Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
JZRed

rating system for Geocaching.com

Recommended Posts

Hi Groudspeak.

 

I often hear in that last time, realy load screams of people here in Germany. A lot of them want a rating system for Cache Stashs on the Groundspeak platform.

 

Do you think it ist poosible to develop someone?

 

Background.

As you know the numbers of Caches rise day by day. Each Cacher feels qualified to place a Cache in his enverimoment. From my point of view leads this development to a lot of Cacheboxes which are hiden under Wasteboxes or in beam barriers beside the roads. Three years ago when I start with my wonderful "Sport". I thougt. Each Cache is worthy to vist. I went on wonderfuls trails and visit perfect nice and charming locations naturaly I was on the hunt for smilies

 

Today the world has changed a bit. A lot of cache stashes are hide because every Cachers feels "bad" If he is not a owner of any kind of Cache. These kind of Caches ar realy often perfect for a fast hunt. But for Cachers who wants to break out of a busy word of stress, these kind of caches are not visible at the first view. Thats a pity....

 

So my question is.

Is there something in the working pipeline?

If yes, whats the schedule of implementing?

If no, why not? (The features of the last time are wonderful but the above mentioned system is from my point of view a major change which we need to reach a high qualtiy of Cache on this platform)

 

Thanks for answers

 

Regards

 

JZ

Share this post


Link to post

Oy. No offense, but did you search at all for this issue. If you had, you would have found that it is discussion almost weekly.

 

Here's a currently active thread on the subject and some others.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...1&hl=rating

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...8&hl=rating

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...hlite=%2Brating

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what would happen if anyone who had previously discussed the issue in detail never responded to this threads and no one referred to old threads. What would be the outcome of these new threads? Would these new discussion participants come to a different conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what would happen if anyone who had previously discussed the issue in detail never responded to this threads and no one referred to old threads. What would be the outcome of these new threads? Would these new discussion participants come to a different conclusion?

Interesting question, and probably it would.

 

Cachers who are only in it for the numbers and for large group hunts typically don't want a rating system that could discourage placement of lots of generic easy caches used to rapidly increase find counts. Cachers who could care less about numbers and are simply trying to find a way to sort through hundreds of park-n-grab LPCs to find those one or two awesome caches DO want a rating system. Newer cachers who haven't caught the numbers bug are in one sub-group that typically wants a rating system, so if we limited the discussion to only newer players the trend should lean heavily toward "Yes, we want a rating system!".

 

Personally, I, along with (I believe) the majority of cachers would like some sort of rating system. I would prefer a three (Below Average, Good, Amazing) or five (Poor, Below Average, Good, Above Average, Amazing) point system similar to eBay's. Or an official "Top 10%" list where people can put up to 10% of their favorite finds on a public list for others to see (caches on lots of lists would generally be better than caches on zero lists).

Share this post


Link to post

I would rather see: Quick, Decent, Exciting, TOP 10 (leave off words that can hurt) wow me Mr non PC just said that - wow!

 

and you....

Share this post


Link to post

The OP reflects why this topic comes up over and over and over again. There are too many caches for anyone to find all the caches. So people are looking for ways to find the cache they are most likely to enjoy and avoid the caches they might not enjoy as much. There really should be a discussion of how to use the tools we have to accomplish this and what additional tools can be added to make it easier.

 

I have no idea why people think that allowing finders to rate caches would have any effect on the number of "good" vs. "bad" caches or why people are convinced that average ratings would reflect their personal tastes. But I do understand the frustration that many people have in trying to select which caches they might like to find.

Share this post


Link to post

A rating system wouldn't do much for me. Everyone has adifferent idea of what good is. If I'm in the mood for a numbers run, I'd rate all guardrail caches found that day as best because they did what I wanted, a quick find.

 

If I'm looking for a scenic hike in the woods I'd use the Geocaching Maps to find ones I want to do.

 

We generally pick an area and will grab all the caches nearby and don't really look at them before going there. I couldn't tell you the terrain difficulty ratings on most we do while out.

 

That said if it would help others it wouldn't bother me if they were there. If someone likes or dislikes it most will tell you in their logs.

Share this post


Link to post

I strongly agree with the top 10% lists - would be easy to implement alogside bookmark lists. Then just need to add a way to see the number of top 10 lists any particular cache was on. An search for those of course.

