likely to be unbiased since there is no "award" involved. It is totally optional and unobtrusive, showing up only as an attribute of the cache. Best of all it makes a geocaching session at a place with more caches than I have time to seek much more productive and interesting.

[+Happy Humphrey]

These ideas make a good point or two but, in my humble opinion, are inferior to mine. Trying to judge a cache by indirect methods such as the length of logs, number of photos, where it is hidden, whether it is a micro or not, etc. are all imprecise at best and certainly add work with the need to review comments and sort by macros and bookmarks.

 

My idea is quick and easy both for the person developing the cache and the person seeking it. It does not reflect negatively on other caches and is likely to be unbiased since there is no "award" involved. It is totally optional and unobtrusive, showing up only as an attribute of the cache. Best of all it makes a geocaching session at a place with more caches than I have time to seek much more productive and interesting.

It still looks like a rating system. If I was out caching one day for "numbers" (personally I don't but I can understand those that enjoy this game), then I'd probably want to give all the easy-access, quick micros a thumbs-up of some sort. Using your system, it could end up that almost all caches in an area are "recommended", even the light-pole ones. Or the super, all-day experience type of cache gets lots of feedback but no-one can be bothered to fill in the box for caches that took two minutes, so it looks like they're inferior when in fact they're aimed at a different style of caching.

 

My favourite attempt at solving this problem is that the cache owner does the "recommending" of his/her own cache, by giving the cache a "category" attribute (or more than one); reflecting the inspiration for the hide. The cache owner knows why a particular hide was set up in a certain way; no-one else does. So it should be the cache owner that decides.

 

Once a cache is in a category (perhaps "quick caches near the car", or "adventure caches", or "easy caches with plenty of swaps", or "all-day challenges", or even "caches strictly for numbers" or "fills a gap") then you know straight away which ones to put on your list and which ones to ignore, depending on your preferences for the day. It's similar to bookmark lists, which are a type of categorisation and work quite well as long as you can find one that suits your requirement. You could think of it as being a set of "global" bookmark lists, which everyone is aware of and which are searchable.

 

Surely that's the main point of cache rating, to allow you to easily select suitable caches from a list? And this sidesteps all the bother surrounding the concept of making a cache look "good" when a neighbouring cache isn't.

[+frefel]

These ideas make a good point or two but, in my humble opinion, are inferior to mine. Trying to judge a cache by indirect methods such as the length of logs, number of photos, where it is hidden, whether it is a micro or not, etc. are all imprecise at best and certainly add work with the need to review comments and sort by macros and bookmarks.

 

My idea is quick and easy both for the person developing the cache and the person seeking it. It does not reflect negatively on other caches and is likely to be unbiased since there is no "award" involved. It is totally optional and unobtrusive, showing up only as an attribute of the cache. Best of all it makes a geocaching session at a place with more caches than I have time to seek much more productive and interesting.

It still looks like a rating system. If I was out caching one day for "numbers" (personally I don't but I can understand those that enjoy this game), then I'd probably want to give all the easy-access, quick micros a thumbs-up of some sort. Using your system, it could end up that almost all caches in an area are "recommended", even the light-pole ones. Or the super, all-day experience type of cache gets lots of feedback but no-one can be bothered to fill in the box for caches that took two minutes, so it looks like they're inferior when in fact they're aimed at a different style of caching.

 

My favourite attempt at solving this problem is that the cache owner does the "recommending" of his/her own cache, by giving the cache a "category" attribute (or more than one); reflecting the inspiration for the hide. The cache owner knows why a particular hide was set up in a certain way; no-one else does. So it should be the cache owner that decides.

 

Once a cache is in a category (perhaps "quick caches near the car", or "adventure caches", or "easy caches with plenty of swaps", or "all-day challenges", or even "caches strictly for numbers" or "fills a gap") then you know straight away which ones to put on your list and which ones to ignore, depending on your preferences for the day. It's similar to bookmark lists, which are a type of categorisation and work quite well as long as you can find one that suits your requirement. You could think of it as being a set of "global" bookmark lists, which everyone is aware of and which are searchable.

