Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
JZRed

rating system for Geocaching.com

Recommended Posts

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.

 

That isn't a tought game...... I did not get your point!!!

 

A System who says only recommended or not recommended in a scale between 1 to 5 Star displays no disadvantage for handicaped people! You have attributes which can be selected if you combine such kind of new rating system with the PQ it is absolutly an advantage for each member in our community...

 

Because with this query you find on one side all Caches which can be found by handicaped people and on the other hand you see high rated caches as highlight on the tour.

 

Regards

 

JZRed

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Uh, sorry. I think you misunderstood my posting. :blink:

I didnt want to say that a hiking cache is a quality cache, there are bad ones too.

There is a difference of quality between a dumped down filmcanister and a nice tinkered hidingplace. For the first ones i dont want to waste time and fuel. For the second ones i gladly drive a hundred kilometers to see such a quality cache. Long Multicache, Drive-In Traditional, i couldn't care less. Its the composition of location, challenge and container that characterizes a cache and everyone has the ability to rate a cache according to these criterias.

Share this post


Link to post

Still seems like there is confusion between "quality" and "preference". Some people may prefer to shop at Walmart over Neiman Marcus, but few would argue that Neiman Marcus offers a higher quality.

Share this post


Link to post

I do a lot of travelling to different countries, and find that the current geocaching.com cache-rating system works quite well. :blink: I make use of it to good effect, although I can see that not everyone can be bothered.

 

I don't think that the popular suggestions for simpler alternatives (star ratings, top-ten ratings or whatever) have much going for them, as they're riddled with problems (as we've had explained so many times).

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.

 

That isn't a tought game...... I did not get your point!!!

 

A System who says only recommended or not recommended in a scale between 1 to 5 Star displays no disadvantage for handicaped people! You have attributes which can be selected if you combine such kind of new rating system with the PQ it is absolutly an advantage for each member in our community...

 

Because with this query you find on one side all Caches which can be found by handicaped people and on the other hand you see high rated caches as highlight on the tour.

 

Regards

 

JZRed

 

I know a little about handicapped people, my son has been in a wheelchair for 22 years. He will NEVER be able to find a cache. I know how those with some physical difference in their body than others even go so far as to think they have no handicap! My good friend's son was born with no arms and his leg bones needed many surgeries to allow him to walk with braces. Recently while going shopping with a friend of his, the friend parked in a handicap spot and said he did it for Jesse, Jesse said to him, "but I am not handicapped." He has overcome much and is an achiever. That is great but there are many others who this game simply would be too difficult for no matter what the number of the hide rating or terrain. Jesse could play this game and I bet he would even get to some 3's and 4's with no arms even!

Share this post


Link to post

Still seems like there is confusion between "quality" and "preference".

We have a winner!

 

Now that someone finally got it, here's a baseline standard to start with.

 

Cache is maintained

Cache contents are dry

Trash is minimal or not evident (This does not say business cards are trash, that's an individual opinion.)

Log book is usable.

 

There may be a couple of other items I missed. Everything else pertaining to type, style and location is a preference.

Share this post


Link to post

I do a lot of travelling to different countries, and find that the current geocaching.com cache-rating system works quite well. :unsure: I make use of it to good effect, although I can see that not everyone can be bothered.

 

I don't think that the popular suggestions for simpler alternatives (star ratings, top-ten ratings or whatever) have much going for them, as they're riddled with problems (as we've had explained so many times).

 

It could be that I did not get your point.

 

But each child needs a development. Without a starting point, we will never get any kind of system. Because we will find everywehere, problemens, errors and so on.... But If someone on systemside work on it, the "child will become an adult" but fist we need the child.

 

Regards

 

JZ

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?

:unsure:

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.

 

That isn't a tought game...... I did not get your point!!!

 

A System who says only recommended or not recommended in a scale between 1 to 5 Star displays no disadvantage for handicaped people! You have attributes which can be selected if you combine such kind of new rating system with the PQ it is absolutly an advantage for each member in our community...

 

Because with this query you find on one side all Caches which can be found by handicaped people and on the other hand you see high rated caches as highlight on the tour.

