Jump to content

GCVote


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I don't know if I am way behind on just discovering GCVote, but it is amazing.

 

Okay, what GCVote does is, when you find a cache you rate is 1-5 stars. Other users can see the rating the cache has before deciding to find it.

 

If you like us we have limited time to cache. We are all about the experience getting to the cache. Is it in a beautiful area? Is there thought behind placing this cache?

 

We are incredibly sick of finding skirt lifters in Wal-Mart parking lot. There are far too many people placing random caches with absolutely no thought behind them. Don't place a cache in a random field just to get a hide.

 

You have to use a Greasemonkey script in firefox to use GCVote. Check it out! :lol:

Link to comment

I don't know if I am way behind on just discovering GCVote, but it is amazing.

 

Okay, what GCVote does is, when you find a cache you rate is 1-5 stars. Other users can see the rating the cache has before deciding to find it.

 

If you like us we have limited time to cache. We are all about the experience getting to the cache. Is it in a beautiful area? Is there thought behind placing this cache?

 

We are incredibly sick of finding skirt lifters in Wal-Mart parking lot. There are far too many people placing random caches with absolutely no thought behind them. Don't place a cache in a random field just to get a hide.

 

You have to use a Greasemonkey script in firefox to use GCVote. Check it out! :lol:

 

There are Wal-Marts in Germany? Last I heard they pulled out of Germany.

Also, none of the GC codes I put in are listed, plus it wants me to download and install a greasemonkey script....

No thanks.....

 

Plus, like it's been said here at thousand times before; "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em"

Link to comment

I don't know if I am way behind on just discovering GCVote, but it is amazing.

 

Okay, what GCVote does is, when you find a cache you rate is 1-5 stars. Other users can see the rating the cache has before deciding to find it.

 

If you like us we have limited time to cache. We are all about the experience getting to the cache. Is it in a beautiful area? Is there thought behind placing this cache?

 

We are incredibly sick of finding skirt lifters in Wal-Mart parking lot. There are far too many people placing random caches with absolutely no thought behind them. Don't place a cache in a random field just to get a hide.

 

You have to use a Greasemonkey script in firefox to use GCVote. Check it out! :lol:

 

There are Wal-Marts in Germany? Last I heard they pulled out of Germany.

Also, none of the GC codes I put in are listed, plus it wants me to download and install a greasemonkey script....

No thanks.....

 

Plus, like it's been said here at thousand times before; "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em"

While I agree that the limitations make this useless I gotta say that it is an attempt to making it easier to not hunt 'em if if you don't like 'em.

Link to comment

We are incredibly sick of finding skirt lifters in Wal-Mart parking lot. There are far too many people placing random caches with absolutely no thought behind them.

 

Ummm.... If you dont know that the cache you're searching for is a skirt lifter in the WalMart Parking Lot, then you're doing something very wrong...

Link to comment

We are incredibly sick of finding skirt lifters in Wal-Mart parking lot. There are far too many people placing random caches with absolutely no thought behind them.

 

Ummm.... If you dont know that the cache you're searching for is a skirt lifter in the WalMart Parking Lot, then you're doing something very wrong...

 

I'll often see a geocache pop-up on my GPS without knowing what it is ahead of time.

 

Then again, if I had a problem with micros in the city, I wouldn't have included them in my PQ. :lol:

Link to comment

I had the same idea about a rating system for caches. It sounded really great at first but once you think about the wide array of people that cache then you'll have different opinions on every cache. For example. If a cache leads me on a nice 2 or 3 mile hike back into a quiet still pond I'm gonna rate it a 5. The next cacher whos after the numbers is gonna think he wasted a good portion of his day for a single smiley. He's gonna rate it low and then rate straight 5's on his way home hitting micro's in pocket parks. Does he particularly even like the park or is he happy that he made a quick grab by an inexperienced hider? Then I thought that there may be another way to do a rating system. If you are going to be rating caches then you first need to state what your favorite type of cache is. It would have to be done by percentages. Say I like cool hikes to cool places and I choose that type of cache then my opinion on all those cache types should hold the most weight. If a numbers freek complains about the cache then he/she should have a lower percentage on their vote. Swizzle

Link to comment

Groundspeak uses a rating system for GPSrs. Why not implement a rating system for caches. There is no LOGICAL reason not to do it. All of the naysayers are voicing opinions based on FEELINGS. I hope the GCvote gets some momentum, despite being a 3rd party opt-in sort of tool. I don't think 3rd party is the way to go. If a rating system is going to work, it must be implemented from within Groundspeak.