Share this post


Link to post
I strongly agree with the top 10% lists - would be easy to implement alogside bookmark lists. Then just need to add a way to see the number of top 10 lists any particular cache was on. An search for those of course.
I don't think the number of top-ten lists will be useful by itself. Imagine an old cache in an urban park. It might have 500 finds. If only 1% mark it as a favorite (it's much nicer than the LPCs in the neighborhood parking lots), that's 5 top-ten lists. Now imagine a remote cache. It's just as old, but the 5-star terrain requires one day to hike in and another day to hike out, so it has been found only 5 times. But it's a favorite of everyone who found it, so that's 5 top-ten lists. Now imagine a 5-star puzzle. Sure, the cache itself is just a keyholder in a typical location, but the puzzle is so clever that the cache is a favorite of half the 10 people who have managed to solve it.

 

All these caches would be on 5 top-ten lists, but how is that meaningful?

 

You could look at the ratio of top-ten lists to total finds, but I don't think that's any more useful on its own. I really don't care what caches are the favorites of people who don't like the same kinds of caches that I do.

 

If the system could look at my favorites and at the favorites of people who like the same kinds of caches that I do, then it might be useful. And that's the kind of "you might also enjoy" recommendation system that TPTB have expressed interest in implementing.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a reason that this topic come up constantly. It is what [some] users want and what [some] users would find helpful.

 

I am all for it.

 

Hey! You! Yeah, you! Why don't you go start a petition? I am sure there would be a lot of takers...

Share this post


Link to post

All these caches would be on 5 top-ten lists, but how is that meaningful?

The top ten list approach just means that several people have recommended this cache. People who like puzzles may recommend some puzzle they like because of the puzzle itself, and some people who like tough hikes will recommend the tough hike even though the cache is just a ordinary tupperware under a pile of sticks. But I suspect that many recommendations will be because the cache is cleverly hidden or in a really cool place. You will also see the favorite lists that the caches are on. If you find one you like you've got five lists to check for caches someone liked that you might like as well. My guess is that this will be most useful for finding caches when you are traveling. Trying to match your favorites with someone else's favorites won't work well if you have no cache in common, which is likely to be the case if you are traveling. I suspect that many people want a system to find the "best" caches when they are traveling. But the top ten proposal will also help people who are afraid to ignore all 1/1 micros because they might miss a few good ones; they could run PQs to find recommended 1/1 micros to supplement the larger size or higher D/T caches they generally prefer to find.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to say that,

 

but a top 10 List is not the requirment I have. It's nice to have but did not display what I want.

 

I like to have a possibility to avoid micro/nano cashs placed in a "dirty" or absoluty uninterssant environment.

 

I like to have a chance to see a good cache with a great riddle oder great hike or a nice story combind with a good location on the fist view, w/o reading each Log in the Listing.

 

For me it is a good solution to put into the Log sreen "ONE" criterium "Quality of Cache" this could be shown in the listing beside Diff and Terrain.

 

I know that this is just a "start" which can be developed.

 

In my eyes this could be good starting point.

 

Regards from Germany

 

JZRed

 

P.S. Yesterday I found the following Link:

 

http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php

Edited by JZRed

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing that Groundspeak will say that only 200 people would use it...

 

I'd like to have a rating system.

Share this post


Link to post

All these caches would be on 5 top-ten lists, but how is that meaningful?

Easy. None of the local LPCs and GRCs would be on 5 top-ten lists. When I'm visiting a new area on business I waste lots of pre-planning time trying to find interesting caches to seek in the limited search time available to me (I'm usually with other people who don't cache, and we typically work really LOOOOONG hours on site visits). If I could run a PQ that only shows caches on a few top-ten lists I could very quickly cull the list of potential caches down from hundreds (sometimes thousands) to maybe a few dozen. If this list doesn't net any caches I consider worth my time I'll widen the search.

 

Yes, I realize that somebody else's favorite might not be my favorite. Somebody will probably put a hide-a-key under a dumpster on a "favorites" list as a joke. That brand-new yet totally awesome un-found cache won't be on any lists and would be missed using this search method. NO rating system is perfect because my idea of the perfect cache might be despised by another cacher. And that other cacher is welcome to that opinion and deserves a rating system that works for them too. But this method would be far FAR better than the method we have now, which is basically nothing. So I must slowly sift through all the chaff trying to find the occasional bit of golden wheat.