 

Regards

 

JZRed

 

I know a little about handicapped people, my son has been in a wheelchair for 22 years. He will NEVER be able to find a cache. I know how those with some physical difference in their body than others even go so far as to think they have no handicap! My good friend's son was born with no arms and his leg bones needed many surgeries to allow him to walk with braces. Recently while going shopping with a friend of his, the friend parked in a handicap spot and said he did it for Jesse, Jesse said to him, "but I am not handicapped." He has overcome much and is an achiever. That is great but there are many others who this game simply would be too difficult for no matter what the number of the hide rating or terrain. Jesse could play this game and I bet he would even get to some 3's and 4's with no arms even!

 

Hi have worked a long time with "handicaped" people too( as civallian servant) and sometimes iI am in contact during my "second work" (german red cross organisatzion) today. I know that's life isn't easy but honestly, dandicapped people ar not not second class human from my sight (not saying that I read that in your posting). Futher I belive that we would not discriminate them with a rating system. Or do you think so?

 

Regards

 

Jürgen

Share this post


Link to post

It could be that I did not get your point.

What I meant was, that bookmark lists serve well enough to indicate caches of interest. Particularly those that are of the type "recommended quick caches in the Phoenix area" or "adventurous caches near Tucson".

 

Note that they are based on the concept of a list of local examples of a certain type of cache, so if you have a preference for that type of cache the list may be of interest.

 

Beyond that, edscott hit the nail on the head with "Still seems like there is confusion between "quality" and "preference". ".

 

It's a "quality" cache if it fits Totemlake's criteria (I would add, has good coordinates too). So-called "quality" recommendations that are really preferences can only be made to people once you know their requirements on the day, hence the difficulty with cache "rating". Is a lamp post micro always to be rated low? I can't say; it depends whether it's what the potential finder wants at a particular moment in time.

 

The only thing I would add to a cache page is the cache owner's own classification of their cache, so you have a searchable field to eliminate caches which don't match your current preference.

Share this post


Link to post

Still seems like there is confusion between "quality" and "preference".

We have a winner!

 

Now that someone finally got it, here's a baseline standard to start with.

 

Cache is maintained

Cache contents are dry

Trash is minimal or not evident (This does not say business cards are trash, that's an individual opinion.)

Log book is usable.

 

There may be a couple of other items I missed. Everything else pertaining to type, style and location is a preference.

 

If you like to display every preference than you can say good by to each rating system.

 

Why you are so secpticly. Again the above metnioned toold works in Germany with success..... But it is not implemented in the Goundspeak side... that the reason for my posting. A steady growing growed of people use a system which obviusly works well. Why we can not start to use is inside of the GC.com side?

 

It is a pitty that you can not read in the German "green" forum, and it is a pitty too, that I can not translate everything....

 

Regards

 

JZ

Share this post


Link to post

If you like to display every preference than you can say good by to each rating system.

I think that you've answered your own question there. An overall, wordwide rating system can't take into account every preference.

 

There was a UK cache rating system (until it was hacked out of existence). It was very popular, and I did own a few caches in the top 100 so I feel in a good position to criticise it. Really, the only caches that stood a chance of being highly-rated were of a certain type.

Let's call it, examples of good caches that took quite a bit of effort to find (i.e. more memorable than quick caches). Which is fine, but of limited use because quite often people want a good cache that is quick and easy. Or, one with lots of swaps. Or, one with a bit of history. Or a nice hike. Or whatever. As you say, you can't account for all these different preferences.

Share this post


Link to post

Why you are so secpticly. Again the above metnioned toold works in Germany with success.....

I wonder if the rating system used in Germany really works as well as the poster says or if it is just perceived as working. As I have stated, the problem is that there are too many caches to be able to find every one. So people look for ways to select the caches they want to search for. They would like to minimize the number of caches they don't have fun finding while maximizing the number of outstanding caches. So they believe that if people could rate the cache they have found - outstanding caches will score higher and really lame caches will score lower. The problem is that in reality almost every cache will get some high ratings and some low ratings. Some people like to find lamppost caches and may rate these high (or at least above average), while others will rate every lamppost cache low simply because the have found so many that no matter where one is placed they find it boring, or because they prefer hiking and somehow believe that lamppost caches in parking lots mean there are less hiking caches :laughing: . Some people really enjoy difficult puzzles and will rate caches high just because the puzzle was difficult, while others hate these caches and will either ignore these or if they do find them will rate them low.

