GCVote

[+Arrow42]

 

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.

 

Yeah, I expected an eye roll.

 

I think you get the point I'm trying to make: the benefits of such a system (finding caches you like vs caches you hate) are dubious.

 

That's why I don't like a voting system - there is little upside and some real downsides.

 

Now... if a system is implemented that addresses my concerns... I'd be a happy camper.

 

Edit: I'm also cool with a third-party opt-in system. I won't likely use it... but it gives me the choice to see it or not.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Arrow42

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

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.

Some people would highly rate a GPSr with paperless features, while others want a large color screen or fast redraws. Firmware is often updated that drastically changes the way a unit acts. In all the other posts, I still haven't seen any logical reasons not to implement the rating system. Lots of fear of the unknown, but nothing concrete. I don't care whether Groundspeak does it or not. I love caching and will hit all the caches I can, regardless of ranking. But when I'm planning an outing with the family, a quick way to view top-rated caches in an area would be of great help.

[+Arrow42]

Some people would highly rate a GPSr with paperless features, while others want a large color screen or fast redraws. Firmware is often updated that drastically changes the way a unit acts.

 

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I have never made the argument that the GPSr ratings are good either.

 

In all the other posts, I still haven't seen any logical reasons not to implement the rating system. Lots of fear of the unknown, but nothing concrete.

 

I have, several times now, given firm, concrete reasons why a rating system is bad. My reasons are based in a strong knowledge of how statistics and group sociology works. If you disagree with my reasons, then fine - explain why you disagree. Then we can have a conversation. However, if you insist on insulting my arguments instead of actually responding to them then there isn't much to talk about.

[+bflentje]

I have, several times now, given firm, concrete reasons why a rating system is bad. My reasons are based in a strong knowledge of how statistics and group sociology works. If you disagree with my reasons, then fine - explain why you disagree. Then we can have a conversation. However, if you insist on insulting my arguments instead of actually responding to them then there isn't much to talk about.

 

You can sit here and bait people with a straight face and then you have the audacity to pretend to be insulted? You need to get a grip or leave the thread.

[+herrozerro]

I have, several times now, given firm, concrete reasons why a rating system is bad. My reasons are based in a strong knowledge of how statistics and group sociology works. If you disagree with my reasons, then fine - explain why you disagree. Then we can have a conversation. However, if you insist on insulting my arguments instead of actually responding to them then there isn't much to talk about.

 

You can sit here and bait people with a straight face and then you have the audacity to pretend to be insulted? You need to get a grip or leave the thread.

 

Hey, when all of us "naysayers" have already been insulted by having our opinions based on nothing but "feelings" as the OP puts it, it doenst sound too unreasonable to pull out a loaded logical question.

 

If anything the people pushing for a rating system are the ones using their feelings.

[+bflentje]

I have, several times now, given firm, concrete reasons why a rating system is bad. My reasons are based in a strong knowledge of how statistics and group sociology works. If you disagree with my reasons, then fine - explain why you disagree. Then we can have a conversation. However, if you insist on insulting my arguments instead of actually responding to them then there isn't much to talk about.

 

You can sit here and bait people with a straight face and then you have the audacity to pretend to be insulted? You need to get a grip or leave the thread.

 

Hey, when all of us "naysayers" have already been insulted by having our opinions based on nothing but "feelings" as the OP puts it, it doenst sound too unreasonable to pull out a loaded logical question.

 

If anything the people pushing for a rating system are the ones using their feelings.

 

Man, now I know why Iron Mountain had a distinct smell in the air last time I was there..

 

Logical questions and chatter are good. It was at the point where Arrow42 felt insulted, a feelings thing mind you, that I had a problem. You see, if you actually read the thread, it was Arrow42 baiting people up. I could personally care less if you like my, or any other, rating system. You masquerade your own emotion as logic and reason. And while some of the ideas suggested by Arrow42 are valid and correct, the mere fact that he carried the topic on and "felt" insulted proves to me that there's emotion on each side.. not from me of course (my wife can attest to that :-)

[+Juicepig]

i think there's a bug - it lets me rank wal-mart micros as 5 stars!

[+herrozerro]

Man, now I know why Iron Mountain had a distinct smell in the air last time I was there..

