Jump to content

Top 10 Rating System


Tavisman
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I was reading the 'Extra-credits for hiders, Ideas to increase cache quality and reward hiders' thread and noted Isonzo Karst post about cache rating. Basically Lep’s Favourites idea and Coyote Red’s log word count idea.

 

I’m a newbie and although I have done a search of the forums I would first like to apologise if this has already been raised. I would just like to add my ideas...

 

I’m not in favour of Coyote Red’s log word count as I try my best to write as much as possible to a log, but it sometimes depends on my time constraints and even the mood I‘m in at the time. Also in the past I have written more for a 'cache 'n dash'micro than others see GC1E340 SPOOKY LANES for an example.

 

I do like Lep’s Favourites idea but I would like to proposal a simpler method. On the profile page we hade a top 10 list of your favourite caches (which could be changed as and when). A 1st gives 10 points, 2nd gives 9 points … 10th gives 1 point. When you visit the cache details page cache rating is then given as the average points collected from people’s top 10 list. An average of 10 points gives 5 stars, 9 points = 4½ stars etc…

 

It’s works on a regional basis (which is good) and it’s doesn’t judge all caches based on the geocacher’s preference (I.e. some like micros, some like ammo boxes) and it’s not prone to defaulting. What do you think?

Link to comment

I love the idea of a rating system. It sure would save time on the trail. I think you may want to add one more facet to the overall system however. Instead of a "Top Ten", just rate the caches from 1-10, within their size group and type. The system could easily handle the placement of rating votes. So a vote given to a particular cache would then be 1 thru ten for a (Micro, Small, Medium etc), (Traditional, Multi, etc). This way you would be able to select the top caches of any type that you prefer, and it would be rated relative to other caches of similar size and type as well. That is the power of a relational database doing it's best work!

Of course, having worked with databases myself, I know how much work this would be to set up. But in the end, you would increase the value of the database exponentially as an effective tool for custom selections.

Just my two cents for what it's worth. :D

 

I was reading the 'Extra-credits for hiders, Ideas to increase cache quality and reward hiders' thread and noted Isonzo Karst post about cache rating. Basically Lep’s Favourites idea and Coyote Red’s log word count idea.

 

I’m a newbie and although I have done a search of the forums I would first like to apologise if this has already been raised. I would just like to add my ideas...

 

I’m not in favour of Coyote Red’s log word count as I try my best to write as much as possible to a log, but it sometimes depends on my time constraints and even the mood I‘m in at the time. Also in the past I have written more for a 'cache 'n dash'micro than others see GC1E340 SPOOKY LANES for an example.

 

I do like Lep’s Favourites idea but I would like to proposal a simpler method. On the profile page we hade a top 10 list of your favourite caches (which could be changed as and when). A 1st gives 10 points, 2nd gives 9 points … 10th gives 1 point. When you visit the cache details page cache rating is then given as the average points collected from people’s top 10 list. An average of 10 points gives 5 stars, 9 points = 4½ stars etc…

 

It’s works on a regional basis (which is good) and it’s doesn’t judge all caches based on the geocacher’s preference (I.e. some like micros, some like ammo boxes) and it’s not prone to defaulting. What do you think?

Link to comment
Of course, having worked with databases myself...

:D I’m a DBA.

 

That’s fine but you are asking finders to rate when they place a ‘find log’. If a geocacher has found 100+ caches in a day, they may not have the time to rate the cache, so will accept the default (which may be 1 or something else). With my suggestion geocachers will have more time to think through why they chose their top ten caches on their own profile page.

 

Hey, you could have a textbox for small comments as to why you think the cache is your favourite cache. The comments could then be shown on the cache details page.

Link to comment

I would love to see a rating system of some kind to help me steer clear of getting run over by traffic while looking in guard rails on the side of busy roads. I prefer quality over quantity and to tell you the truth, I'm sick of Lampposts and film canisters. I think Seekers' idea of a 1-10 scale on each cache is the way to go because each cache is logged on the site to get the smiley so people are already visiting each cache's page. Why not have them click on a star icon or a drop down menu? I would do it for sure every time. I would love to see a system in place to help cachers like me (with very little precious time) to "weed out" the run-of-the-mill stuff and find the high quality caches.