 

Now it may be true that in Germany or anywhere else, that there is a majority of cachers who perceive the same caches to be outstanding and the same caches to be lame. In these areas, the majority vote may result in an average rating that the majority will agree with - at least most of the time. So if caches are rated, in some places at some times at least, a cacher could look at the ratings and be able to say that a low rated cache is most likely lame while a high rated cache is most likely outstanding. So the rating system will work for a cacher who has the same view of caching as the majority. It could however be the case, that the cacher only believes there is a majority agreement on the quality of caches and that they have the same opinion of quality as the supposed majority. In this case the person would still believe the rating system is working, because they will not visit any low rated caches to discover there are some he would have enjoyed finding. And even if they don't find every highly rated cache to be outstanding, they are likely to believe that since the majority believes this cache is outstanding the problem is with themselves and not the cache.

 

I am fully aware that the following statement may interpreted as an example of Godwin's Law:

 

It troubles me that people in Germany would rather just go along with whatever the masses say, instead of deciding for themselves what caches they are most likely going to enjoy or what caches they should avoid. I realize that this is not what the OP is doing. He simply believes that knowing what the masses believe is good or lame would provide an additional bit of information to decide which caches he will seek. I just wanted to point out that the masses have been wrong before.

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder if the rating system used in Germany really works as well as the poster says or if it is just perceived as working.

 

Second thought leads you to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post

Still seems like there is confusion between "quality" and "preference".

We have a winner!

 

Now that someone finally got it, here's a baseline standard to start with.

 

Cache is maintained

Cache contents are dry

Trash is minimal or not evident (This does not say business cards are trash, that's an individual opinion.)

Log book is usable.

 

There may be a couple of other items I missed. Everything else pertaining to type, style and location is a preference.

 

If you like to display every preference than you can say good by to each rating system.

 

Why you are so secpticly. Again the above metnioned toold works in Germany with success..... But it is not implemented in the Goundspeak side... that the reason for my posting. A steady growing growed of people use a system which obviusly works well. Why we can not start to use is inside of the GC.com side?

 

It is a pitty that you can not read in the German "green" forum, and it is a pitty too, that I can not translate everything....

 

Regards

 

JZ

I'm skeptical of the implementation as suggested. I like the idea of a "Preferences" rating as this would be more to what it seems like what you are looking for. A "Quality" rating in it's true form is of a very limited use and has nothing to do with the types of caches you "Prefer" to find based on a popularity grading system.

 

-=-=speeling edit=-=-

Edited by TotemLake

Share this post


Link to post

What I meant was, that bookmark lists serve well enough to indicate caches of interest. Particularly those that are of the type "recommended quick caches in the Phoenix area" or "adventurous caches near Tucson".

How do you find these bookmark lists? You can't do a search for bookmark lists. And wouldn't that be relying on the opinion of one cacher. Wouldn't such a bookmark list be more appropriately entitled "Caches Tucson-Traveller recommends in the Phoenix area". Tucson-Traveller may be a big urban cache fan, or maybe he only recommends caches that require a 5 mile or longer hike. How is the opinion of one cacher better than a rating system that takes into account the opinions of many cachers?

 

Of the discussion so far, I'm favouring the "72% of cachers recommend this cache" method. Another idea would be a "golden cache" award system, where caches that get a high percentage of 4/5 and 5/5 get a special "golden cache" rating which can be filtered for in PQs.

Share this post


Link to post

What I meant was, that bookmark lists serve well enough to indicate caches of interest. Particularly those that are of the type "recommended quick caches in the Phoenix area" or "adventurous caches near Tucson".

How do you find these bookmark lists? You can't do a search for bookmark lists. And wouldn't that be relying on the opinion of one cacher. Wouldn't such a bookmark list be more appropriately entitled "Caches Tucson-Traveller recommends in the Phoenix area". Tucson-Traveller may be a big urban cache fan, or maybe he only recommends caches that require a 5 mile or longer hike. How is the opinion of one cacher better than a rating system that takes into account the opinions of many cachers?

 

Of the discussion so far, I'm favouring the "72% of cachers recommend this cache" method. Another idea would be a "golden cache" award system, where caches that get a high percentage of 4/5 and 5/5 get a special "golden cache" rating which can be filtered for in PQs.

 

Both of those systems are of the "popularity contest" variety. Neither excites me and if asked I'd say no way.

 

Although it is not much help on the road, for caching closer to home look for bookmarks of cachers that you know. People who share your preferences. Even when on the road if you look at a few cachers bookmarks you may be able to spot one or two who seem to have your tastes in caches but it would still be a bit hit and miss.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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!".