 

Logical questions and chatter are good. It was at the point where Arrow42 felt insulted, a feelings thing mind you, that I had a problem. You see, if you actually read the thread, it was Arrow42 baiting people up. I could personally care less if you like my, or any other, rating system. You masquerade your own emotion as logic and reason. And while some of the ideas suggested by Arrow42 are valid and correct, the mere fact that he carried the topic on and "felt" insulted proves to me that there's emotion on each side.. not from me of course (my wife can attest to that :-)

 

Ah, so so its come to personal blows now? In all honesty you probably smelled one of the paper mills or the Kingsford foundry. But no matter. I can just show my support by not using your system, or the other one by not using it as well.

 

I cant help it that the truth is that a ratings system cant truely give any kind of true bearing of what a cache is. Most people cant even agree on what caching is, A sport? A hobby? A compitition?

 

And even you yourself agreed that your system cannot account for most of the factors of a cache. How would a rating system account for bad weather? Caching during the winter? A muggled cache?

 

Or is a rating system purely "Where the cache takes you" and not about the "cache" itself?

 

the main arguement I will support is that a simple 1-5 system wont cut it at all. Should i rate low because it was cludy and didnt get to see the mountain? or because i know it was there should i rate it high?

 

I dont appreciate your willingness to get down to the level of insulting someone's geographic location and I wont stoop to your level and trade you back a "Well people from X are dumber then Y".

[+bflentje]

Ah, so so its come to personal blows now? In all honesty you probably smelled one of the paper mills or the Kingsford foundry. But no matter. I can just show my support by not using your system, or the other one by not using it as well.

 

No, there really was a smell. Your emotions thought I was referring to you which couldn't have been further from the truth. My point is that even though you claim pro-rating people use emotion, anti-rating people have and use emotions too. This was nothing more than a learning exercise.

 

I cant help it that the truth is that a ratings system cant truely give any kind of true bearing of what a cache is. Most people cant even agree on what caching is, A sport? A hobby? A compitition?

 

You are so correct on the differences between people. But I disagree in that you think that your line of thinking is superior (in regards to a rating system).

 

And even you yourself agreed that your system cannot account for most of the factors of a cache. How would a rating system account for bad weather? Caching during the winter? A muggled cache?

 

Yes, I did agree. I am a realist and by default use logic and reasoning in most of my thinking. However, mistaking my position that "it could" work (however imperfectly) for being irrational is just as insulting as you and Arrow43 claim to be.

 

Or is a rating system purely "Where the cache takes you" and not about the "cache" itself?

 

the main arguement I will support is that a simple 1-5 system wont cut it at all. Should i rate low because it was cludy and didnt get to see the mountain? or because i know it was there should i rate it high?

 

I am the first to admit that ratings are relative and dependent on a lot of factors. But if used by a large population and used correctly, it would bring the cream to the top. The problem is, there are too many people that would participate for various reasons whether in protest or out of pure laziness and everything in between.

 

I dont appreciate your willingness to get down to the level of insulting someone's geographic location and I wont stoop to your level and trade you back a "Well people from X are dumber then Y".

 

You've already done that, if not directly, then indirectly by accepting Arrow32's premise that pro-rating people use their emotions. It is just an indirect way to send the same "I am smarter than you" message. Not sure who mentioned they work in group psychology studies, but if it was you, I'd expect you to know what your words and/or affiliations really mean.

[+herrozerro]

 

Yes, I did agree. I am a realist and by default use logic and reasoning in most of my thinking. However, mistaking my position that "it could" work (however imperfectly) for being irrational is just as insulting as you and Arrow43 claim to be.

 

I have not said a rating system could not work, I have said that a Simplistic system wont work.

 

I also disagree with your "The cream will rise to the top". Because once again, whos cream are we talking about?

 

I said it before and I will say it again, If someone is advanced enough in this game to know exactly what they want why should they rely on the opinions of others to sway what they do?

[+mrbort]

I said it before and I will say it again, If someone is advanced enough in this game to know exactly what they want why should they rely on the opinions of others to sway what they do?

 

For me, the idea of a ratings system has the most attraction for planning trips to or through areas that have a huge number of caches. In these cases, the opinions of others would greatly enhance for me the ability to choose a few good ones as I go through. I know what I like and by looking at a smaller subset of caches that others like, I could choose from those a couple of choice ones.

[+gof1]

I said it before and I will say it again, If someone is advanced enough in this game to know exactly what they want why should they rely on the opinions of others to sway what they do?

 

For me, the idea of a ratings system has the most attraction for planning trips to or through areas that have a huge number of caches. In these cases, the opinions of others would greatly enhance for me the ability to choose a few good ones as I go through. I know what I like and by looking at a smaller subset of caches that others like, I could choose from those a couple of choice ones.