 

Surely that's the main point of cache rating, to allow you to easily select suitable caches from a list? And this sidesteps all the bother surrounding the concept of making a cache look "good" when a neighbouring cache isn't.

 

I agree that this is a good alternative to what I am suggesting. However the fact that the cache owner categorizes (and rates?) his cache, instead of the finder, does not eliminate the incentive to make the cache "look better than it is" and as such makes it a rating system also. It also involves having a number of categories, which I see as good, but about which many have complained that it would be too complicated. Ideally I would have several categories to check also.

 

In short I would gladly go along with this idea as better than what we presently have but I don't necessarily see it as advantageous over mine. I think I trust the judgment of the finder more than that of the hider.

[+webscouter.]

 

I've always noticed that the caches I enjoyed most, were bookmarked by numerous other cachers, and they almost always have large photo galleries.

 

11 finds, 102 images

3 finds, 114 pictures

2 finds, 288 pictures

 

 

Here is an idea I could support. A simple picture/log ratio searchable in PQ's

[+KoosKoos]

 

I've always noticed that the caches I enjoyed most, were bookmarked by numerous other cachers, and they almost always have large photo galleries.

 

11 finds, 102 images

3 finds, 114 pictures

2 finds, 288 pictures

 

 

Here is an idea I could support. A simple picture/log ratio searchable in PQ's

 

And yet, once again, no "rating" system will be perfect. I put out a cache that is getting rave reviews in our local forum. Several people mentioned they took pictures because they loved it so much and a couple have gone back to the cache because they forgot their cameras the first time.

 

However, the cache has only 2 pictures posted out of the 40 finds since people don't want to give away the fun "surprise" that they discover when they get on-site.

 

Until the site can come up with some true recommendation software - "you and cacher A seem to have the same taste, they rated this cache highly, so you might like it too" a la Amazon - I think any rating system is going to be pretty flawed.

 

At least with an award-based system (that NEEDS to be searchable), you can possibly gauge it a little better if you see "this cache is on 30 people's top 10 list" as opposed to "this cache is rated 8 on a 10 point scale".

 

You still won't know if those 30 people share your taste in a top 10 cache, but it reduces the tendency for people to rate things higher to not be mean to a fellow cacher. (or unfairly punish someone they don't like)

[+webscouter.]

 

I've always noticed that the caches I enjoyed most, were bookmarked by numerous other cachers, and they almost always have large photo galleries.

 

11 finds, 102 images

3 finds, 114 pictures

2 finds, 288 pictures

 

 

Here is an idea I could support. A simple picture/log ratio searchable in PQ's

 

And yet, once again, no "rating" system will be perfect. I put out a cache that is getting rave reviews in our local forum. Several people mentioned they took pictures because they loved it so much and a couple have gone back to the cache because they forgot their cameras the first time.

 

However, the cache has only 2 pictures posted out of the 40 finds since people don't want to give away the fun "surprise" that they discover when they get on-site.

 

Until the site can come up with some true recommendation software - "you and cacher A seem to have the same taste, they rated this cache highly, so you might like it too" a la Amazon - I think any rating system is going to be pretty flawed.

 

At least with an award-based system (that NEEDS to be searchable), you can possibly gauge it a little better if you see "this cache is on 30 people's top 10 list" as opposed to "this cache is rated 8 on a 10 point scale".

 

You still won't know if those 30 people share your taste in a top 10 cache, but it reduces the tendency for people to rate things higher to not be mean to a fellow cacher. (or unfairly punish someone they don't like)

 

Yep your right. It probably won't find EVERY great cache. But it sure would improve the odds that I will like the caches on the list.

[+BigFurryMonster]

They are proposing virtual awards that you could use to to gauge a positive rating by seeing how many awards a cache has been given. So it is a positive only rating.