 

 

i think you're wrong.

 

i think that what's happening is that there's a large group of people who PREFER quick park 'n' grabs and LPCs. these number whores will tend to rate the lame caches they love as being good, and interesting, infrequently visited caches will be overlooked.

 

i would rather find one really interesting cache than two dozen LPCs.

 

i do not want a rating system.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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

:laughing:

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.

Not at all! My point was that handicachers have their own rating system. With good reason too. If Groundspeak ratings say that it is a "thumbs up" cache and the handicaching site says it is accessible than what is the problem? There is none.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

I am not a handicacher but I found that offensive. You can have a high quality cache that a handicapped person could search for and find. Besides, some handicachers are more mobile than others.

Share this post


Link to post

i think that what's happening is that there's a large group of people who PREFER quick park 'n' grabs and LPCs. these number whores will tend to rate the lame caches they love as being good, and interesting, infrequently visited caches will be overlooked.

 

i would rather find one really interesting cache than two dozen LPCs.

 

i do not want a rating system.

 

Oh yee of little faith.

I believe that people who play for the numbers can still judge quality. A cracked film canister under a walmart lamp post with a soaked full logsheet will probably still rate a 1, where a pine cone micro by a spectacular fountain in a beautiful park will rate much higher.

 

I'm a member of a website where my vote is weighted. I can't mark everything as 5/5 - that shows I put little thought into my vote. A variety of factors is taken into account to determine rankings such - voting history, experience level, and even the standard deviation of how people vote on a given letterbox.

 

Here's what my ratings stat page says:

 

You have rated 142 [items] with an average rating of 3.02 and a standard deviation of 0.92.

 

You've distributed your votes as follows:

1. 5% (7 votes)

2. 21% (30 votes)

3. 46% (66 votes)

4. 22% (31 votes)

5. 6% (8 votes)

 

The database tries to determine the quality of your votes when it comes time to calculate which items should get diamond ratings. The higher quality your votes are, the higher their weighting will be in the calculations.

 

You have rated plenty of items within the expected distribution.

 

The vote is anonymous, i.e. the owner does not know who voted and how they voted. Only those that have visited can vote. More than one visitor vote is required for calculations. Once every few weeks the database runs these calculations and assigns diamonds to those items that rank the highest. I believe that only the top 5% of items in the database get a diamond rating. In my area, those that received the diamond rating deserved it. The items are high quality.

 

One other thing, the ranking is optional. If you are an owner that, on principal, doesn't like the idea of people ranking your caches, you can opt out.

Share this post


Link to post

 

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

:huh:

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.

Not at all! My point was that handicachers have their own rating system. With good reason too. If Groundspeak ratings say that it is a "thumbs up" cache and the handicaching site says it is accessible than what is the problem? There is none.

So... two rating systems then? And again, handicaching isn't about quality is it? It's about rating preferences. I think once everybody agrees they're really looking for a preferences rating, this back and forth can start to gel. Still no single standard coming out of this thread. Everybody has their own idea of how to rate things and not one single idea has come out as workable for everybody.

 

This conversation has gone on far longer than this thread on and off the net for the last five years. I've spoken with people with first hand experience with cache ratings on other sites. Each system has been easily manipulated for friends and political infighting.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yee of little faith.

I believe that people who play for the numbers can still judge quality. A cracked film canister under a walmart lamp post with a soaked full log sheet will probably still rate a 1, where a pine cone micro by a spectacular fountain in a beautiful park will rate much higher.

 

As shown on sites like Amazon, EBay, etc. rating systems simply do not work. Here you give a good example. They are simply to subjective. The current rating system seems flawless, the rating system being proposed seems to pander to a cachers lazy side and, as such, the people who would most benefit would probably not take the time or effort to rate it.

 

Other than the current system, the only thing that would seem to work is how many times it has been found which means that the LPC's would show up the most since that seems to be what most people like to hunt.

 

While I agree with you on the LPC, I do know some that would rate that high just to play with the system not to mention the first time finders who have never found a LPC before and think it's clever. In an area with a low cacher population, the locals are the ones most likely to influence the overall rating, these actually may end up higher than you think.

 

However you mention a "pine-cone micro". I would rate it low simply because I despise pine tree caches, which is where I assume it would be hidden. If it is truly one of those pine cone type containers, the find count would probably be low as many do not have the patience for harder caches, which again means those that are local can influence the rating and, if the cacher is considered on the wrong side of the areas political fence, it again would be rated low.