Find the favorites bookmarks of a couple of cachers in the target area.

[knowschad]

 

For me, the idea of a ratings system has the most attraction for planning trips to or through areas that have a huge number of caches. In these cases, the opinions of others would greatly enhance for me the ability to choose a few good ones as I go through. I know what I like and by looking at a smaller subset of caches that others like, I could choose from those a couple of choice ones.

 

I've had good luck by contacting cachers from the area that I intend to visit. Local geocaching organizations, the regional forums here, or simply look at a few caches in that area and read the logs until you find somebody who seems to be on top of things.

 

As for a rating system... of course it would work! Just take a look at our fantastic television line-up. We have the highly sophisticated Nielsen Media Research system to thank for that, right?

[+mrbort]

I've had good luck by contacting cachers from the area that I intend to visit. Local geocaching organizations, the regional forums here, or simply look at a few caches in that area and read the logs until you find somebody who seems to be on top of things.

 

As for a rating system... of course it would work! Just take a look at our fantastic television line-up. We have the highly sophisticated Nielsen Media Research system to thank for that, right?

 

Right now that is what I have done and plan to keep on doing Was just an example of how others' opinions would be quite useful to someone who knows what they like already

[Rhialto]

Found out about GCvote a few weeks ago.

 

May 20th there was a total of close to 91000 caches with at least a vote out of the 800000+ worldwide.

Today June 11th there is over 131000 caches with at least a vote.

With increasing popularity, I believe 1/4 of all cache will have at least a vote before automn.

 

For french people, I have a page that explain how to set up in FireFox and GSAK. The FF setup is impressive because it looks like geocaching.com have added it to their page. Look at some screenshots.

http://www.rhialto.com/Geocaching/GCVote/

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

Hmmm. Given the numbers, it appears lots of people like the rating idea. No surprise there, really. I think I'll give it a whirl to see if anyone's doing it in my area. If nothing else, by using it and rating caches myself, it will put heat on Groundspeak to implement one of their own.

'Goose

[GOF and Bacall]

Found out about GCvote a few weeks ago.

 

May 20th there was a total of close to 91000 caches with at least a vote out of the 800000+ worldwide.

Today June 11th there is over 131000 caches with at least a vote.

With increasing popularity, I believe 1/4 of all cache will have at least a vote before automn.

 

For french people, I have a page that explain how to set up in FireFox and GSAK. The FF setup is impressive because it looks like geocaching.com have added it to their page. Look at some screenshots.

http://www.rhialto.com/Geocaching/GCVote/

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

[Rhialto]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

 

If I go out to find a few caches where there are 10-12 close to each ones I will probably visit them all whatever their rating are. It will only give me an idea of the appreciation of each one.

 

Most of the caches are rated between 2 and 4 so a 2.5 or a 3.5 for me is about the same so not much influence on me but when I see a 1.3 or a 4.8, it's always fun to read about it and find out why such a low or high rating is given.

[meathelmet]

The quality of a rating system would depend on the way it is set up. I agree saying "would you give this a 1 or a 5 " would not work. I think if it were in survey form, with questions like, did this bring you into an interesting place? how long did it take you to find this cache? do you think this cache would be fun for kids? it would have a much better chance of being useful.

Any way it is done it would still be a matter of opinion but, if you want better info ask better questions.

[Rhialto]

Well not really... you rate a cache on how you liked it for whatever your reason. It's up to everyone to read the cache description and find out why it is sooo liked or sooo hated and make their own decision.

[+sbell111]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system? Edited June 12, 2009 by sbell111

[+herrozerro]

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system?

 

That probably was not me... It had crossed my mind but I didnt do it! I will be soon realeasing my Book "If I did do it" By herrozerro.

[+tozainamboku]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system?

You don't understand. The people who want a rating system don't care if the rating is skewed because buddies rate each other's cache or that the one person who rated the cache has decided he really likes all LPC hides. The people who want a rating system know they can't find all the caches. While they can use the system sbell has recommended many times to filter based on size or type to get the caches they are most likely going to enjoy; that doesn't quite work for them. There are either too many caches left in their filter or there are going to be some "gems" they miss because they were filtered out. Instead they want someone to recommend the caches they should find (or avoid). It isn't important that recommendation be from someone who knows what type of caches they would like or even if the recommendation is just someone picking random caches. The point is that someone else is recommending the cache. That way, if they don't enjoy the recommendation they can blame the recommendation system for not recommending good caches; and if they do enjoy the caches they can say the recommendations work (and never have worry that they may have missed a better cache because it wasn't recommended). Sure they believe that the on average cachers will agree on which caches are outstanding and which are really stinkers. They have no proof of this, nor do they worry that the sample of ratings on most caches will be too small for this to work even if it were true. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that they don't have take responsibility for whether they are having fun or not. A totally useless rating system to the rest of us is a great tool for those who need to someone else to blame for their having or not having fun.