Link to comment

You just can't quantify a subjective opinion with small samplings. If 500 people rate a cache it may come close to representing the average cacher. Even a dozen or so folks voting isn't enough. Then you have the other side of the page to look at. Few people are average. Most are a little bit one side or the other and a few are at far polar ends. Look at the average family scenario. Mom, dad, and 2.5 kids. Do you know any family that has 2.5 kids? Rate caches all you want but it isn't gonna be all that useful.

 

Now if you want a useful tool let people rate a cache on 4 or 5 different criteria. Say creativity, scenic approach, cache site, and enjoyed yes or no. Then the system can return a useful recommendation. "Others who rated this cache like you did enjoyed these caches." followed by a page of cache listings. This way the results would be tailored to each user.

Link to comment

Groundspeak uses a rating system for GPSrs. Why not implement a rating system for caches. There is no LOGICAL reason not to do it.

 

Yeah, there is. Three of them off to the top of my head...

 

First of all, as mentioned previously, each person caches for their own reason. A simple 5 star rating system is inherently flawed and useless because each person is using their own system to judge a cache. Because of that, the numbers would be worse then useless. People would pass up caches they might actually enjoy or waste time on ones they don't like.

 

Secondly, it's contrary to the philosophy of the community. The beauty of the system is that everyone gets to choose how to play the game and a homogenized rating system is contrary to that.

 

Thirdly, caches change. Environments change. It takes one maintenance man with a lawnmower to change a challenging cache into a "oh, it was out in the open" cache. Even if we did somehow figure out a objective way to measure the quality of a cache, the information would often rapidly become outdated.

Edited by Arrow42
Link to comment

Groundspeak uses a rating system for GPSrs. Why not implement a rating system for caches. There is no LOGICAL reason not to do it. All of the naysayers are voicing opinions based on FEELINGS. I hope the GCvote gets some momentum, despite being a 3rd party opt-in sort of tool. I don't think 3rd party is the way to go. If a rating system is going to work, it must be implemented from within Groundspeak.

 

A compairing rating system for GPSr and Caches is like compairing Rating Baseball bats and baseball teams.

 

One is a static entity and the other is a constantly changing entity.

 

Im not a Naysayer voising a feeling, im voicing a LOGICAL reason.

 

If you want to rate caches on a simple 1-5 system go right ahead. but im not going to use it. I would prefer to visit the cache on my own. I watch movies weather people tell me they suck or not. I play video games weather they get rated high or low. Why do I want to take someone elses opinion on something that will probably get rated in a different manner then i would?

 

If I pass on a cache because it is rated 1/5 and never go to it, I would miss out on a chance to find a good cache.

Edited by herrozerro
Link to comment
All of the naysayers are voicing opinions based on FEELINGS.
Feelings

Nothing more than feelings

Trying to forget my... Oh, sorry. Back on topic:

 

My logical reason for not wanting a simplistic 5-star rating system for caches is that it would be just as useless as the star-based rating systems for movies.

 

I might give 5 stars to a blinker hidden in plain sight on an interesting public sculpture. How will that help a mom who wants caches with "treasure" for her young kids? How will her ratings help a 4x4 or scuba enthusiast who likes caches with 5-star terrain? How will his ratings help a puzzle enthusiast who likes puzzles with great "Aha!" moments (even if the hide itself is a cliche LPC or newspaper stand cache)? And so on.

 

What I'd like to see, and what TPTB have expressed interest in implementing, is a "you may also like" system similar to those used at Amazon and elsewhere. These systems compare your preferences with the preferences of others, and identify listings that are rated highly by those with similar preferences to your own. That kind of system might actually be useful.

Link to comment

What I'd like to see, and what TPTB have expressed interest in implementing, is a "you may also like" system similar to those used at Amazon and elsewhere. These systems compare your preferences with the preferences of others, and identify listings that are rated highly by those with similar preferences to your own. That kind of system might actually be useful.

 

I like that idea even better. I know I would definately be hiking more. With the 5 rating though I do see one other +/-. When a cacher sees that he has a really low rating on his cache then maybe that would goad him into enhancing it to make it more challenging or creative or maybe even remove a cache from a questionable site. On the other hand a newby cacher with a low rating on their hide just might leave geocaching out of frustration. I'm starting to veer towards just reading the logs of the previous cachers as my rating system like was already mentioned above. Swizzle

Link to comment

If a cache leads me on a nice 2 or 3 mile hike back into a quiet still pond I'm gonna rate it a 5. The next cacher whos after the numbers is gonna think he wasted a good portion of his day for a single smiley. He's gonna rate it low and then rate straight 5's on his way home hitting micro's in pocket parks.

 

I'd like to think that even the numbers people that go find every park-n-grab realize there is nothing special about that cache, and would be unlikely to rate it high. Those same people when looking for a long hike cache, I would also expect to rate a hike with a view higher.