 

You used what many on the forums consider a four letter word, micro. If some of the threads are to be believed, many filter these out (again low find count), still others find them and complain that a larger, easier to find ammo can would have been more appropriate (1 or 2 rating). Since these are the ones that take the time to fill out the online log, they most likely will rate the cache and again, it will be low. I think it deserves a low rating, do you?

 

In the Chicago area, we had a piece of artwork called

. it was in many movies, books, etc. In a Wal-mart type strip mall (actually not nearly as nice) it was a virtual cache at one point. Then someone put a micro there in a film canister either on a guard rail or LPC (I can't remember). While pure kitsch, this was a piece of Americana. I don't remember too many details, but I think both caches limited the description to give some element of surprised. LPC low-end strip mall micro in a so-so neighborhood. Even if cachers rated it high, when someone read the description, assuming they took the time, would it be hunted?

 

I'll use the current rating system, thank you. Much more effective.

Edited by baloo&bd

Share this post


Link to post

Oh boy - a rating system WOULD work and it would be nice, please let's work TOGETHER to get one. I for sure would like to know what people think of my hidden caches and if one rated low I would take it offline. Ya, I can read between the lines of the logs but an official system based on what Lone R said above would be doable: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...amp;st=50

Share this post


Link to post

I for sure would like to know what people think of my hidden caches and if one rated low I would take it offline.

If one of my caches were rated low I would probably assume that people who rate caches simple don't like long hikes or hard puzzles. But I know the minority that enjoys theses cache really enjoy them and would not like to see any go away because a majority rates it low. In fact if I had an LPC and it was rated low, I would assume again that the majority of people who take time to vote may not like this type of hide. But I would know that the many people who find this cache and and thank me for it would not like these to go away either. The elitist who believe that their view of "quality" is universal may think that those that thank me for an easy LPC would really prefer a better "quality" cache and that the ratings will prove this. If the ratings prove anything it will be that a few cachers who believe that there is a universal view of quality will now have a filter they believe will allow them to filter based on there definition of "quality" as something that is determined by popular vote. Perhaps they will get a better mix of "quality" to lame than just selecting caches randomly, or maybe they will just think they are getting a better mix.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like a lot of the arguments against a rating system (mine included) is because of a lack of something else: genres. If it were movies, of course, you'd rate an Italian Western low if you hated westerns. I can't stand Woody Allen, so I'd probably rate every one of his movies low--event he Academy award winners--simply because I can't stand him and his "style."

 

What geocaching needs is genres, pure and simple. It's also something folks try to force "types" into being when they're asking for micros to be their own type.

 

Then, when you rate a cache, you're rating a cache on how well that cache worked within that genre. That way, when you're looking for an epic adventure you won't be looking at highly rated quickies.

Share this post


Link to post

I for sure would like to know what people think of my hidden caches and if one rated low I would take it offline.

If one of my caches were rated low I would probably assume that people who rate caches simple don't like long hikes or hard puzzles. But I know the minority that enjoys theses cache really enjoy them and would not like to see any go away because a majority rates it low. In fact if I had an LPC and it was rated low, I would assume again that the majority of people who take time to vote may not like this type of hide. But I would know that the many people who find this cache and and thank me for it would not like these to go away either. The elitist who believe that their view of "quality" is universal may think that those that thank me for an easy LPC would really prefer a better "quality" cache and that the ratings will prove this. If the ratings prove anything it will be that a few cachers who believe that there is a universal view of quality will now have a filter they believe will allow them to filter based on there definition of "quality" as something that is determined by popular vote. Perhaps they will get a better mix of "quality" to lame than just selecting caches randomly, or maybe they will just think they are getting a better mix.

 

I think in a other kind of way. If I do not like a long walk I will not do the Cache. But a lot of peoply wo enjoy in long walks will do the cache and rate it with a experince they made in compaison with other caches they made..

 

it is the same with puzzle caches... IF I enjoy I will do it an I have the experince to rate the cache too....

 

Regards

 

JZRed

Share this post


Link to post

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.

I am not a handicacher but I found that offensive. You can have a high quality cache that a handicapped person could search for and find. Besides, some handicachers are more mobile than others.

 

Mentioned above was very offensive. right! But I belive it is truth. So many Caches around me are waste in my eyes. I take a lot of them with me because they are on my way. But I start to log them with one comment

 

"+1" without TFTC or anything else... Some people around me starting to do the same..... It is not realy fair but my effort is as big as the effort for this caches was.