 

Skunkworks7

Link to comment

I would love to see a rating system of some kind to help me steer clear of getting run over by traffic while looking in guard rails on the side of busy roads. I prefer quality over quantity and to tell you the truth, I'm sick of Lampposts and film canisters. I think Seekers' idea of a 1-10 scale on each cache is the way to go because each cache is logged on the site to get the smiley so people are already visiting each cache's page. Why not have them click on a star icon or a drop down menu? I would do it for sure every time. I would love to see a system in place to help cachers like me (with very little precious time) to "weed out" the run-of-the-mill stuff and find the high quality caches.

 

Skunkworks7

 

the problem is that so many people prefer guardrails and lampposts.

 

people mostly hide the caches they wold like to find, and the indicators are that if you used the ratings, you'd get the favorite guardrail series.

Link to comment

..... I would like to proposal a simpler method. On the profile page we hade a top 10 list of your favourite caches (which could be changed as and when). A 1st gives 10 points, 2nd gives 9 points … 10th gives 1 point. When you visit the cache details page cache rating is then given as the average points collected from people’s top 10 list. An average of 10 points gives 5 stars, 9 points = 4½ stars etc…

 

It’s works on a regional basis (which is good) and it’s doesn’t judge all caches based on the geocacher’s preference (I.e. some like micros, some like ammo boxes) and it’s not prone to defaulting. What do you think?

 

I would weight it a bit differently.. Rather than using a top 10 list, let everyone list one cache per hundred found. A top 10 list chosen from 11 caches might not be very relevant. Determining what to do with favorites that are archived would have to be addressed.

Link to comment

I do like Lep’s Favourites idea but I would like to proposal a simpler method. On the profile page we hade a top 10 list of your favourite caches (which could be changed as and when). A 1st gives 10 points, 2nd gives 9 points … 10th gives 1 point. When you visit the cache details page cache rating is then given as the average points collected from people’s top 10 list. An average of 10 points gives 5 stars, 9 points = 4½ stars etc…

 

It’s works on a regional basis (which is good) and it’s doesn’t judge all caches based on the geocacher’s preference (I.e. some like micros, some like ammo boxes) and it’s not prone to defaulting. What do you think?

 

A problem I see with a system like this is that you don't know why people are giving the cache a high rating. I like the bookmark list feature better because if you want you can set up your own top 10 list and you can include a little write up for each cache in the bookmark so that others know why you liked the cache.

 

I just spent a little time geocaching outside of my "home" area. I found that the remarks that people left when they logged their cache to be a great way to gauge if I should spend my time looking for the cache or if I should skip it. I spent a little extra time downloading the PDF version of cache pages with logs to my PDA and it was well worth it. I just wish there was a bulk PDF download option so that it wouldn't take as long.

Link to comment

...What do you think?

 

This is what I think. There are three rating systems that would work. Each would mean something a bit different.

 

CR's method would work in that better caches tend to get longer logs. Yes there are pitfalls but the more logs a cache has the more likely it is to 'average out' those problems. What you get here is a "The tribe has spoken" rating when enough of the tribe has found the cache. Older caches that are worth a visit would start to stand out.

 

Keystone's idea and a couple of "Hey this is one of the best" votes would tend to bubble up the best of the best over time. Again it's a "The Tribe has spoken" method. Both Keystone and CR accomplish much the same thing. CR with perhaps less programming effort.

 

The Netflix (Affinity) method works in a completly different way. "Out best guess of what you would think of this cache based on others who rate caches like you". Then you can see what caches you would want to visit based on projected enjoyment. These would reflect your ecletic tastes and you would not miss the ones you would like that the "Tribe" didn't. Overall I like this method the best though even here a few "The Tribe Has spoken" caches would stand out. So would a few "This cache was voted off the island" types though those may be harder to find because of how this system works. Using this system with Netflix thus far seems to work well enough.