Link to comment

If a cache leads me on a nice 2 or 3 mile hike back into a quiet still pond I'm gonna rate it a 5. The next cacher whos after the numbers is gonna think he wasted a good portion of his day for a single smiley. He's gonna rate it low and then rate straight 5's on his way home hitting micro's in pocket parks.

 

I'd like to think that even the numbers people that go find every park-n-grab realize there is nothing special about that cache, and would be unlikely to rate it high. Those same people when looking for a long hike cache, I would also expect to rate a hike with a view higher.

I'd also like to think that the other driver is going to stop for the red light. Yet every day I see people who have to get through even though the light has changed. You know the old saying "It wasn't red, it was pink." People are going to rate caches highly, or lowly, for all kinds of odd reasons. "It is Fred's cache." "I didn't need to get out of the car." "I love pink containers." That is just one more problem with a simple 5 star rating system.

Link to comment
plus it wants me to download and install a greasemonkey script....

No thanks.....

Greasemonkey is not only fine, it flat out rocks. I would be lost without some of the geocacher developed Greasemonkey scripts.

 

Plus, like it's been said here at thousand times before; "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em"

I do agree with this. What if a group of people that don't like you decide to all rate your cache a zero, though they have never visited it? What if all of those that hate Walmart caches go through and search them all out and vote them all zero. Abuse seems to be the biggest problem with a rating system.

Link to comment

OMG! CHANGE! Everyone, RUN, screaming and yelling! Thrash about! This could be the last helicopter out of Vietnam! YIKES! :laughing:

 

Yes, because there are people involved there will be abuse, but no different than the abuse of people placing caches in thoughtless areas. Just because a rating may exist you don't have to rely on it or even look at it.

 

Yes, everyone is going to have different opinions of a "great" cache. I say, "Power to the people." However, in the end, I think the abuse is likely to be statically irrelevent--in contrast to the surprisingly large percentage of thoughtless caches. Overall, I believe a clear consensus will quickly emerge as to what constitutes a worthwhile time investment, and this will be help to us all.

 

IMHO GCVote Rocks the Casbah.

Edited by JCrew 405
Link to comment

OMG! CHANGE! Everyone, RUN, screaming and yelling. Thrash about. This could be the last helicopter out of Vietnam. YIKES! :laughing:

 

Yes, because there are people involved there will be abuse, but no different than the abuse of people placing caches in thoughtless areas. Just because a rating may exist you don't have to rely on it or even look at it.

 

Yes, everyone is going to have different opinions of a "great" cache. I say, "Power to the people." However, in the end, I think the abuse is likely to be statically irrelevent--in contrast to the surprisingly large percentage of thoughtless caches. Overall, I believe a clear consensus will quickly emerge as to what constitutes a worthwhile time investment, and this will be help to us all.

 

IMHO GCVote Rocks the Casbah.

 

Many like the idea of a rating system, just not this type of system. Too many problems that it doesn't address. Few caches will get enough votes to make an honest, accurate result.

 

I wish someone with the programing skills to do it would come up with a way to do the others who think like you do system described earlier. Even if someone lies to the system it is only themselves they are hurting.

Link to comment

What I'd like to see, and what TPTB have expressed interest in implementing, is a "you may also like" system similar to those used at Amazon and elsewhere. These systems compare your preferences with the preferences of others, and identify listings that are rated highly by those with similar preferences to your own. That kind of system might actually be useful.

Best idea I've heard on this, and the only one that makes sense.

Link to comment

OMG! CHANGE! Everyone, RUN, screaming and yelling. Thrash about. This could be the last helicopter out of Vietnam. YIKES! :laughing:

 

Yes, because there are people involved there will be abuse, but no different than the abuse of people placing caches in thoughtless areas. Just because a rating may exist you don't have to rely on it or even look at it.

 

Yes, everyone is going to have different opinions of a "great" cache. I say, "Power to the people." However, in the end, I think the abuse is likely to be statically irrelevent--in contrast to the surprisingly large percentage of thoughtless caches. Overall, I believe a clear consensus will quickly emerge as to what constitutes a worthwhile time investment, and this will be help to us all.

 

IMHO GCVote Rocks the Casbah.

 

I dont disagree that a rating system would be useful. But a simplistic one such as this combined with its third party nature will probably give it a low chance of use. Thereby giving it useless ratings. Especially in areas not Satuarated with caches.

 

I can see it as useful in heavily populated areas where alot of people use it and combined with a lot of geocaches but how would it help me up in the great white north where i would probably be one of the few using it on a few amount of caches?

Link to comment

I dont disagree that a rating system would be useful. But a simplistic one such as this combined with its third party nature will probably give it a low chance of use. Thereby giving it useless ratings. Especially in areas not Satuarated with caches.