 

Regards

 

JZ

Share this post


Link to post

Why you are so secpticly. Again the above metnioned toold works in Germany with success.....

.........

 

Just to explain. You write about something you can also named much more friendlier.

 

I suggest to use the word "Trend" or "Tendence"

 

And yes this Trend are displayed but it is displayed by each and ever Cache type. If I do not like long distance multies/Puzzels.. I did not rate them....

Share this post


Link to post

"+1" without TFTC or anything else... Some people around me starting to do the same..... It is not realy fair but my effort is as big as the effort for this caches was.

 

Why do them at all?

Share this post


Link to post

"+1" without TFTC or anything else... Some people around me starting to do the same..... It is not realy fair but my effort is as big as the effort for this caches was.

 

Why do them at all?

 

Because you don't realize it's a "+1" until you get there.

Share this post


Link to post

"+1" without TFTC or anything else... Some people around me starting to do the same..... It is not realy fair but my effort is as big as the effort for this caches was.

 

Why do them at all?

 

Because you don't realize it's a "+1" until you get there.

 

I am quite happy to drive right on by a cache without logging it. There are certain types of hide and locations that I won't log for any reason. If I arrive at the location and find it is one of these I walk away.

Share this post


Link to post

I for sure would like to know what people think of my hidden caches and if one rated low I would take it offline.

If one of my caches were rated low I would probably assume that people who rate caches simple don't like long hikes or hard puzzles. But I know the minority that enjoys theses cache really enjoy them and would not like to see any go away because a majority rates it low. In fact if I had an LPC and it was rated low, I would assume again that the majority of people who take time to vote may not like this type of hide. But I would know that the many people who find this cache and and thank me for it would not like these to go away either. The elitist who believe that their view of "quality" is universal may think that those that thank me for an easy LPC would really prefer a better "quality" cache and that the ratings will prove this. If the ratings prove anything it will be that a few cachers who believe that there is a universal view of quality will now have a filter they believe will allow them to filter based on there definition of "quality" as something that is determined by popular vote. Perhaps they will get a better mix of "quality" to lame than just selecting caches randomly, or maybe they will just think they are getting a better mix.

 

You are just being argumentative and throwing out monkey wrenches. :)

Share this post


Link to post

"+1" without TFTC or anything else... Some people around me starting to do the same..... It is not realy fair but my effort is as big as the effort for this caches was.

 

Why do them at all?

 

Because you don't realize it's a "+1" until you get there.

 

I am quite happy to drive right on by a cache without logging it. There are certain types of hide and locations that I won't log for any reason. If I arrive at the location and find it is one of these I walk away.

 

Wouldn't logging the find (or better yet, don't log the find but leave a note) with a polite yet honest critique go a lot further to discourage the placement of poorly placed caches then saying nothing?

 

And on the flip side wouldn't rewarding those that place well-thought out and cared for caches encourage more people to strive for the coveted golden award? If you don't think so then why do we as a society bother to give out awards (science (nobel), literature (pulitzer), sports (heisman), entertainment (oscars), grade one (gold star sticker), etc.)?

Share this post


Link to post

"+1" without TFTC or anything else... Some people around me starting to do the same..... It is not realy fair but my effort is as big as the effort for this caches was.

 

Why do them at all?

 

Because you don't realize it's a "+1" until you get there.

 

and to show my opinion of these cache , "Just for statistic purposes" This cache has nothing to do with my understanding of Geocaching"

 

Regards

 

JZ

Share this post


Link to post

What I meant was, that bookmark lists serve well enough to indicate caches of interest. Particularly those that are of the type "recommended quick caches in the Phoenix area" or "adventurous caches near Tucson".

How do you find these bookmark lists? You can't do a search for bookmark lists. And wouldn't that be relying on the opinion of one cacher. Wouldn't such a bookmark list be more appropriately entitled "Caches Tucson-Traveller recommends in the Phoenix area". Tucson-Traveller may be a big urban cache fan, or maybe he only recommends caches that require a 5 mile or longer hike. How is the opinion of one cacher better than a rating system that takes into account the opinions of many cachers?