 

A normal rating system (bad, average, good, whatever words you chose) would also be better than nothing, but people cache differently that I do. I know people who would rate all park-n-grabs toward the "good" end of the rating system and all caches requiring long hikes toward the "bad" end. Why? They go for numbers, and a long walk slows them down. Then there is the local wheelchair-bound cacher who thinks that cache over there is a "bad" cache because it's wrongly rated as a 1-star terrain and they can't get to it, even though it's at an overlook with an awesome view.

 

Back to the OP, "Quality" is a highly variable descriptor of a geocache. It varies from country to country, region to region, and person to person. It even varies within the same person over time (I can think of at least one cache that I thought was cool when I first found it years ago, but now I consider very low quality). Who would assign "Quality" points? The hider (all my caches are awesome)? The finders (see previous paragraph)? There is very little chance that TPTB will ever add a public "Quality" designation to a cache description.

Share this post


Link to post

I like to have a possibility to avoid micro/nano cashs placed in a "dirty" or absoluty uninterssant environment.

 

I like to have a chance to see a good cache with a great riddle oder great hike or a nice story combind with a good location on the fist view, w/o reading each Log in the Listing.

 

Pocket Queries are your friends here. First you should limit the sizes to regular and large, maybe small. Then set up the minimum difficulty and terrain to something like 2 or 2.5. Then see if the caches turned up by this better fit your idea of a quality cache. For me it works.

 

Caveat: You have to drop the numbers game. And more importantly you must stop thinking about "missing" any caches. You are only searching for the next interesting caches, not for all caches. This would also be true with a rating system as then you would "limit" yourself to quality rated caches (otherwise there would be no point to have one).

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to say that,

 

but a top 10 List is not the requirment I have. It's nice to have but did not display what I want.

 

I like to have a possibility to avoid micro/nano cashs placed in a "dirty" or absoluty uninterssant environment.

 

I like to have a chance to see a good cache with a great riddle oder great hike or a nice story combind with a good location on the fist view, w/o reading each Log in the Listing.

 

For me it is a good solution to put into the Log sreen "ONE" criterium "Quality of Cache" this could be shown in the listing beside Diff and Terrain.

 

I know that this is just a "start" which can be developed.

 

In my eyes this could be good starting point.

 

Regards from Germany

 

JZRed

 

P.S. Yesterday I found the following Link:

 

http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php

You are assuming that ALL cachers will see "quality" in the same light as you. Look through these forums - you can quickly discover that some people pefer certain types over others. A wheelchair bound individual is going to rate caches along the local pathway as quality because they can reach them. An outdoor enthusist will rate the same caches low because they provided no long walk. A kid will rate any cache with low quality swag as low while and adult might appreciate the unique container despite the contents. A simple "quality" rating is just going to have a bunch of 3 star caches. It won't tell if you if you will enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post

You are assuming that ALL cachers will see "quality" in the same light as you. Look through these forums - you can quickly discover that some people pefer certain types over others. A wheelchair bound individual is going to rate caches along the local pathway as quality because they can reach them. An outdoor enthusist will rate the same caches low because they provided no long walk. A kid will rate any cache with low quality swag as low while and adult might appreciate the unique container despite the contents. A simple "quality" rating is just going to have a bunch of 3 star caches. It won't tell if you if you will enjoy it.

 

Yes Quality and Preference are different. I give the geocachers credit for knowing the difference and think a rating system will work. Could be as simple as when you record your 100th, 200th etc cache a page appears for you to add your favorite of the past hundred caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I like to have a possibility to avoid micro/nano cashs placed in a "dirty" or absoluty uninterssant environment.

 

I like to have a chance to see a good cache with a great riddle oder great hike or a nice story combind with a good location on the fist view, w/o reading each Log in the Listing.

 

Pocket Queries are your friends here. First you should limit the sizes to regular and large, maybe small. Then set up the minimum difficulty and terrain to something like 2 or 2.5. Then see if the caches turned up by this better fit your idea of a quality cache. For me it works.

 

Caveat: You have to drop the numbers game. And more importantly you must stop thinking about "missing" any caches. You are only searching for the next interesting caches, not for all caches. This would also be true with a rating system as then you would "limit" yourself to quality rated caches (otherwise there would be no point to have one).

 

PQ are not my friend because I like Micos/Nannos If they are placed in a nice or "worthy" enverioment!!

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to say that,

 

but a top 10 List is not the requirment I have. It's nice to have but did not display what I want.