 

Getting an integrated solution from Groundspeak would of course be a far better solution. Our hope is that this third party contribution will spur something more comprehensive and integrated, perhaps with several categories. We believe there should be ratings for safety, consideration of property, adventure, cleverness, location location location, and an overall enjoyment rating.

 

Obviously, people participate in this hobby for various reasons, but thoughtlessness detracts from the hobby as a whole. A rating system would help everyone focus on their favorite niche with higher satisfaction.

 

Thx for the comment.

Edited by JCrew 405
Link to comment

I dont disagree that a rating system would be useful. But a simplistic one such as this combined with its third party nature will probably give it a low chance of use. Thereby giving it useless ratings. Especially in areas not Satuarated with caches.

 

Getting an integrated solution from Groundspeak would of course be a far better solution. Our hope is that this third party contribution will spur something more comprehensive and integrated, perhaps with several categories. We believe there should be ratings for safety, consideration of property, adventure, cleverness, location location location, and an overall enjoyment rating.

 

Obviously, people participate in this hobby for various reasons, but thoughtlessness detracts from the hobby as a whole. A rating system would help everyone focus on their favorite niche with higher satisfaction.

 

Thx for the comment.

 

I would like to know as I asked in my first post as well Who is the We you keep refering yourself as? Are you speaking for yourself and your own group? or are you making a blanket statement for all cachers?

 

Because using the attribut system and combined with Terain can easily give you safety if used right.

 

In fact only two of your reasons above really merit any consideration. Cleverness and Overall enjoyment rating are the only two i find that have any relavence in a caches rating. And the second one would seem useless because everyone is so fastly different.

 

I disagree with you last statement as well. I dont think a ratings system would help everyone focus. Rather then getting out and doing it yourself you would let the opinions of everyone else dictate how you cache. THereby detracting from the sport in general.

 

So i am going to say. "We" as cachers have a sore spot and its called "Dont tell me how to cache"

Link to comment

I would like to know as I asked in my first post as well Who is the We you keep refering yourself as? Are you speaking for yourself and your own group? or are you making a blanket statement for all cachers?

 

I, for one, am giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that he/she/they are not lumping all cachers together and stating a general displeasure felt by the entire body of cachers.

 

Because using the attribut system and combined with Terain can easily give you safety if used right.

 

I would love it if everyone used the attribute system but most don't. Certainly those caches placed before it was implemented have low incidences of COs going and editing the attributes. At least in this area. So it's not really a viable option yet.

 

In fact only two of your reasons above really merit any consideration. Cleverness and Overall enjoyment rating are the only two i find that have any relavence in a caches rating. And the second one would seem useless because everyone is so fastly different.

 

Every rating is going to be subjective. Even cleverness. However, if the ratings system were implemented as the OP suggests as an integrated part of the gc.com infrastructure and is used enough, perhaps statistical outliers would get lost in the wash, especially if broken into various categories. The OP merely suggested a few.

 

I disagree with you last statement as well. I dont think a ratings system would help everyone focus. Rather then getting out and doing it yourself you would let the opinions of everyone else dictate how you cache. THereby detracting from the sport in general.

 

I think that a lot of people already DO "focus" when hunting caches. Most (though there are those who do!) don't just download all the coordinates and cache blind. I think most people will prepare by reading cache pages, etc... all in the line of "don't like it, don't hunt it." A ratings system would just be one more selection-enabler in the already broad spectrum of tools.

 

So i am going to say. "We" as cachers have a sore spot and its called "Dont tell me how to cache"

 

Yes, I agree about that sore spot but for me the OP was nowhere near touching it. I felt like he/she/they were merely pointing out an addon and then making an argument stating that they'd prefer that it were integrated officially... This point is just an opinion (in what many may see as an already fought battle) over the subject of a cache ratings system and I don't see it as telling me how to cache.

 

Not picking on ya there herrozerro by singling out your post; it was just the most recent in the debate and I wanted to address it :laughing: I really don't think the OP was attempting to speak for all cachers but if I'm wrong then I will certainly admit it!

Link to comment

I just downloaded it. This is pretty cool!! Thanks for sharing it.

 

I downloaded it about a couple of weeks ago but had some trouble. I can't remember for certain but I think the problem was with the GC hide and seek function. It wouldn't work for me after I downloaded the ratings software. But otherwise I really like the software. But I had to remove it because it was interfering with my use of the the GC website.

 

Maybe I'll try to download it again and see if I have the same problem. The browser I use is Firefox. Anyone else having any trouble after downloading?

Link to comment

I just downloaded it. This is pretty cool!! Thanks for sharing it.

 

I downloaded it about a couple of weeks ago but had some trouble. I can't remember for certain but I think the problem was with the GC hide and seek function. It wouldn't work for me after I downloaded the ratings software. But otherwise I really like the software. But I had to remove it because it was interfering with my use of the the GC website.