It's a bit hit and miss, admittedly, although if a simple search facility was available it would be fairly easy. But it isn't, so I usually hunt around until I encounter a cache in a bookmark list and take it from there. And yes, the lists are still a matter of opinion; the difference being that the lists are not necessarily of (supposedly) "best caches" but of "recommended caches of a certain type in a certain area". Quite different. Once I have a shortlist, I'll check the descriptions and save details of those that appear suitable.

 

What geocaching needs is genres, pure and simple. It's also something folks try to force "types" into being when they're asking for micros to be their own type.

 

Then, when you rate a cache, you're rating a cache on how well that cache worked within that genre. That way, when you're looking for an epic adventure you won't be looking at highly rated quickies.

That's exactly what I've been asking for for years. The cache owner should give a category (genre) for the cache hide.

 

If you're Waymarking and interested in (say) Inland Lighthouses, you can filter a search so you don't see restaurants (and all the other stuff) in the list. Even though they are both buildings or structures, the waymark owners have placed them in categories for everyone's convenience. Same principle; state your preference and limit the view to ones that fit.

 

In the days when caches were few and far apart, it was sufficient to specify container size plus difficulty and terrain. After filtering out caches that fail your test on those criteria, you might be left with half a dozen caches in the area of interest and it wouldn't take too long to read all the descriptions and eliminate any other unsuitable ones. Nowadays, you could still have hundreds (or thousands) left after the first filter.

 

Groundspeak have recognised that and given us Attributes; for instance you can quickly see that a cache has a scenic view if that's what you're after. Unfortunately, they're no use for filtering and don't have a genre/category entry either so don't really serve the purpose! :)

 

Surely, the obvious solution is to add "Category" attributes, increase the number of attributes to allow these to be added to caches on top of the existing attributes (perhaps up to three per cache), then make them available in searches. Want a mega-epic cache? Just filter for them centred on the location you're visiting. Hate caches designed for "number runs"? Filter them out.

 

Possibly, a cache rating could then work based on how successful the cache was for what it was attempting to provide.

Edited by Happy Humphrey

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like a lot of the arguments against a rating system (mine included) is because of a lack of something else: genres. If it were movies, of course, you'd rate an Italian Western low if you hated westerns. I can't stand Woody Allen, so I'd probably rate every one of his movies low--event he Academy award winners--simply because I can't stand him and his "style."

 

What geocaching needs is genres, pure and simple. It's also something folks try to force "types" into being when they're asking for micros to be their own type.

 

Then, when you rate a cache, you're rating a cache on how well that cache worked within that genre. That way, when you're looking for an epic adventure you won't be looking at highly rated quickies.

 

AGREED in triplicate.

It would be nice for finders of the cache to vote for what type or genre of cache it is rather than rely on the owners, see the poorly implented and often abused attributes system.

 

Again the ability to opt in or out would be a nice touch.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,

 

My turn to share my 2 cents... :laughing:

 

I was also wishing for a 'cache appreciation' rating system for a while and just a few days ago I heard of GCVote. That was exactly what I was looking for and I must admit that the Google Maps feature is truely awesome. :laughing:

 

How I see it is that I will be able to give a better score (4-5) to those cache I had the most fun and/or best experience and/or best concept like for exemple a close to 30 minutes search around what looked to be an easy find until I finally took a look at a huge magnetic sticker that looked factory made on the huge box I was turning around over and over. That was brillant and after over 300 more caches added after that, is still in my top 5 list. :laughing:

 

On the other side, I would also like to give an appreciation of 2 to all the micro placed in fir and/or spruce tree. :laughing: Those are not my favorite like many people around here and being able to give a hint about it with a lower quality rating would be welcome.

 

That does not mean I will never go take a look at a cache rated 1 or 2 while I'm on a streak in an area... but I may not do a 20Km car trip only to search for a single cache rated 1.3 but on the other hand I may well do that for a single rated 4.8. I hope you get the idea. :o

 

So, after finding GCVote in the last 2 days and seeing how rapidly numbers were growing, I got in touch with the author and wrote a webpage in French to help people locally to set up that vote system if they wish to. I also wrote in 2 forums around here to share the instructions shown on my dedicated webpage. Let's see if people will jump in.

Edited by Rhialto

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to see something very simple, like Waymarking.com has or amazon.com has. A simple 1-5 star vote. Sure, not everybody likes the same sort of cache. But not everybody likes the same book, or toy, or music - but I find the ratings generally useful on amazon.com. It has to be taken with a grain of salt, and consumed along with the logs to get a feel for it.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...