[+ThePetersTrio]

I guess I'm missing something here but if you don't like the idea of rating caches and don't plan to using the GCVote system then why do you care enough about it to continue to post opposition to it?

 

It has been said over and over on this board that people play the game differently. If utilizing a rating system appeals to a certain group of cachers then why not just let them participate as they wish? It doesn't take anything away from those of you who don't like it, does it?

[Rhialto]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system?

Read carefully... when I look at the Google Maps that show the rating, I don't mind how many votes there are for a cache. If I see a 1½ I will click it and look at description and logs and make my mind. Same if I see a 4½, I will go read the description and make my own idea why people may have loved it and see if I think it's gonna fit my taste also.

 

Simple as that. No need for a PERFECT system, just a basic idea on cache likings and you're set.

[Rhialto]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system?

Read carefully... when I look at the Google Maps that show the rating, I don't mind how many votes there are for a cache. If I see a 1½ I will click it and look at description and logs and make my mind. Same if I see a 4½, I will go read the description and make my own idea why people may have loved it and see if I think it's gonna fit my taste also.

 

Simple as that. No need for a PERFECT system, just a basic idea on cache likings and you're set.

[Rhialto]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system?

Read carefully... when I look at the Google Maps that show the rating, I don't mind how many votes there are for a cache. If I see a 1½ I will click it and look at description and logs and make my mind. Same if I see a 4½, I will go read the description and make my own idea why people may have loved it and see if I think it's gonna fit my taste also.

 

Simple as that. No need for a PERFECT system, just a basic idea on cache likings and you're set.

[Rhialto]

If I may add...

 

More and more people are curious about the vote system and more and more people install it to see how well are rated cache in their surroundings. Some also install it to look at their own cache.

 

Once those have it installed, they also start voting, usually they run for the most memorable (either their 'best of' and the worst).

 

So it's a fact that it's getting more popular every single day. It's great that people have the choice to use it or not. If ever Groundspeak go ahead with a rating system, I hope they will also add the possibility to turn on and off that feature.

[Rhialto]

oops.. double post due to forum hiccups.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Rhialto

[Skippermark]

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

Since the program is an add-on to Firefox and runs on the GC.com site, I'm guessing that it would be of little value to those who are driving around and see caches popping up on their GPS...unless of course they have a laptop with internet access and fire it up before heading to said cache.

[GOF and Bacall]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system?

You don't understand. The people who want a rating system don't care if the rating is skewed because buddies rate each other's cache or that the one person who rated the cache has decided he really likes all LPC hides. The people who want a rating system know they can't find all the caches. While they can use the system sbell has recommended many times to filter based on size or type to get the caches they are most likely going to enjoy; that doesn't quite work for them. There are either too many caches left in their filter or there are going to be some "gems" they miss because they were filtered out. Instead they want someone to recommend the caches they should find (or avoid). It isn't important that recommendation be from someone who knows what type of caches they would like or even if the recommendation is just someone picking random caches. The point is that someone else is recommending the cache. That way, if they don't enjoy the recommendation they can blame the recommendation system for not recommending good caches; and if they do enjoy the caches they can say the recommendations work (and never have worry that they may have missed a better cache because it wasn't recommended). Sure they believe that the on average cachers will agree on which caches are outstanding and which are really stinkers. They have no proof of this, nor do they worry that the sample of ratings on most caches will be too small for this to work even if it were true. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that they don't have take responsibility for whether they are having fun or not. A totally useless rating system to the rest of us is a great tool for those who need to someone else to blame for their having or not having fun.

OH! Now I understand. Thanks for explaining it.

[+The Sneaky Snakes]

I think the concept is an interesting idea, but mostly I'd just like to keep track of my own ratings on caches I've found - so if I want to go back or introduce someone new, I know which ones I liked best. I installed it and found that on the first page of the caches in my immediate area, not a single one has a single rating, so as far as that goes, it will probably be useless for me until/unless it gets a following. I don't think Groundspeak should implement a 'rating' system as a regular site feature because ratings are so subjective - as has been pointed out. I would like to see some kind of personal rating system on the site, so you can rate your own finds without everyone else knowing how you rated their cache.