 

Maybe I'll try to download it again and see if I have the same problem. The browser I use is Firefox. Anyone else having any trouble after downloading?

Link to comment

Not picking on ya there herrozerro by singling out your post; it was just the most recent in the debate and I wanted to address it :laughing: I really don't think the OP was attempting to speak for all cachers but if I'm wrong then I will certainly admit it!

 

No worries. But like i said, i asked what the "we" was and i never got an answer.

Edited by herrozerro
Link to comment

OMG! CHANGE! Everyone, RUN, screaming and yelling! Thrash about! This could be the last helicopter out of Vietnam! YIKES! :laughing:

 

Yes, because there are people involved there will be abuse, but no different than the abuse of people placing caches in thoughtless areas. Just because a rating may exist you don't have to rely on it or even look at it.

 

Yes, everyone is going to have different opinions of a "great" cache. I say, "Power to the people." However, in the end, I think the abuse is likely to be statically irrelevent--in contrast to the surprisingly large percentage of thoughtless caches. Overall, I believe a clear consensus will quickly emerge as to what constitutes a worthwhile time investment, and this will be help to us all.

 

IMHO GCVote Rocks the Casbah.

I always question why people want a rating system. If one understands the reason behind a system then you can design something that works. Most people will say they are looking for ways to find the caches they are more likely going to enjoy and avoid many of the caches they don't enjoy looking for. Clearly just allowing cachers to rate a cache 1 to 5 stars and displaying the average isn't going to accomplish this. It would assume that average likes and dislikes of the geocaching community apply to the whole (or at least to a substantial part). The community is so diverse in what kinds of caches they like that I seriously doubt that "average" will help anybody.

 

The above post that I quoted and several othes show what I think the real reason why some want a rating system. There is a widespread belief that a cache must be unique or wow you in some way to be acceptable. Some people feel they are wasting their time with certain kinds of caches because they have found so many caches hidden in this same way or these are caches where the locations have nothing "wow" to compensate for this being just another one of these types of caches. These people hear other people making similar complaints at events and when they talk with friends; and on this forum there seems to always be a current thread on the topic. Since so many people seem to be complaining about these types of caches, the people asking for a rating system are certain these caches will be rated low. Not only this, but for some reason they are convinced that the people who place these caches will be motivated by a cache rating system to stop placing these caches and modify their hiding styles or choice of cache locations to please what they believe to be the majority of geocachers.

 

I tend to doubt that a rating system will really be useful for identifying these caches. The reason is that many people clearly do enjoy these caches. They are not only hidden in great numbers but they tend to be found by many people. If these people were to rate these caches they might actually get an average or better rating. But my guess is that the people hiding and finding these caches are not going to care one bit about a rating system. They don't need ratings to find what caches they enjoy because they enjoy any cache that easy to get to and fairly easy to find and they can use the existing terrain and difficulty ratings to find these. And they are likely to ignore how their caches are rated since they are not placing caches to impress other people but simply to give other people caches to find. It may be that people who place and find the cache that some consider "thoughtless" will choose not to participate in the ratings and the people who do participate will give higher ratings to 1/1 caches that are hidden in some unique style or are at locations that an "average" person might consider a worthy (i.e., not thoughtless) area. The system might just work because the only people who would use it are those who are convinced that what they consider "wow" is what should be the standard for all geocaches. Several have ask for a experimental system on Geocaching.com to see if this would be the case. I would tend to think that a 3rd party site like GCVote would stand a better chance at this. And it might be more appropriate than to have Geocaching.com back any system that makes it look like they are supporting a different standard than the guidelines call out - even if in fact the standard enforced by Geocaching.com and the reviewers does not change one bit and they say that the ratings are simply the opinion of the geocachers who choose to rate a cache and do not reflect the quality of the cache or whether any individual cacher would or would not enjoy that cache.

Link to comment

I downloaded it about a couple of weeks ago but had some trouble. I can't remember for certain but I think the problem was with the GC hide and seek function. It wouldn't work for me after I downloaded the ratings software. But otherwise I really like the software. But I had to remove it because it was interfering with my use of the the GC website.

 

Maybe I'll try to download it again and see if I have the same problem. The browser I use is Firefox. Anyone else having any trouble after downloading?

 

No troubles like you report and I use Firefox mostly too. However, I did uninstall fairly soon afterward because it just made GC look and feel funny to me. I suppose that in order to make room for the additional rating stars etc each line in a bookmark list, for example, took up a couple of screen lines. Maybe I'm lazy but I did not like having to scroll up and down to find a cache in the list.

 

Instead, maybe just a single icon on the cache that just indicated that a rating was present and you could click on it or hover over it to see the details. Then maybe the visual and functional experience would not have been so jarring for me.