 

..........

 

http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php

You are assuming that ALL cachers will see "quality" in the same light as you. Look through these forums - you can quickly discover that some people pefer certain types over others. A wheelchair bound individual is going to rate caches along the local pathway as quality because they can reach them. An outdoor enthusist will rate the same caches low because they provided no long walk. A kid will rate any cache with low quality swag as low while and adult might appreciate the unique container despite the contents. A simple "quality" rating is just going to have a bunch of 3 star caches. It won't tell if you if you will enjoy it.

 

Thanks for this answer. I am aware of different understandings of "Quality" but I can not imagine that a lot of people like wasty places and futher the result of the program like GC-Vote mentioned above show me that I am right. The evalution of Caches around me are OK and I can share(meaning: live with this result) it.

 

With this simple rating system you are able to see: This cache could be nice or not. Without any views into the Listing.

 

Some days ago there was no need for a rating System because there are not so many (to many?) caches online. Today the situation changed dramaticly. Let me make an example: If I made an PQ with all cache around my Home Koords. I see caches in a distance of max. 30km. Which one is worhty to visit? I didn't know it, also I have 2. possibilities. 1. asked someone. 2. I have to check it Listing by Listing. Thats a work I didn't like.... With a simple tool I can minimize my own effort

 

Regards JZ

Share this post


Link to post

Chances are in the long run that the majority of cachers will give high marks for the same caches.

 

Couldn't it be something as simple as "72% of cachers would recommend this cache". Maybe this would come into effect after a certain number of find logs...

 

Now where is that petition?

Share this post


Link to post

PQ are not my friend because I like Micos/Nannos If they are placed in a nice or "worthy" enverioment!!

 

As I said: You have to get rid of the idea to "miss" any caches for this to work. The same would be true with a rating system. What about the great but remote cache which is rarely found and likely not rated at all? You would "miss" it. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
PQ are not my friend because I like Micos/Nannos If they are placed in a nice or "worthy" enverioment!!

Why not use the existing tools such as the satellite maps to "look" at the spot before going there?

 

If you see the spot is in a parking lot or it's behind a building with loading docks in the picture, chances are it won't be "worthy," but if you see that it's at the end of a dead end road, overlooking a lake or ocean, it will most likely be a nice view from the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

If I load the GPS with a bunch of caches and head out it is possible that I will have one or two caches in areas that I will not search. I'm not saying that they should not be there just that I won't hunt for them. Two spots that come to mind that I regularly walk away from are playground caches and scenic dumpster vistas. I would rate both low and I'm sure some others would to. But because I don't look for them that leaves those that do to rate them. They will rate them higher than those of us who walk away would. The result is a rating that is higher than the cache deserves and that rating won't do any good to help avoid such caches.

 

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

 

Any rating system needs to be tailored for each user or it is useless. The results should be invisible. Rate the cache one several different criteria and the system returns not what the average rating is but rather a list. "Cachers who rated this cache like you did rated these caches highly." I'm no programmer but I'm sure something similar could be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too.

 

It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund.

Share this post


Link to post

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too.

 

It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund.

That's called mediocrity. There are other sites that have tried to control the quality of the ratings, but it still comes down to them being easily manipulated and skewed. I call that politics. If it's going to be implemented, I want mine opted out not opted in by default. I don't care for the idea in any implementation that's been brought up and I've seen this bandied about since I joined.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too.

 

It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund.

 

See, that right there is my point. You'd give it a thumbs up if you thought it was a cut above. I won't even look for it so my thumbs down won't be cast and thus can't average out your opinion. We end up with a playground cache that is highly rated yet for me that rating is useless in helping me maximize my caching experience.

Share this post


Link to post

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too.

 

It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund.

That's called mediocrity. There are other sites that have tried to control the quality of the ratings, but it still comes down to them being easily manipulated and skewed. I call that politics. If it's going to be implemented, I want mine opted out not opted in by default. I don't care for the idea in any implementation that's been brought up and I've seen this bandied about since I joined.

 

I've gotta say, I'd rather no rating system than an open popularity contest. A system that is based around user preference is not that open contest. Nothing on the cache page to indicate that it is popular cache. The only return is to the individual user who gets a list that says "others who rated this cache similar to you also enjoyed these caches."

Share this post


Link to post
PQ are not my friend because I like Micos/Nannos If they are placed in a nice or "worthy" enverioment!!