[GOF and Bacall]

I guess I'm missing something here but if you don't like the idea of rating caches and don't plan to using the GCVote system then why do you care enough about it to continue to post opposition to it?

 

It has been said over and over on this board that people play the game differently. If utilizing a rating system appeals to a certain group of cachers then why not just let them participate as they wish? It doesn't take anything away from those of you who don't like it, does it?

I think implementing the wrong system can be detrimental to any attempt to get a decent system in place. GS is unlikely to spend the time and effort putting in place a system that works if there is something else out there that takes them no effort to implement and maintain.

[GOF and Bacall]

One vote is not enough to mean anything. How many caches have ten votes? Not that ten votes is a significant enough number to mean much.

Well, it is for me. My point about a rating system is simple. It is not to avoid all cahe rated 2 or below. If I see a single cache rated 4+ in a far spot where I need to drive 20 minutes in car to get there I will probably go seek that cache but if that same cache have a rating of 2 or less I will make sure to read the logs about why it is badly rated and make a decision from there.

What if the one person that rated that cache uses an alternative definition of 'good' than you do? What if that one person merely gives it a good score because it's his buddy's cache (or his own)? What if he gave a carpy cache a good score simply to point out a huge problem with the rating system?

Read carefully... when I look at the Google Maps that show the rating, I don't mind how many votes there are for a cache. If I see a 1½ I will click it and look at description and logs and make my mind. Same if I see a 4½, I will go read the description and make my own idea why people may have loved it and see if I think it's gonna fit my taste also.

 

Simple as that. No need for a PERFECT system, just a basic idea on cache likings and you're set.

I don't understand the point if you are reading the description and logs for all rated caches good and bad.

[+The Sneaky Snakes]

... on the first page of the caches in my immediate area, not a single one has a single rating

 

Actually, there isn't a single rating on a single cache within 20 miles of me. Maybe more, I quit looking.

[Rhialto]

I think the concept is an interesting idea, but mostly I'd just like to keep track of my own ratings on caches I've found - so if I want to go back or introduce someone new, I know which ones I liked best. I installed it and found that on the first page of the caches in my immediate area, not a single one has a single rating

If installed in FireFox, click here you'll see all your finds and if there is a rating or not for each (a few more seconds are needed to retreive ratings). BTW it's a good time to rate those you liked the best in your finds, they are all showing on that page. The next person to install in your area will see your rating (withou knowing it's from you) and will be able to add his, etc.

[Rhialto]

I don't understand the point if you are reading the description and logs for all rated caches good and bad.

I'm not reading them all, only if I'm curious as in why this one is rated so low or this one is rated so high.

[+ThePetersTrio]

I guess I'm missing something here but if you don't like the idea of rating caches and don't plan to using the GCVote system then why do you care enough about it to continue to post opposition to it?

 

It has been said over and over on this board that people play the game differently. If utilizing a rating system appeals to a certain group of cachers then why not just let them participate as they wish? It doesn't take anything away from those of you who don't like it, does it?

I think implementing the wrong system can be detrimental to any attempt to get a decent system in place. GS is unlikely to spend the time and effort putting in place a system that works if there is something else out there that takes them no effort to implement and maintain.

 

Oh - is GS planning on establishing a rating system? I hadn't heard that. Nothing I have read previously has indicated that was in the works. I guess I must have missed it.

 

Could you point me to the thread where that is being discussed please?

[+gof1]

I guess I'm missing something here but if you don't like the idea of rating caches and don't plan to using the GCVote system then why do you care enough about it to continue to post opposition to it?

 

It has been said over and over on this board that people play the game differently. If utilizing a rating system appeals to a certain group of cachers then why not just let them participate as they wish? It doesn't take anything away from those of you who don't like it, does it?

I think implementing the wrong system can be detrimental to any attempt to get a decent system in place. GS is unlikely to spend the time and effort putting in place a system that works if there is something else out there that takes them no effort to implement and maintain.

 

Oh - is GS planning on establishing a rating system? I hadn't heard that. Nothing I have read previously has indicated that was in the works. I guess I must have missed it.

 

Could you point me to the thread where that is being discussed please?

It has been talked about before, many times. You are just as likely to find it using the search function as I.

 

As I recall the last time Jeremy posted on the subject he was leaning towards a system that allowed cachers to award stars to some set number of caches. Sort of voting for your favorite five. The idea was that the best caches in an area would get the most stars. I am not overly excited by that system either.