Link to comment
I always question why people want a rating system. If one understands the reason behind a system then you can design something that works. Most people will say they are looking for ways to find the caches they are more likely going to enjoy and avoid many of the caches they don't enjoy looking for. Clearly just allowing cachers to rate a cache 1 to 5 stars and displaying the average isn't going to accomplish this. It would assume that average likes and dislikes of the geocaching community apply to the whole (or at least to a substantial part). The community is so diverse in what kinds of caches they like that I seriously doubt that "average" will help anybody.

 

I've always thought a system that allowed the "best of the best" to stand out was a nice idea. Whether (the collective) you think a rating system is a good idea or not doesn't mean others share your position. In fact, I thought it was such a cool idea at the time that I wrote the Geocache Rating System to see if it could work.

 

The project works but it is not even close to as successful as I'd like it to be. What I found is that people logging finds are generally not willing or too lazy (not in the bad sense) to go back in and click the link to rate the cache. If a cache truely is top drawer the response is better but still fairly dull.

 

During my studies into this whole project, I believe that a rating system, love it or hate it, needs to be more integrated with geocaching.com in order to work "more" effectively than what I've come up with. We're attempting to set up a proof of concept to see if we can integrate the rating right into your cache listing similar to how blogs and other sites let you select stars on the fly without ever having to leave the site.

Link to comment
I always question why people want a rating system. If one understands the reason behind a system then you can design something that works. Most people will say they are looking for ways to find the caches they are more likely going to enjoy and avoid many of the caches they don't enjoy looking for. Clearly just allowing cachers to rate a cache 1 to 5 stars and displaying the average isn't going to accomplish this. It would assume that average likes and dislikes of the geocaching community apply to the whole (or at least to a substantial part). The community is so diverse in what kinds of caches they like that I seriously doubt that "average" will help anybody.

 

I've always thought a system that allowed the "best of the best" to stand out was a nice idea. Whether (the collective) you think a rating system is a good idea or not doesn't mean others share your position. In fact, I thought it was such a cool idea at the time that I wrote the Geocache Rating System to see if it could work.

 

The project works but it is not even close to as successful as I'd like it to be. What I found is that people logging finds are generally not willing or too lazy (not in the bad sense) to go back in and click the link to rate the cache. If a cache truely is top drawer the response is better but still fairly dull.

 

During my studies into this whole project, I believe that a rating system, love it or hate it, needs to be more integrated with geocaching.com in order to work "more" effectively than what I've come up with. We're attempting to set up a proof of concept to see if we can integrate the rating right into your cache listing similar to how blogs and other sites let you select stars on the fly without ever having to leave the site.

 

Does your site have a guideline for how to rate... so everyone is on the same page as far as expectation, etc?

Link to comment
I always question why people want a rating system. If one understands the reason behind a system then you can design something that works. Most people will say they are looking for ways to find the caches they are more likely going to enjoy and avoid many of the caches they don't enjoy looking for. Clearly just allowing cachers to rate a cache 1 to 5 stars and displaying the average isn't going to accomplish this. It would assume that average likes and dislikes of the geocaching community apply to the whole (or at least to a substantial part). The community is so diverse in what kinds of caches they like that I seriously doubt that "average" will help anybody.

 

I've always thought a system that allowed the "best of the best" to stand out was a nice idea. Whether (the collective) you think a rating system is a good idea or not doesn't mean others share your position. In fact, I thought it was such a cool idea at the time that I wrote the Geocache Rating System to see if it could work.

 

The project works but it is not even close to as successful as I'd like it to be. What I found is that people logging finds are generally not willing or too lazy (not in the bad sense) to go back in and click the link to rate the cache. If a cache truely is top drawer the response is better but still fairly dull.

 

During my studies into this whole project, I believe that a rating system, love it or hate it, needs to be more integrated with geocaching.com in order to work "more" effectively than what I've come up with. We're attempting to set up a proof of concept to see if we can integrate the rating right into your cache listing similar to how blogs and other sites let you select stars on the fly without ever having to leave the site.

 

Does your site have a guideline for how to rate... so everyone is on the same page as far as expectation, etc?

 

That's a loaded question but then you knew that ;) I think everyone, love it or hate it, can freely admit that there's NO WAY for there to be a common rating standard. People are just too different. But I wanted a method to allow the "cream of the crop" to stand out. Will my idea work? At a time I thought it had a chance. Now I am not sure. If you read the text shown when rating a cache, it "could" work if everyone was honest about themselves and the cache in question. But who knows..

 

NOTE: Please remember that this is an honor-based system. We assume that you've visited the geocache in question and that your rating will be an honest judgement on the geocache itself, regardless of what your opinion might be of the cacher who placed the geocache.