Why not use the existing tools such as the satellite maps to "look" at the spot before going there?

 

If you see the spot is in a parking lot or it's behind a building with loading docks in the picture, chances are it won't be "worthy," but if you see that it's at the end of a dead end road, overlooking a lake or ocean, it will most likely be a nice view from the cache.

 

Hi with a simple rating method I like to avoid more work.. If I have a look into maps or in the listing... both is additional work... Futher a good map qualtiy e.g from Google Earth is only availabe in urban regions. (valid for Europe - dont know status of other regions)

 

Regards

 

Jürgen

Share this post


Link to post

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too.

 

It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund.

That's called mediocrity. There are other sites that have tried to control the quality of the ratings, but it still comes down to them being easily manipulated and skewed. I call that politics. If it's going to be implemented, I want mine opted out not opted in by default. I don't care for the idea in any implementation that's been brought up and I've seen this bandied about since I joined.

 

I've gotta say, I'd rather no rating system than an open popularity contest. A system that is based around user preference is not that open contest. Nothing on the cache page to indicate that it is popular cache. The only return is to the individual user who gets a list that says "others who rated this cache similar to you also enjoyed these caches."

 

That a very good extension. I think that I read something about this in the green(german) forum too!

Share this post


Link to post

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too.

 

It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund.

 

See, that right there is my point. You'd give it a thumbs up if you thought it was a cut above. I won't even look for it so my thumbs down won't be cast and thus can't average out your opinion. We end up with a playground cache that is highly rated yet for me that rating is useless in helping me maximize my caching experience.

 

I like to remember that I found in Germany a tool called GC-Vote which is from my point of view a good starting point. The current existing resuls of vote displays that very good Caches reach 5 Stars and worse caches end with one Stars.

 

GC-Vote ratingtool

 

That means from my point of view that Quality is measureable althrough differnet understanding of Quality exist.

 

JZ

Share this post


Link to post

Knight 2000 likes playground caches. I don't. How does a rating system work for both of us? It doesn't.

True- I don't mind playground caches but unless it is a great hide I wouldn't give it a thumbs up or recommend it to anyone. If it was a devious hide I would but few hides/caches are a cut above the rest. I also think that if it was a good/devious hide, you would want to look for it too.

 

It will work. It will average out. Try it. If you don't like it return it for a full refund.

 

See, that right there is my point. You'd give it a thumbs up if you thought it was a cut above. I won't even look for it so my thumbs down won't be cast and thus can't average out your opinion. We end up with a playground cache that is highly rated yet for me that rating is useless in helping me maximize my caching experience.

 

I like to remember that I found in Germany a tool called GC-Vote which is from my point of view a good starting point. The current existing resuls of vote displays that very good Caches reach 5 Stars and worse caches end with one Stars.

 

GC-Vote ratingtool

 

That means from my point of view that Quality is measureable althrough differnet understanding of Quality exist.

 

JZ

I totally agree with JZRed's point that quality is measurable with a rating tool.

I used the Geocaching.com.au rating system for more than a year (probably up to 2) in Oz and it really seperates poor not to say s***ty caches from the good ones and from the ones you must see.

Truely expectations and wishes differ, but iconic caches will get a 5 star rating whereas a nano in the park without clever ideas in hiding, riddle, story and without a good location will may get just one star or thumbs up.

I have a similar but much shorter experience with GC-Vote now in Germany, it does the job similarly well. I already use it for selecting the next caches and slightly for puting caches on the ignore list.

That is certainly a function of much value if you go for quality and nice spots. If you are going for numbers you just can ignore that tool as you go for cache density.

The arguments that doesn't work and it averages out is completely nonsense in my experience, sure you will find different ratings (up to the extreme difference of 5) but that is human behaviour for what ever reason. We will not always like the same music, but we will know which music the majority buys (but may not like).

We also have an rough common understanding of the difficulty and terrain rating and still we find some ratings too hard or too easy.

It is not an clear cut yes or no, but you get an idea and to be honest, it really gives you a good idea and helps to ensure some fun while caching.

So where is that petition?

Cheers

mates

Alpini (currently in Germany)

Edited by Alpini

Share this post


Link to post

So where is that petition?

Cheers

mates

Alpini (currently in Germany)

Ah and just some short additions to get that started and flying.