 

I'd rather see a system where a cacher answers a few questions on a 1 to 5 scale. Accuracy, scenery, camouflage, location, over all quality. Then the system can return a list. "Others who rated this cache like you rated these other caches highly." No need to see a rating on the cache page and the odds of the system returning caches that you will enjoy is much higher than a simple 5 star rating. It could even be made to return recommendations for a selected area. "show me caches recommended for me near [postal code]". I have no idea how to make it work but I'm sure the programmer types can figure it out.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

I guess I'm missing something here but if you don't like the idea of rating caches and don't plan to using the GCVote system then why do you care enough about it to continue to post opposition to it?

 

It has been said over and over on this board that people play the game differently. If utilizing a rating system appeals to a certain group of cachers then why not just let them participate as they wish? It doesn't take anything away from those of you who don't like it, does it?

A perfectly made point. Ratings systems are everywhere, and they work just fine (despite the raters having differing opinions of what constitutes a 1 or a 5 rating ). Sounds like a broken record, but....

If you don't like it, don't use it.

 

*Edited to add that I installed GCvote and LOVE IT! Try it....you know you want to!

Edited June 13, 2009 by DatCrazyMongoose

[+herrozerro]

I don't understand the point if you are reading the description and logs for all rated caches good and bad.

I'm not reading them all, only if I'm curious as in why this one is rated so low or this one is rated so high.

 

I guess I still dont get it, you want to have a flag so you can go into indepth research into a cache to see if you want to look for it or not. when you could simply just do the research yourself in the first place?

 

I also dont see you arguement about going out of town and needing to find out about an area, a cache along a route PQ and a simple PQ for your destination. I mean it really doesnt get simpler then that.

 

In all honesty I think its just that I dont understand your need to find the "cream" of the caches. Personally I just love caching, in my relitivly small experiance compaired to most here, I have yet yo come across a "bad" cache. For me its just load up the GPS and go looking for unfound caches wherever I go. Im not picky.

 

So in conclusion, I dont have anything against the particular rating system, I just disagree with the seemingly Elitist attitude of "I only want to find 'Good' caches".

[Rhialto]

So in conclusion, I dont have anything against the particular rating system, I just disagree with the seemingly Elitist attitude of "I only want to find 'Good' caches".

I never said I'm only looking for the best caches. I thought my english was comprehensible. Hope others did not missunderstood me.

[+gof1]

...I just disagree with the seemingly Elitist attitude of "I only want to find 'Good' caches".

 

Yup, elitist. I only want to find the best caches. I only want to listen to the best songs. I only want to watch the best movies. I only want t read the best books.

 

Edit to add I still don't think this rating system is the right one.

Edited June 13, 2009 by gof1

[+ThePetersTrio]

I guess I'm missing something here but if you don't like the idea of rating caches and don't plan to using the GCVote system then why do you care enough about it to continue to post opposition to it?

 

It has been said over and over on this board that people play the game differently. If utilizing a rating system appeals to a certain group of cachers then why not just let them participate as they wish? It doesn't take anything away from those of you who don't like it, does it?

I think implementing the wrong system can be detrimental to any attempt to get a decent system in place. GS is unlikely to spend the time and effort putting in place a system that works if there is something else out there that takes them no effort to implement and maintain.

 

Oh - is GS planning on establishing a rating system? I hadn't heard that. Nothing I have read previously has indicated that was in the works. I guess I must have missed it.

 

Could you point me to the thread where that is being discussed please?

It has been talked about before, many times. You are just as likely to find it using the search function as I.

 

As I recall the last time Jeremy posted on the subject he was leaning towards a system that allowed cachers to award stars to some set number of caches. Sort of voting for your favorite five. The idea was that the best caches in an area would get the most stars. I am not overly excited by that system either.

 

I'd rather see a system where a cacher answers a few questions on a 1 to 5 scale. Accuracy, scenery, camouflage, location, over all quality. Then the system can return a list. "Others who rated this cache like you rated these other caches highly." No need to see a rating on the cache page and the odds of the system returning caches that you will enjoy is much higher than a simple 5 star rating. It could even be made to return recommendations for a selected area. "show me caches recommended for me near [postal code]". I have no idea how to make it work but I'm sure the programmer types can figure it out.

 

I'm not certain that being 'talked about' means that there is something officially in the works. Maybe someone in the know could post more definitively on the issue. At this point it just sounds like speculation.

 

As someone who supports people playing the game as they wish (within the guidelines of course) then I support people's ability to utilize GCVote if they want to. It doesn't detract from my game in any way, shape, or form. No one is forcing me (or anyone else) to use it. I still fail to see why this is such a big deal.