Link to comment

I would love to see a rating system of some kind to help me steer clear of getting run over by traffic while looking in guard rails on the side of busy roads. I prefer quality over quantity and to tell you the truth, I'm sick of Lampposts and film canisters. I think Seekers' idea of a 1-10 scale on each cache is the way to go because each cache is logged on the site to get the smiley so people are already visiting each cache's page. Why not have them click on a star icon or a drop down menu? I would do it for sure every time. I would love to see a system in place to help cachers like me (with very little precious time) to "weed out" the run-of-the-mill stuff and find the high quality caches.

 

Skunkworks7

 

the problem is that so many people prefer guardrails and lampposts.

 

people mostly hide the caches they wold like to find, and the indicators are that if you used the ratings, you'd get the favorite guardrail series.

AARRRGGHHH!

 

For purposes of illustration and ease of orientation, I have rendered in bold the relevant text above to which I shall be responding in this post.

 

Can we be real for a moment, rather than trying so hard to be so gol-darn nauseatingly politically correct (PC)? Can we, just for a moment at least, stop being PC and talk the plain truth about the geocachers who prefer to find guardrail and lamppost caches and other lame urban caches? Okay, if none of your will do it, I will do it; here goes:

 

The plain and simple reality is that 99.9% of the "geocachers" who prefer to find guardrail and lamppost caches and other lame urban caches are not really humans at all, and a simple DNA test (which can even be administered in the field) will reveal that they are not true humans but rather shapeshifting alien beings from a distant star system who are merely mimicking humans in order to advance their agenda of taking over our world. And, their activities of hiding and finding LUMs is just one of 455 different covert tools/routes/endeavors in which they are engaging to demoralize the remaining true humans on earth and to pollute our precious bodily fluids and to thus render us (i.e., the remaining true humans) more easy to defeat when they stage their "revolution" to take over all of earth.

 

So why are we mollycoddling these non-human alien shapesfhifters? Have we as a people become namby-pamby and morally decadent that we would rather be "politically correct" and pretend that these hiders of LUMs are real humans, rather than calling the invaders they are, and rather than calling the invasion by its proper name?

 

Huh? Hello? Are there ANY other humans left in geocaching who are sickened by the nauseating and incessant PC molly-coddling of these alien invaders and their gol-darned LUM geocaches? Huh?

 

 

 

.

Link to comment

Top 10 isn't enough to get rankings out to many many caches. Top 1% isn't quite enough either.

 

Caches on a top 10% list might start working to bubble the top up. Just a simple count of the number of cachers that added a cache to a list out of xx visitors. But still too easily manipulated. Still that is my favorite.

 

Thanks Vinny - been wanting to point that out for a while but thought they might start the assimulation process a little quicker if I did.

Link to comment
CR with perhaps less programming effort.

That, the data is already there, and there is no additional effort on the part of the person who finds a cache. They just keep doing what they do right now.

 

I use it with GSAK because I'm lucky enough to have a large database of the logs that go with the caches. I'm sure I don't have all of the logs nor logs that may have changed later.

 

This system works pretty good for me because I'm looking for caches that are more memorable. Folks tend to be more wordy on memorable caches. When looking for the cream of the crop to include in a trip or looking to eliminate caches from your database, this system works great. For me, a cache with the median word count of 5, max of 14, and has been found 12 times is one I can safely eliminate from the database--why waste my time? Then again, a cache with a median of 122, minimum of 20, average of 142, max of 296, and found 31 times is something that piques my interest--I'll probably find it interesting as well.

 

As for giving different points in the ranking of a top ten list, well, I probably give a particular ranking to the ones in my top ten. It wouldn't be fair. I don't think you need to put that fine of detail on the rating. Being on a Top X list should be enough. Where it is on an individuals list is irrelevant.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...