My experience tells me that you should be able to rate only caches you found. Owners should not be allowed to rate their own caches (actually who would do that? But it seems from GC-Vote experience that it happens). May it is best to offer teh rating in the log template and that you are not allowed to rate for caches found more than a year ago in case the rating can be done independently from the loggiong.

The rating system should be 1-5 star as for D and T and may allow 0.5 subclassifications.

For discussion is if you only count in the last 15 rates or the rates of the last year to reflect the actual situation as that may change over time (due to poor maintenance, environment, muggles, caching trails etc.).

Finally it should be easy to use and intuitive (gc.com.au and gc-vote fulfill that already).

Have fun rating.

Cheers mates

Share this post


Link to post

I think GC-Vote is a great tool and many user are allready using it. But it would be great if it could be integrated into geocaching.com!

Thank you and regards,

ghost1981

Share this post


Link to post

I like to remember that I found in Germany a tool called GC-Vote which is from my point of view a good starting point. The current existing resuls of vote displays that very good Caches reach 5 Stars and worse caches end with one Stars.

 

GC-Vote ratingtool

 

Do you actually use it to plan your cache tours? When I look on your profile the first page of your last found caches shows many unrated caches and the highest rating is 3 stars (out of 5). :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them?

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them?

Not every wheelchair user wants to log a skirtlifter cache, does he? ;-)

With a ratingsystem based on Groundspeak it could be possible to search for caches with wheelchair-icon and a higher quality. No one have to be segregated.

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them?

Not every wheelchair user wants to log a skirtlifter cache, does he? ;-)

With a ratingsystem based on Groundspeak it could be possible to search for caches with wheelchair-icon and a higher quality. No one have to be segregated.

We already have icons available for caches and they are not being used by the majority of hiders. My point is what you determine to be high quality can be a low quality by someone else in different circumstances. A rating system is based on a base line standard and you don't have that with this game. Heck, this small group in this thread can't come to terms for a base line standard. You can come up with one, and I can point out a contradiction.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post
My point is what you determine to be high quality can be a low quality by someone else in different circumstances. A rating system is based on a base line standard and you don't have that with this game. Heck, this small group in this thread can't come to terms for a base line standard.

 

I agree. But nevertheless I would appreciate having a kind of rating system integrated in Geocaching.com. You are right saying, high quality for one cacher can mean low quality for a different cacher. So why not just calling it a recommendation?

 

I'd prefer the mentioned TOP10 system but without a sophisticated rating scale. Every cacher can recommend a small percentage of his found caches by simply activating a check box when logging the cache: "Yes, this really was one of my all time favorite caches!". Based on this recommendations you could easily build lists like "Cachers recommending this cache also recommended the following: ...". BTDTNT

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them?

:lol:

http://www.handicaching.com/

Share this post


Link to post

I like to remember that I found in Germany a tool called GC-Vote which is from my point of view a good starting point. The current existing resuls of vote displays that very good Caches reach 5 Stars and worse caches end with one Stars.

 

GC-Vote ratingtool

 

Do you actually use it to plan your cache tours? When I look on your profile the first page of your last found caches shows many unrated caches and the highest rating is 3 stars (out of 5). :lol:

 

Yes I will use is for my next real tour. Buf If you read my listing I found it on Monday my last log is from Sunday!!! :sad:

 

Further you will see that my last found are all in my "homezone" So I have to do it out of several reasons which has "nothing" to do with quality

Edited by JZRed

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them?

Not every wheelchair user wants to log a skirtlifter cache, does he? ;-)

With a ratingsystem based on Groundspeak it could be possible to search for caches with wheelchair-icon and a higher quality. No one have to be segregated.

We already have icons available for caches and they are not being used by the majority of hiders. My point is what you determine to be high quality can be a low quality by someone else in different circumstances. A rating system is based on a base line standard and you don't have that with this game. Heck, this small group in this thread can't come to terms for a base line standard. You can come up with one, and I can point out a contradiction.

 

Hi, as I know the community is adviced to use the differnent attribut icons. Maybe this is a special "problem" in your region. Because the attributes are used in our region

 

Furhter I can not believe that the understanding of "Quality" is so much different. You can read in other postings. that a rating system can work for all of us (Geocaching platform in Os, GC-Vote members). It is your right to be scepticly but. I can not read in any log a real argument again a rating system.(Futher You can ignore the rating, if you not interested because of different reasons)

 

general:

 

Only one...... Groundspeak will not accept that some caches stashes are waste (?of time?) and from month to month we have more low quality cache (for handicaped people too) in the database.