[+gof1]

I guess I'm missing something here but if you don't like the idea of rating caches and don't plan to using the GCVote system then why do you care enough about it to continue to post opposition to it?

 

It has been said over and over on this board that people play the game differently. If utilizing a rating system appeals to a certain group of cachers then why not just let them participate as they wish? It doesn't take anything away from those of you who don't like it, does it?

I think implementing the wrong system can be detrimental to any attempt to get a decent system in place. GS is unlikely to spend the time and effort putting in place a system that works if there is something else out there that takes them no effort to implement and maintain.

 

Oh - is GS planning on establishing a rating system? I hadn't heard that. Nothing I have read previously has indicated that was in the works. I guess I must have missed it.

 

Could you point me to the thread where that is being discussed please?

It has been talked about before, many times. You are just as likely to find it using the search function as I.

 

As I recall the last time Jeremy posted on the subject he was leaning towards a system that allowed cachers to award stars to some set number of caches. Sort of voting for your favorite five. The idea was that the best caches in an area would get the most stars. I am not overly excited by that system either.

 

I'd rather see a system where a cacher answers a few questions on a 1 to 5 scale. Accuracy, scenery, camouflage, location, over all quality. Then the system can return a list. "Others who rated this cache like you rated these other caches highly." No need to see a rating on the cache page and the odds of the system returning caches that you will enjoy is much higher than a simple 5 star rating. It could even be made to return recommendations for a selected area. "show me caches recommended for me near [postal code]". I have no idea how to make it work but I'm sure the programmer types can figure it out.

 

I'm not certain that being 'talked about' means that there is something officially in the works. Maybe someone in the know could post more definitively on the issue. At this point it just sounds like speculation.

 

As someone who supports people playing the game as they wish (within the guidelines of course) then I support people's ability to utilize GCVote if they want to. It doesn't detract from my game in any way, shape, or form. No one is forcing me (or anyone else) to use it. I still fail to see why this is such a big deal.

You are welcome do do as you wish and I realize I don't have to use it. I fail to see the problem with discussing the pros and cons of the system. Go, use it to your hearts content. It still has some major short comings.

[+ThePetersTrio]

You are welcome do do as you wish and I realize I don't have to use it. I fail to see the problem with discussing the pros and cons of the system. Go, use it to your hearts content. It still has some major short comings.

 

I never said I was planning to use it.

 

I'm merely saying that if others want to, they should. And they shouldn't have to justify their desires to do so on this board. The OP was sharing something they found useful. They weren't implying everyone HAD to use it.

 

People around here seem to get upset when anyone suggests something new. They carry on and on about why it is so horrible for the game of geocaching like it is somehow going to ruin their own fun or something.

 

I just fail to see why this GCVote is seen as such a threat that people feel the need to rail against it. If GC opts to adopt their own rating system, I'm quite certain there will be an uproar about that too.

 

Life is short. Why not just play the game the way you want and allow others to do the same? Why all the angst?

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

 

Life is short. Why not just play the game the way you want and allow others to do the same? Why all the angst?

The angst comes from the fear of getting a bad rating on a cache you've placed. I can understand that, but sometimes you have to call a baby ugly. I haven't been doing this long, but if one of my two caches got consistently bad ratings, I would pull them and rethink what makes a good cache.

Today I'm going to go through all of my finds and rate them. I'll let you know how that goes.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't understand the point if you are reading the description and logs for all rated caches good and bad.

I'm not reading them all, only if I'm curious as in why this one is rated so low or this one is rated so high.

 

I guess I still dont get it, you want to have a flag so you can go into indepth research into a cache to see if you want to look for it or not. when you could simply just do the research yourself in the first place?

 

I also dont see you arguement about going out of town and needing to find out about an area, a cache along a route PQ and a simple PQ for your destination. I mean it really doesnt get simpler then that.

 

In all honesty I think its just that I dont understand your need to find the "cream" of the caches. Personally I just love caching, in my relitivly small experiance compaired to most here, I have yet yo come across a "bad" cache. For me its just load up the GPS and go looking for unfound caches wherever I go. Im not picky.

 

So in conclusion, I dont have anything against the particular rating system, I just disagree with the seemingly Elitist attitude of "I only want to find 'Good' caches".

