Feature Request: Bookmark List Ratings

[+IthacaDoodle]

I didn't see this discussed elsewhere -

 

I am wondering about the practice of rating bookmark lists. One of my public lists recently received a "not useful" rating from someone who misunderstood the content and intent of the list. I have no way to contact this person to explain and no way to rectify this negative ranking. I think that bookmark ratings - both positive and negative - should be tied to the ranker's account name for accountability.

 

Amazon faced a similar situation and made all reviews and comments there attributable to a specific user, and I think the same should be done here on geocaching.com.

 

thanks for considering this, Heidi of ithacadoodle

[+mtn-man]

Moving to the proper forum.

[Mr.Yuck]

I didn't see this discussed elsewhere -

 

I am wondering about the practice of rating bookmark lists. One of my public lists recently received a "not useful" rating from someone who misunderstood the content and intent of the list. I have no way to contact this person to explain and no way to rectify this negative ranking. I think that bookmark ratings - both positive and negative - should be tied to the ranker's account name for accountability.

 

Amazon faced a similar situation and made all reviews and comments there attributable to a specific user, and I think the same should be done here on geocaching.com.

 

thanks for considering this, Heidi of ithacadoodle

 

Yep, that wasn't nice giving you a negative rating! I would agree they don't understand the content and intent of your list. Lots of people get negative ratings on "FTF" bookmark lists. I've seen some of them with 10 or more negative ratings, and not a single thumbs up. I'd just forget about it. If it bothers you that much, you could blow the list away and recreate it, and they'll probably never even notice, or bother leaving feedback again. There's been a little discussion about this subject over the years (bookmark lists came out in early 2005), but I would tend to think it's not going to receive major attention.

 

That reminds me, I have 2 sour grapes, just to be spiteful, negative ratings on one of my bookmark lists. I forgot all about that.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Curious? did you receive email notification of that rating? I think that bookmarked lists owners did get notification at one time, but I haven't lately.

 

I'd ignore that one rating - it almost reads as if the rater was on the wrong list, calling it a personal list. There are plenty of historic cache lists, most people like them.

[+trainlove]

I have no way to contact this person to explain and no way to rectify this negative ranking.

Why is there complete anonymity in reviewing BookMark lists? Just about everywhere else on the web site there is none, except for Watchlists. Even PM caches let you know who's looking at them unless they do so using an unstandard way.

 

And why can't one see at a glance if a particular bookmark list, among a dozen on a particular cache, has had any review given or is awaiting a review?

Edited December 11, 2008 by trainlove

[+IthacaDoodle]

Thanks TWU and IK for your kind responses. I have never received an email notification alerting me to new rankings on my booklists but I do check them infrequently. I've recently deleted a few lists so that I could make new ones and that is when I saw the negative comment.

 

I was perhaps too sensitive, but it still seems a good idea to make all correspondence attributable to the author to avoid the opportunity for anonymous flaming (whether intentional or, in this case, misguided). When you post a ranking, the site says that it will be anonymous but linked to your account for reference, so that information is there and just needs to be made visible.

 

I admit it is a small point, but is no one else having an issue with negative and anonymous comments on bookmark lists?

[+StarBrand]

I agree fully - any rankings should be directly tied to a user account - gives much more credability.

[+Prime Suspect]

I think the existence of this thread explains why the ratings are anonymous.

[+pppingme]

I think the existence of this thread explains why the ratings are anonymous.

Since you post a lot of negative responses and tend to be down on everyone, I guess I can see why you would want this.

[+Prime Suspect]

I think the existence of this thread explains why the ratings are anonymous.

Since you post a lot of negative responses and tend to be down on everyone, I guess I can see why you would want this.

I give your post 2 lollipops, 3 rainbows, and a unicorn. Happy?

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'm okay with anonymous ratings. A rating that is abusive can be reported to the general contact@geocaching.com address, and the user identified by Groundspeak.

 

Otherwise, it's unlikely that you'd see many negative ratings. When bookmarked lists were new, there was much complaint about them - and then the bookmarks themselves became subject to ratings, with the notion that 5 negative ratings would remove a bookmarked list from a cache page. I have no idea if that removal actually happens; if it was ever coded into the site.

 

I have a bookmarked list with some ratings that seem utterly disconnected to the list, and a rating like that on your list, basically just a complaint that the bookmarked list "clutters" the cache page and should be private.

Re the ratings that don't seem to properly attach to the list, I wonder if they may just be a bug; there are assorted bugs with lists, that (rating to wrong list) might be one of them. Or it could be pilot error> simply posting to the wrong list.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm okay with anonymous ratings. A rating that is abusive can be reported to the general contact@geocaching.com address, and the user identified by Groundspeak.

 

Otherwise, it's unlikely that you'd see many negative ratings. When bookmarked lists were new, there was much complaint about them - and then the bookmarks themselves became subject to ratings, with the notion that 5 negative ratings would remove a bookmarked list from a cache page. I have no idea if that removal actually happens; if it was ever coded into the site.

 

I have a bookmarked list with some ratings that seem utterly disconnected to the list, and a rating like that on your list, basically just a complaint that the bookmarked list "clutters" the cache page and should be private.

Re the ratings that don't seem to properly attach to the list, I wonder if they may just be a bug; there are assorted bugs with lists, that (rating to wrong list) might be one of them. Or it could be pilot error> simply posting to the wrong list.

 

First of all, that exchange between Prime Suspect and Potato Finder is too funny.

 

Second of all, I can definitely remember a "50% negative rating rule" for having bookmark lists removed from a page being promised, but never implemented. I just looked at a FTF bookmark list with 0 positive and 9 negative, and it sure shows up on the cache pages. I'm sure I could find several other FTF bookmark list with similar ratings as well.

 

Third of all, good point, it's very possible with all the bugs on bookmark lists that the wrong feedback could be occasionally attached to the wrong bookmark list! I'd still lean towards pilot error in most cases though.

[+J-Way]

A quick starting guess would be that the poster is the owner of one of the 11 caches in that list, or possibly someone who found one of those cachers sometime around 12/3/08 (date of rating).

 

Maybe email those people and ask?

 

I agree that the comment sounds like the rater completely mis-understood the purpose of the list.

[+Corey]

Second of all, I can definitely remember a "50% negative rating rule" for having bookmark lists removed from a page being promised, but never implemented.

I believe they did implement this.

Bookmark rating rules: If, after receiving a minimum of 5 ratings, a bookmark has less than 50% favorable votes it will disappear from cache pages. This has always been the rule but it didn't work properly until now.

Although apparently it's not always working.