 

But I think if we want a rating system we will get one. If you are able to read in the green forum (www.geoclub.de) you will find more and more people who has lost the fun for this hobby because of so much low quality caches around his home Koords. There is no need to look into the big glas bowl, that these leads to a "diminishing" community ---> less premium members --> less money for Groundspeak.

 

I say that a combination of attributes for preference (surely we have to add some) together with a Rating System (how ever it ist called e.g. "Quality" "recommendition") will bring us forward and will help to find caches much more easier.

 

That Tool is an investment in the future. I didn't know any product/Brand sold a long without a high quality.

 

Bad quality leads automaticaly to dissatisfied customers. This is hopefully not the target of Groundspeak

 

Best Regards

 

JZ

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I like to repeat my questions to Groundspeak

 

I like to repeat my questions to the Groundspeak team:

 

Is there something in the working pipeline?

 

If yes, whats the schedule of implementing?

 

If no, why not? Is there no need to check the "quality" of your product?

 

Best Regards

 

JZ

Share this post


Link to post
Furhter I can not believe that the understanding of "Quality" is so much different.
Amazing, isn't it? Some people just don't understand that the best kinds of caches are blinkers hidden in plain sight on public sculptures, caches with "evil" 4-star camouflage, and puzzles with great "Aha!" moments. They want large caches with swag for their kids, or locations that can be accessed only with special equipment (4x4, climbing gear, scuba, etc.), caches they can find within 5 minutes, or other irrelevant things that they mistake for "Quality".

Share this post


Link to post
If no, why not? Is there no need to check the "quality" of your product?
Geocaches are not Groundspeak's "product". The listing service is Groundspeak's "product". Geocaches are the "product" of the cache owners.

Share this post


Link to post
If no, why not? Is there no need to check the "quality" of your product?
Geocaches are not Groundspeak's "product". The listing service is Groundspeak's "product". Geocaches are the "product" of the cache owners.

 

Not from my point of view, because they need the listings to provide her service. So it is a composition of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Furhter I can not believe that the understanding of "Quality" is so much different.
Amazing, isn't it? Some people just don't understand that the best kinds of caches are blinkers hidden in plain sight on public sculptures, caches with "evil" 4-star camouflage, and puzzles with great "Aha!" moments. They want large caches with swag for their kids, or locations that can be accessed only with special equipment (4x4, climbing gear, scuba, etc.), caches they can find within 5 minutes, or other irrelevant things that they mistake for "Quality".

 

Absolty agree. Thats what I think too. But if you use a PQ together with that additional rating you reach a better "selection" and if you plan a tour in a region you never been befor. You find more of your personal highlights....

 

Futher we all in the same community. Why? Easys we have all the same basement/Hobby. We love to find stashs but each of us has prefences which can be selcted with attributes and with a rating system you will find only the best of them.

 

A easy tool like GC-Vote is not able to provide you a real measurement of quality but a indication of it and it protect you against a huge effort(e.g. looking in each listing of the unkown region) and provide you more highlight on your trip.

 

Regards

 

Jürgen

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them?

:lol:

http://www.handicaching.com/

Again, you're missing the point. JR849 called hiking caches high quality caches. A wheelchair bound cacher may have a differing opinion of that.

 

Again, your post proves my point this group of people cannot come up with a baseline of standard quality.

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post

In consideration of the fact that the quantity of caches is soaring, it would be a great idea to establish a little ratingtool e.g. we know from ebay. Small, easy to rate and helpful to separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

What about the wheelchair bound? Will it be a quality cache for them?

:blink:

http://www.handicaching.com/

Again, you're missing the point. JR849 called hiking caches high quality caches. A wheelchair bound cacher may have a differing opinion of that.

 

Again, your post proves my point this group of people cannot come up with a baseline of standard quality.

 

Indeed this would be a tough game for the handicapped.

Share this post


Link to post

JR849 called hiking caches high quality caches.

Did you notice JR849's adress? English was not his first language and I think you misinterpret his words. Perhaps a native english-speaker would have used different ones.

separate the low-quality caches from the ones that are really worth the hike.

His second post should make it clear:

Not every wheelchair user wants to log a skirtlifter cache, does he? ;-)

IMHO he didn't mean caches requiering a long hike, but caches that are worth going (not ment literally!) for them.

Edited by wutzebear

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...