 

Great! We actually have such a system in place already in the Netherlands. It's called "Geo d'Or" and the rules are extremely simple:

 

For every 20 caches you find, you can give a Gd'O award to one cache you found.

Minimum requirement to participate is to have found 60 caches or more in the Netherlands.

 

It's basically "tell us your top-5% caches".

 

Works like a charm. On geocaching.nl, you can see statistics for caches with Gd'Os, cachers with Gd'Os, caches with highest proportion of Gd'Os (compared to Founds), plot Gd'O caches on a map, etc.

 

As a hider, it feels great to be awarded one or more Gd'Os for your caches. It stimulates me to create cool caches that people will really like.

 

If you can read Dutch, see: http://www.geocaching.nl/cacherating/

[+Glenn]

Therefore I suggest that at the bottom of the "I Found It" login page there be a check box (or several) to designate that cache as one of notable worth in terms of, for example, cleverness, beauty, challenge, etc. There could also be a line to describe in a few words what it is that makes that cache stand out. I would prefer several categories but one would be a vast improvement. Now the lengthy list could be filtered to show only the recommended caches, paring it considerably I suspect.

 

Of course a checked cache would be the subjective opinion of that finder but I still see that as valuable, especially if many agree. It would probably eliminate from my search list the umpteenth micro at the base of a light pole in a WalMart parking lot - a definite benefit.

 

It would be very subjective. I think you'd be very surprised by the number of people who would give a check mark to parking lot lamp post skirt lifter type caches.

 

How is this check mark any better than or an enhancement to an accurate cache description both by the hider and the finders?

[+torado]

Therefore I suggest that at the bottom of the "I Found It" login page there be a check box (or several) to designate that cache as one of notable worth in terms of, for example, cleverness, beauty, challenge, etc. There could also be a line to describe in a few words what it is that makes that cache stand out. I would prefer several categories but one would be a vast improvement. Now the lengthy list could be filtered to show only the recommended caches, paring it considerably I suspect.

 

Of course a checked cache would be the subjective opinion of that finder but I still see that as valuable, especially if many agree. It would probably eliminate from my search list the umpteenth micro at the base of a light pole in a WalMart parking lot - a definite benefit.

 

It would be very subjective. I think you'd be very surprised by the number of people who would give a check mark to parking lot lamp post skirt lifter type caches.

 

How is this check mark any better than or an enhancement to an accurate cache description both by the hider and the finders?

 

Hi all Cachers.

 

I would very much to have a classification of how interesting the cache is to visit. If I go to a place I've never been before, I like to see the most interesting places in the area. Therefore I would like to sort out the caches that are placed at interesting places.

 

I suggest that every time you log a cache there should be a rating to put in, like " Rate this cache from 1 to 5 according to how meaningful the cache is to visit". It must be a simple way of doing this, not a lot of different cathegories or other things, just a simle rating that every one can make a quick desition about. The average ratingt should be published at every cache web site, like the other 2 ratings difficulty and terrain. Like this Difficulty 2 / Terraine 2 / worth visiting 4,2.

 

The rating must be a part of the search factor when I make my pocket queries. So if I go on a 1 week trip to another country, and I want to search for caches that are placed at very meaningful places, then I search for caches with "worth visiting 4 or more. Or if there are only a few, I can choose rating 3 and up.

 

There are too many caches out there that never should have been put out at all because the place is not interesting to visit at all, if you just are chasing numbers, they can be okay, but if you are a turist in a new place, you don't want to visit them. Instead you want some quality, and that must be able to find when you plan for your caching trip.

[+frefel]

Therefore I suggest that at the bottom of the "I Found It" login page there be a check box (or several) to designate that cache as one of notable worth in terms of, for example, cleverness, beauty, challenge, etc. There could also be a line to describe in a few words what it is that makes that cache stand out. I would prefer several categories but one would be a vast improvement. Now the lengthy list could be filtered to show only the recommended caches, paring it considerably I suspect.