 

Your Rating

 

All things considered, including container, location, hide, steps of a puzzle or multicache, or any other aspects of the geocache not listed here, select how you'd rate this geocache.

 

5 Must find 4 Recommended 3 Take it or leave it 2 Not worth the effort 1 Lame 0 No vote

Link to comment

I'm still hoping Groundspeak would seriously look into the Dutch rating system.

 

The idea is quite simple:

 

For every 20 caches that you found, you may award one 'star' to any one cache that you found.

 

There is a minimum number of founds required to participate, to prevent gaming the system.

 

This way, opinions do not average out. Caches accumulate stars as they're found and liked. The best ones come floating to the top. "Best" can be any reason, of course, but it turns out to be a pretty good indicator of how caches are liked.

 

Stars are also added and reported per cacher. This triggers a small competition to produce quality caches. For me, receive a star is like the icing on the cake of a great log.

 

Also, enhancements like the Amazon system will become possible.

Link to comment

 

That's a loaded question but then you knew that ;) I think everyone, love it or hate it, can freely admit that there's NO WAY for there to be a common rating standard. People are just too different. But I wanted a method to allow the "cream of the crop" to stand out. Will my idea work? At a time I thought it had a chance. Now I am not sure. If you read the text shown when rating a cache, it "could" work if everyone was honest about themselves and the cache in question. But who knows..

 

 

Yeah, it was a little loaded... :D I was hoping for a different answer.

 

OK, so here's another one:

 

How does your website account for the passage of time and the changing conditions time can bring?

Link to comment

I'm still hoping Groundspeak would seriously look into the Dutch rating system.

 

The idea is quite simple:

 

For every 20 caches that you found, you may award one 'star' to any one cache that you found.

 

There is a minimum number of founds required to participate, to prevent gaming the system.

 

This way, opinions do not average out. Caches accumulate stars as they're found and liked. The best ones come floating to the top. "Best" can be any reason, of course, but it turns out to be a pretty good indicator of how caches are liked.

 

Stars are also added and reported per cacher. This triggers a small competition to produce quality caches. For me, receive a star is like the icing on the cake of a great log.

 

Also, enhancements like the Amazon system will become possible.

 

Very nice. I hope it gets serious consideration. I'm in favour of a cream-of-the-crop rating system.

Link to comment

One of the problems with a rating system became obvious with a local geocaching organization giving out awards. 'Most satisfying Mystery Cache." My choice did not win. Probably because very few people had even attempted to solve it. When solved, it was definitely the most satisfyng. Likewise, we were nominated for 'most scenic'. Didn't win, because only 5 people had solved the mystery. Oh, well.

I do like awarding stars, but think it should be more select. Maybe 1 star per 50 caches found? And can I accumulate them? If I find 50 LPCs in a row, can I award 2 out of the next group?

Link to comment

I'm still hoping Groundspeak would seriously look into the Dutch rating system.

 

The idea is quite simple:

 

For every 20 caches that you found, you may award one 'star' to any one cache that you found.

 

There is a minimum number of founds required to participate, to prevent gaming the system.

 

This way, opinions do not average out. Caches accumulate stars as they're found and liked. The best ones come floating to the top. "Best" can be any reason, of course, but it turns out to be a pretty good indicator of how caches are liked.

 

Stars are also added and reported per cacher. This triggers a small competition to produce quality caches. For me, receive a star is like the icing on the cake of a great log.

 

Also, enhancements like the Amazon system will become possible.

 

Very nice. And it's an incentive to get out there and cache more, too. : )

Link to comment

Simple 1 to 5 system is just waaaay to simplistic.

 

I've always favored Markwell's idea - allow users to add up to 10% of thier finds to a "favorites" list. Then allow a search to see how many favorite's lists any given cache appears on. Or percent of all finders "favorite" lists - or something like that.

 

Not only gives a quick picture of a rating but allows for the "Users that liked this cache also liked nearby cache GCXxxx" rating. That allows us to seek the same types of caches as folks with the same tastes. No "bad grades" on any cache.

Link to comment

Simple 1 to 5 system is just waaaay to simplistic.

 

I've always favored Markwell's idea - allow users to add up to 10% of thier finds to a "favorites" list. Then allow a search to see how many favorite's lists any given cache appears on. Or percent of all finders "favorite" lists - or something like that.

 

Not only gives a quick picture of a rating but allows for the "Users that liked this cache also liked nearby cache GCXxxx" rating. That allows us to seek the same types of caches as folks with the same tastes. No "bad grades" on any cache.

 

This system does nothing to address the complaints listed above... and it adds in a new problem: confirmation bias. (aka, pile-on voting)

Link to comment

Personally I can see another issue. Lets take an imaginary cache and look at its imaginary ranks.

