What does everyone think of this?

[+CapeDoc]

Saw this elsewhere in the forums.

Geocache rating tool for Firefox called GCVote . Very simple to install plug in. Works well.

 

My feelings: Ambivalent.

We all cache for our own reasons and we all get different pleasure from caching. We thus will give ratings for different reasons. However, if a cache is really poor, or really excellent, it will probably show with time and this system may prove informative.

[+the pooks]

Can't get too excited about it. The game is competitive enough as it is. The really top caches end up in bookmark lists and the logs already rate caches in their own way - (if one reads the logs, which is what you are supposed to do).

 

A rating system would just intimidate folks like youngsters who also want to play the game and now they get exposed to the rough and tumble of the competitive world.

[+Skyjuggler]

Hmmm...

 

I must be honest, I'm really on the fence with this one.

 

On one hand, I agree with the Pooks, caching is already pretty competitive and this may just exacerbate it.

 

However, I think it's a great idea for when one goes caching in a different area. My logic here is that you tend to find the caches in your area regardless of how good/bad they are, but just cos they're there.

 

But it'd be great for me to go to the cape and choose a couple of high rating caches, instead of digging through trash for a micro that's full of water...

 

And if the competitive cachers take it to another level... Well, each to his own. We all play the game our own way.

[+Discombob]

I quite like it myself.

It would be interesting to see what sort of rating various caches get, as well as get ideas on your own.

Although i can see that it could have negative aspects if some caches are not rated highly and might stop cachers placing more if they feel people dont like their caches.

 

Of course, with my caches being so fantastic, it would be a great ego boost too

[+cownchicken]

Of course, with my caches being so fantastic, it would be a great ego boost too

 

They are??

[+Discombob]

Of course, with my caches being so fantastic, it would be a great ego boost too

 

They are??

 

Sure, doesn't everyone like getting stuck in tiny pipes with a river freezing you, getting lost in claustrophobic caves with your knees scraped off, hanging off cliffs wishing you'd taken out extra life insurance, and getting attacked by baboons

[+CapeDoc]

Of course, with my caches being so fantastic, it would be a great ego boost too

 

They are??

 

Sure, doesn't everyone like getting stuck in tiny pipes with a river freezing you, getting lost in claustrophobic caves with your knees scraped off, hanging off cliffs wishing you'd taken out extra life insurance, and getting attacked by baboons

 

Five Star ratings from me!

 

I have been using the rating system and it is nice to see at a glance what others thought. Early days, so I take it all with a pinch of salt.

[+trevorh7000]

You gotta love Firefox and Greasemonkey - Don't let that scare you onto not trying out the system. Greasemoneky is easy to install and so are the scripts for it. Once you get a feel of what it can do it can really enhance your web experience. I have rated a few caches as well and notice a few rated by others - Must be the Doc. It could be quite useful but requires a critical mass before it really works

 

But hey look at geocaching - started with a handful and look at it now,

 

There are some other very useful Greasemonley scripts that enhance the functionality of the Geocaching web pages. Do some googling to find them

 

OK for the armchair caches here are the goodies

 

Greasemonkey Addon https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748

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

some more scripts - http://gmscripts.locusprime.net/index.html

 

Google for more. I have not used any of those yet but I do have some from somewhere else that i was impressed with when I first loaded them.

 

Have fun and if you come accross any killer scripts let us all know.

 

Trev

[+DamhuisClan]

I am running quite a few Greasemonkey scripts from LittleDeville

And now when I look at someone else's browser, it looks and works so much different.

link: http://www.lildevil.org/greasemonkey/

 

I also modified my FireFox QuickSearch box, so I can just enter either a GC code, or TB code, and it will take me right to the correct page.

 

Will have a look at those other pages, and see if there is something interesting to add.

[+carlstein]

What I'd like is for visitors to caches to be able to give their ratings for terrain and difficulty.

[+CapeDoc]

So a few cachers are using this system around Cape Town. A nice feature is that you can bring up your own caches and see what others have rated your caches. It is quite...educational. Seeing ratings of one and two stars does make you think about how to improve your caches. Five star ratings are of course a bit of an ego boost. The pinch of salt remains, but still think with time the system does have...some...value.

[+DamhuisClan]

I have used it a few times

It is a nice feature enhancement. It gives a good indication of what others think of the cache. I think with more people scoring it would become a good measuring line.

[+the pooks]

I had it on for a while, but it messes with the cache list - the individual items take up more space so fewer caches are listed on the page. It also appears more cluttered and takes a bit of extra time to load. So I have disabled it for now: too much information...

[+carlstein]

Guess it's off the topic a bit, so perhaps should have its own thread, but I'm interested to hear what others think of my idea of a system where cache finders can give their rating for difficulty/terrain so that the cache page can display an average. I reckon it is easier to rate a cache for difficulty/terrain having experienced it rather than having placed it.

[+DamhuisClan]

Guess it's off the topic a bit, so perhaps should have its own thread, but I'm interested to hear what others think of my idea of a system where cache finders can give their rating for difficulty/terrain so that the cache page can display an average. I reckon it is easier to rate a cache for difficulty/terrain having experienced it rather than having placed it.

I keep a diary of all caches we as the DamhuisClan have done, and on recommendation of Crystal Fairy, I have added the terrain, and difficulty rating to each diary entry. This has made me quite attune to the ratings added to each cache we have done.

Before I add the info to our Diary, I ask myself what Dif/Ter I would have given it, and if it is out more then .5, I send the owner a suggestion of maybe increasing or decreasing it. Sometimes the owners accept it, and sometimes they don't. I think in the 350 odd caches so far we have done, I think I have disagreed with about 4 to 8 caches, and maybe sent 3 or 4 recommendations. That is pretty good going, I would think.

 

Bottom line: If you think a rating is wrong email the owner with the suggested ratings.

 

I have adjusted some rating of my caches from the logs I have received as well.

[+Henzz]

It works really well... Pooks does have a point though... It does take a little bit longer to load, but when we get to a point where there is let's say about 20 votes on each cache you will have a good indication of what cache quality is, and that will outweigh that extra second or two...

 

I recently did a 3-day stint to East London and back, and this rating system would have come in handy.. Given limited time I had to pick some and leave some.. Some caches was good and some not, but if GC-Vote was around then I would have picked a bit better I suppose...

 

One small gripe I've got though is that you can only rate caches as 1,2,3,4 or 5 star... So what do you do if you feel that a cache is better than 3-star (average), but not really a 4-star (good)... I would have liked to have a 3.5-star as an option...

[+carlstein]

One small gripe I've got though is that you can only rate caches as 1,2,3,4 or 5 star... So what do you do if you feel that a cache is better than 3-star (average), but not really a 4-star (good)... I would have liked to have a 3.5-star as an option...

 

Cache-karma: give it a 4