Many geocachers look at the numbers of caches that are hidden and realize they are not going to find them all. This is not Pokemon. They are looking for ways to maximize the enjoyment they have when geocaching. They would like to avoid as much as possible caches that they don't enjoy (perhaps they didn't like the location or maybe they are tired of finding the same hiding technique used over and over again); and they would like to find as often as possible those caches that really stand out for them (a cool location, an original style of hiding, a big container with lots of swag). I don't think anyone thinks there is a perfect system to avoid everything you dislike and never miss a cache you would find exceptionally good. Some people are simply looking for a system when they can believe they are getting a better mix than just randomly selecting caches. The people pushing for a rating system believe that on average geocachers like and dislike the same things. Just the arguments in this thread ought to disprove that. IMO, a simple rating systems is likely to work about as well as randomly selecting caches to find. Most people are saying, however, that they would not be using the rating system alone. They would use other techniques to select caches - PQ filters on size or difficulty, looking at maps to find clusters of caches, reading logs, looking at bookmark lists. They would then look at the rating as one more data point. When it comes down to do I look for cache A or cache B, they would use the rating to decide. IMO, they could toss a coin and it would work just as well. But I guess they feel better about a faulty rating system than a random coin toss.

 

I just fail to see why this GCVote is seen as such a threat that people feel the need to rail against it. If GC opts to adopt their own rating system, I'm quite certain there will be an uproar about that too.

 

Life is short. Why not just play the game the way you want and allow others to do the same? Why all the angst?

I have no problem with a third party site like GCVote. But several posters have said they believe a rating system has to be an official part of GC.com with users given the opportunity to rate caches when they log their find in order for it to "really" work. If Geocaching.com is going to have a system to recommend or rate caches I would prefer one that is actually going to do what is says it is going to do. Geocaching.com already has some pretty good systems to help select caches. First of all, anyone can write a log on cache. Look at the logs and you'll get a pretty good idea if people like the cache or not. Of course some owners may delete negative logs. Generally people will think if you only write TNLNSL on the log you probably weren't that impressed with this cache and there are ways to point out issues without being so negative as to offend the cache owner. Premium members can create bookmark lists. Many people have lists of favorite caches or ones they recommend. Some have list of cache they think are lame. I'd prefer to see Groundspeak put some effort into making improvements to the bookmark lists such as making them searchable before putting in a rating system. If there is a recommendation system, I'd prefer one based on bookmark lists, perhaps being able to find caches that are on a certain number of different cachers favorites list.

[+jeanne123]

Something to think about here...

Unless very carefully designed, a rating system is going to be heavily skewed toward the urban type micros and nanos, simply because there are so many more of them. Those who think it will cause the "lame" hides to go away and the great ones to float to the top, may find that a ratings system will actually have the opposite effect. This would be particularly true if the ratings are metered based on how many finds you have.

 

The great caches, that require some time to figure out, or multiple stops, or a hike in the woods, will fall to the bottom, because they get fewer votes. The numbers hounds will win in the ratings.

 

Be careful what you ask for - you might get it.

[+mrbort]

Something to think about here...

Unless very carefully designed, a rating system is going to be heavily skewed toward the urban type micros and nanos, simply because there are so many more of them. Those who think it will cause the "lame" hides to go away and the great ones to float to the top, may find that a ratings system will actually have the opposite effect. This would be particularly true if the ratings are metered based on how many finds you have.

 

The great caches, that require some time to figure out, or multiple stops, or a hike in the woods, will fall to the bottom, because they get fewer votes. The numbers hounds will win in the ratings.

 

Be careful what you ask for - you might get it.

 

This is a very interesting statistical point that I hadn't though much about. Thank you for a good, well-reasoned post. However I wonder if a system along the lines of what gof1 mentioned (iirc) as far as rating on a number of categories would obviate this if the right questions were asked. Really interesting thought though; probably my favorite puzzle cache series so far is exceedingly rarely found and I doubt that it would have the overwhelming ratings numbers that would have it stick out in a system like a lot of the ones described here.

 

Just wanted to address the idea of rating a cache in bad faith to point out the flaws in a system as has been tacitly encouraged here by a poster (not gof1 who mentioned a hypothetical but another who mentioned an "if I did it book" on the subject). It's one thing to discuss shortcomings but to intentionally sabotage someone's hard work and others' good faith caching experiences would not be furthering the debate, it would not help the cause of a better ratings system and just plain wouldn't be good to fellow cachers who either took the time to make the system or use the system for their own caching techniqe. This particular bent of the post is not pointed at the quoted post in any way but instead at some other comments in this thread.

 

Edit: memory is poor

Edited June 14, 2009 by mrbort