 

Walk in the park: 1.5/2

 

***** Great hide! I love the placement!

 

** Eh, Its alright. I dont like ones I have to crawl for.

 

***Decent placement, though it doesnt really bring you anywhere special.

 

* It was raining....

 

* It was Buried under snow! Bad placement! ;)

 

**** I love hiking through the park in the winter! Great Cache!

 

** Quick find, nothing special

 

***** I never knew this park was here! Great hide!

 

and so on and so forth.

 

With my little fictional cache it was rated all across the board because each person used a different scale of measuring their enjoyment. MAybe someone whom has hiked mountains disliked this easy cache. Or someone went caching and it started to rain on them.

 

Geocaching isnt a static sport. THere are alot of factors that make each visit to a single spot either incredibally memorable or dumptastically horrid.

 

I might be more apt to remember a skirt lifter as a great cache because it was my 50th and in other times is just a quick unmemoriable stepping stone.

 

This isnt like rating a GPSr where everyone is getting the same object and getting marginal differences in results, its a dynamic sport where the time of day, temp, wind and percipitation can make or break a day. Combined with the cachers overall perferance to what is good and add in the previous caches in the day and you get a HUGE divide. Even people with identical likes and dislikes could give vastly different rankings on a single trip. And even a same person could visit a cache more then once and give different ranks.

 

Maybe one day it was cloudy and you couldnt see any bit of the majestic view. Do you rank it high or low? You know it must be an awesome place... but you didnt get to see it.

 

in conclusion, I guess my thought is that personally i dont see a need for a "lets find out what the really good caches are!" Because even a skirt lifter in walmart can tell a story. I dont think someone who is advanced enough in this sport to know what they like and dont like should be asking other people to rate and pick out his/her next cache. Someone who obviously is set in their ways should know exactly what they like.

 

Personally I think the OP wants to have a system so that caches he/she doesnt like can be ranked low and be pressured to be removed or visited less.

 

As I said before, if you know what you like you shouldnt need other people to tell you what to look for.

 

Edit*

 

To prove my point of varying degrees of enjoyment the OP states in his first post that the journy is what makes him happy. So what if you come across a cache set on the side of a mountain in the perfect vally with a gorgous view.... and the container is destroyed. Do you rank the cache or the view?

Edited by herrozerro
Link to comment

 

That's a loaded question but then you knew that :D I think everyone, love it or hate it, can freely admit that there's NO WAY for there to be a common rating standard. People are just too different. But I wanted a method to allow the "cream of the crop" to stand out. Will my idea work? At a time I thought it had a chance. Now I am not sure. If you read the text shown when rating a cache, it "could" work if everyone was honest about themselves and the cache in question. But who knows..

 

 

Yeah, it was a little loaded... :) I was hoping for a different answer.

 

OK, so here's another one:

 

How does your website account for the passage of time and the changing conditions time can bring?

 

For that one, I am just going to give you the HUGE ;)

Link to comment

 

That's a loaded question but then you knew that :D I think everyone, love it or hate it, can freely admit that there's NO WAY for there to be a common rating standard. People are just too different. But I wanted a method to allow the "cream of the crop" to stand out. Will my idea work? At a time I thought it had a chance. Now I am not sure. If you read the text shown when rating a cache, it "could" work if everyone was honest about themselves and the cache in question. But who knows..

 

 

Yeah, it was a little loaded... :) I was hoping for a different answer.

 

OK, so here's another one:

 

How does your website account for the passage of time and the changing conditions time can bring?

 

For that one, I am just going to give you the HUGE ;)

 

read my above post, for an explaination i think he was tryin gto get at. A cache changes drastically over the course of a year. how do you rank a cache fairly with a moving goalpost of criteria.

Link to comment

 

That's a loaded question but then you knew that :D I think everyone, love it or hate it, can freely admit that there's NO WAY for there to be a common rating standard. People are just too different. But I wanted a method to allow the "cream of the crop" to stand out. Will my idea work? At a time I thought it had a chance. Now I am not sure. If you read the text shown when rating a cache, it "could" work if everyone was honest about themselves and the cache in question. But who knows..

 

 

Yeah, it was a little loaded... :) I was hoping for a different answer.

 

OK, so here's another one:

 

How does your website account for the passage of time and the changing conditions time can bring?

 

For that one, I am just going to give you the HUGE ;)

 

read my above post, for an explaination i think he was tryin gto get at. A cache changes drastically over the course of a year. how do you rank a cache fairly with a moving goalpost of criteria.

 

I know what he was saying. You can't account for it. Another loaded question. My rating system is as simple as it gets. Nothing more, nothing less. You can choose to use it or choose not to use it. I prefer not to be baited so therefore I just gave the ol' eyeroll.

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 5
×
×
  • Create New...