GCVote

[GOF and Bacall]

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

I'd like to point out a couple of things here. First is that in the system I'd like to see the results are not posted on the site. This is an important feature of the plan. Doing it that way takes away the motives for cheating the system. If you rate your buddies caches high or you rate that jerks caches low the only one it will effect is you when the system recommends a bunch of caches based on your lie. Next is that, obviously, I am not against a rating system. Some seem to have that idea in their heads. Last, I did check out this one. fifty pages out there where three rated caches. Each with one vote. The important part here is that I resisted the urge to rate all the local LPC caches a five and all the local legends a one.

[+niraD]

Another point to consider is that the system should remain easy and quick for the raters. Ideally, it should be based on information already in the system (e.g., the way Amazon's recommendations are based on your past purchases), so the users don't need to do anything extra. The more complicated the system is (e.g., separate ratings for terrain accuracy, difficulty accuracy, scenic view, container quality, swag quality, camouflage, creativity, historical significance, etc.), the less useful the data will be.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

Another point to consider is that the system should remain easy and quick for the raters. Ideally, it should be based on information already in the system (e.g., the way Amazon's recommendations are based on your past purchases), so the users don't need to do anything extra. The more complicated the system is (e.g., separate ratings for terrain accuracy, difficulty accuracy, scenic view, container quality, swag quality, camouflage, creativity, historical significance, etc.), the less useful the data will be.

I completely agree here. I went through all my meager 100+ finds and rated them all last night. If I had to do anything other than select 1-5 stars, I would have been tempted to skip the whole process.

I was curious if any of the doom and gloom predictions of some would come true while rating (i.e. rating buddies high, LPCs low). I actually rated a couple micros with 5s based on location and method of hide, while some regulars got a low rating for giving me nothing memorable. I actually rated a friend's cache a 1 because it really does suck. (I won't tell them I rated it that way, though).

 

Overall the GCvote add-on is pretty kick-a**. You can see ratings from almost anywhere in the GC.com site. Ratings density is very sparse at the moment. I think I'm the first one in Spokane, WA to rate caches. As more people start rating, I'm sure it will get better and more accurate.

 

<sarcasm>

If you're coming to Spokane, you can trust my ratings 100% as I am the average geocacher. By average, I mean that whatever you like, I like. Don't worry about the logic behind that. Just trust me.......

</sarcasm>

[+cron]

Interesting tool. I discovered it from someone else's posting on another forum.

 

I usually give three stars by default (which is called "average") and I'll sometimes assign a 1-2 or 4-5 stars for exceptional caches (in both ways).

 

This tool has some limitations, but I think it's great and it doesn't hurt to use it. Those who don't like it don't have to use it.

 

I'm sure we'll see improvements over time (shouldn't be able to rate a cache you never visited, found or DNFed).

 

In the end, because that's how statistics work, we may see the vast majority of caches will have been rated three stars. But some will get the 1-2 or 4-5. A least, you'll know which to avoid or which to go for.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

I just tried going to the Groundspeak GPSr review site. Guess what? It's been taken down. I don't know what that means, but I don't think it's a good sign for those of us hoping they will implement a rating system.

Edited June 15, 2009 by DatCrazyMongoose

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

Just a quick note to add that one of the features is a "Add GCvote Note" button on the cache logging page. Just click it and it puts a link in your log which includes the rating you gave the cache. I personally think that goes a bit far (spoils the anonymity), so I delete the part that gives my rating before posting the log. That way there's just the link at the bottom.

[+rmesct]

A while back, I attempted to write a GEO Voting application that didn't take off. Actually only a few people tried it and before I went full ahead in making it fully featured, I thought I'd see if there was an interest.

 

http://www.pasciak.com/TFTC.zip

 

Feel free to have a look and give me ideas, perhaps I'll build it full force. The idea is that it is separate from the geocaching web site and only serves as a way to recommend hides - based on favorite categories.

 

i.e.

 

clever hide (scale of 1 to 10) You can only vote once per cache and in the end, you can use this application to seek only the 10's for the category of hide you're interested in.

 

p.s. the application is not too user friendly and hasn't been fully tested.

 

you can reach me at tftc@pasciak.com