+g0t0pless Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Sorry if it's already been discussed, but I didn't see any posts within the last 3 or 4 pages regarding this, and I am very surprised it hasn't already been brought up. How about a 1 to 5 star rating for the cache for the finders to log on the cache page. You'd only be able to rate a cache if you found it. You'd be able to rate the cache in several different categories such as uniqueness of the location, how muddy you're likely to get, how much bushwacking you have to do, etc... I see a lot of cache owners request "let me know what you think of my cache" in their descriptions. This would help them out, and also help improve the quality of caches. It would also promote better logs on the site. Instead of just a "TFTC" you'd get more "I'm rating this a 5 for on the wetness scale because it was in the middle of a lake" or "I'm gonna give this a 3 on the likely to see snakes scale because we saw a snake". Link to comment
+g0t0pless Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 Also, the average star ratings would be listed near the difficulty and terrain on the main cache listing. Link to comment
+ReadyOrNot Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 TPTB have already stated that they are releasing a "Rewards" system. I haven't heard much about it lately, but i'm guess users would be able to give rewards to caches and then you'd be able to search for caches based on the rewards.. Sounds cool to me.. Not sure why we haven't seen it yet though. Link to comment
+niraD Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Sorry if it's already been discussed, but I didn't see any posts within the last 3 or 4 pages regarding this, and I am very surprised it hasn't already been brought up.Just a few threads after this one is the "Rate the caches" thread:http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=224646 Link to comment
+DatCrazyMongoose Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Google GCVote and download the script app and the script. It works like a champ. The more people who use it, the better it will get. Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 No thanks. As pointed out in the other threads, rating systems just don't work. Link to comment
+Knight2000 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I love the idea. It will work for the majority. Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Great. Now I have the task to go back and rate the 5000+ caches I found... Perhaps there is a possibility that a rating system CAN work? Link to comment
+niraD Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 Perhaps there is a possibility that a rating system CAN work?Sure, as long as you like the same thing everyone else likes. Or as long as the rating system can offer you recommendations based only on the ratings of those with similar preferences to yours, ignoring the ratings of those with dissimilar preferences to yours. Link to comment
+Allanon Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 ...I didn't see any posts within the last 3 or 4 pages regarding this... Since there is at least one thread on this same very page, you didn't 'search' very hard. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 No thanks. As pointed out in the other threads, rating systems just don't work. I love the idea. It will work for the majority. Before one can say whether or not a rating system works you need to agree on what you want the rating system to do. My guess is that many of those who are clamoring the most for a rating system really don't expect it to do much. These are people who see that there are many more caches then they will every find. They are looking for a way to select the caches they want to find. There are of course already ways to select the caches you find. Some people just select caches at random, others look at the distance they have to travel (the so called radius slaves), some look at terrain and difficulty ratings - avoiding more difficult caches if they like easy finds or avoiding the easy finds if they prefer something more challenging, some spend hours reading logs and looking a pictures to find the caches that look the most interesting or the most fun, some will find another cacher's favorites list and use it for recommendations. I suspect that many people would like to see ratings as another options to help select the caches they will hunt. They must recognize that not every cache will have an average rating the same they would give the cache. Some may believe that their personal taste are so "average" that most of the time the caches will be rated close to what they would give, others think that most caches will be rated somewhere in the middle and those that get unusually high or low ratings would be worth giving a closer look. You may be able read the pages of the 4.5 to 5 star caches to see if you don't want to skip these or read the 1 and 1.5 star caches to see if you really should just ignore these. The ones in the middle are good to go in the pile of "do if I have time" or grab while in the area to get some special cache. Will you miss some great caches? Sure. Will you still find caches you think are lame? Most likely. But if you have low expectations for what you are using the ratings for, they could work for some people. The GCVote system works fine. Being a third party system, no one has to see these ratings on Geocaching.com or are they forced to enter a rating. The people who want ratings and are using Firefox, can install the Greasemonkey script and get ratings. One could debate whether this is any better than a script that simply shows a made-up rating on each cache. But even this is all it is doing, it still provides the user with a method for selecting caches and if that is what they are looking for, it works. Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 (edited) There is a 1 to 5 star rating system in place for Wherigo caches, on the Wherigo site. Here's the URL for the list of California Wherigo carts, scroll down and take a look. What you'll see there is a mix of unrated and rated. There are two with 3.5 star ratings . There are no ratings at or below 3 stars. All other ratings are 4 - 5 stars. Most are unrated. Just an observation. Is this useful? Edited June 24, 2009 by Isonzo Karst Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 this has been requested many times since the start of the game - doubt it will happen. Try the Greasemonkey script, it has everything you are looking for: http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php Link to comment
+g0t0pless Posted June 24, 2009 Author Share Posted June 24, 2009 this has been requested many times since the start of the game - doubt it will happen. Try the Greasemonkey script, it has everything you are looking for: http://dosensuche.de/GCVote/index_en.php GCVote is close enough to what I had in mind. After browsing the forums again, I spotted the "other" thread about this topic. I apologize. Link to comment
Recommended Posts