 

Of course a checked cache would be the subjective opinion of that finder but I still see that as valuable, especially if many agree. It would probably eliminate from my search list the umpteenth micro at the base of a light pole in a WalMart parking lot - a definite benefit.

 

It would be very subjective. I think you'd be very surprised by the number of people who would give a check mark to parking lot lamp post skirt lifter type caches.

 

How is this check mark any better than or an enhancement to an accurate cache description both by the hider and the finders?

 

Simple, the checked cache shows up as an attribute that can be instantly digitally sorted by the likes of GSAK. You wouldn't need to review the cache description of each and every hide in your PQ. I often set up a PQ for an area I'm unfamiliar with and end up with many more caches than I have time to search for. I prefer to spend my limited time on more "interesting" caches so now I have a reduced list to work with that didn't require me to look at every cache description in the PQ. Of course if there were a couple more catagories to check, such as easy caches or challenging caches, all the better for those into that type of geocaching.

[+tozainamboku]

Therefore I suggest that at the bottom of the "I Found It" login page there be a check box (or several) to designate that cache as one of notable worth in terms of, for example, cleverness, beauty, challenge, etc. There could also be a line to describe in a few words what it is that makes that cache stand out. I would prefer several categories but one would be a vast improvement. Now the lengthy list could be filtered to show only the recommended caches, paring it considerably I suspect.

 

Of course a checked cache would be the subjective opinion of that finder but I still see that as valuable, especially if many agree. It would probably eliminate from my search list the umpteenth micro at the base of a light pole in a WalMart parking lot - a definite benefit.

 

It would be very subjective. I think you'd be very surprised by the number of people who would give a check mark to parking lot lamp post skirt lifter type caches.

 

How is this check mark any better than or an enhancement to an accurate cache description both by the hider and the finders?

 

Simple, the checked cache shows up as an attribute that can be instantly digitally sorted by the likes of GSAK. You wouldn't need to review the cache description of each and every hide in your PQ. I often set up a PQ for an area I'm unfamiliar with and end up with many more caches than I have time to search for. I prefer to spend my limited time on more "interesting" caches so now I have a reduced list to work with that didn't require me to look at every cache description in the PQ. Of course if there were a couple more catagories to check, such as easy caches or challenging caches, all the better for those into that type of geocaching.

I'd prefer to see some enhancements to bookmark lists then. The bookmark list currently implements much of your proposal. A premium member can setup public bookmark lists for whatever cache attributes they want: clever hide, scenic view, historic locations, etc. They can then add caches to the bookmark lists that apply. It is fairly easy for any other premium members to get a PQ based on any public bookmark list. By making the list shared as well as public, there will be a link to the list from each cache page that is on the list. Once you find an historic cache or a night cache that is on a bookmark list anyone can click the link to find other caches in that category.

 

The problem now is finding the lists that already exist. Groundspeak should develop a search for bookmark lists based on both keyword and the location of caches in the list, and sorted by rating of those who found the list useful. If cachers could find interesting bookmark lists easier I would think they would solve the problem of those looking for certain kinds of caches.

 

Another issue is keeping the bookmark list up to date. I would like to see group managed bookmark lists, similar to Waymarking categories. Allow anyone to nominate cache to a list and have any group officer be able to approve the addition if the cache is appropriate. This is because without review people would nominate caches to a list where they don't belong just to get it on more lists. This is the main issue I see with OP suggestion - people will checkoff attributes that are not appropriate to the cache. There will undoubtedly be complaints about miscategorized caches. I understand that OP's suggestion would likely only assign a cache to an attribute if got a certain number of votes or a certain percentage of votes. But since many caches are not found that often I don't think you'd have enough votes to avoid abuse. And for some subjective attributes, what the majority thinks may not agree with what I think.

 

Rather than implementing a new idea which may be subject to abuse, I'd rather see the existing capability refined to provide the same kind of support for cachers looking for ways to sort through caches to find the ones they feel they are more likely to enjoy.