Caches I might like Pocket Querry

July 16, 2009

A recent topic mentioning the Net Flix style of cache rating got me to thinking. I have heard this suggestion before and always thought the short coming was when you were caching out of your area. If you and someone in your town agreed on what was a good cache, you might try others they thought were worthwhile. If you go caching out of town, the system would not know if anyone in that town agreed with you on what a "good" cache was. As I proposed in the other topic maybe we could...

Everyone that wants to participate, can fill out a survey about their caching preferences. Then you could rate the caches you find and if you choose, go back and rate caches you already found. The ratings would be invisible to everyone, so no one would get their feelings hurt etc. Then if you want to hunt for caches you might like in your town or across the country, you would do a Pocket Querry for "caches I might like." Other people that agreed with you in the survey would be used to filter the caches. So if you both think park and grabs are the greatest, you would get a list of all the park and grabs that they rated as great. Your PQ would not have any park and grabs that they rated as lousy. The PQ would return a list of caches that someone with your preferences had rated as good caches.

This special pocket querry would be available to ALL members. I can imagine that premium members would have more liberal use of it. Maybe limit regular members to fewer results and less frequent use.

I hope this topic will not turn into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the Net Flix system or my thoughts about it's usability. Please let's talk about the system that is proposed. Thanks

4.7k · July 16, 2009

sounds like a lotta extra work.

3.2k · July 16, 2009

I hope this topic will not turn into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the Net Flix system or my thoughts about it's usability. Please let's talk about the system that is proposed. Thanks

So no one is suppose to respond?

July 16, 2009

I hope this topic will not turn into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the Net Flix system or my thoughts about it's usability. Please let's talk about the system that is proposed. Thanks

So no one is suppose to respond?

Try re-reading the post. It suggests a new rating/filtering system. I am asking those that respond to discuss the new suggestion rather than my reference to other suggestions and the net flix type system. I don't wish to debate the net flix system. Is that more clear?

3.2k · July 16, 2009

I hope this topic will not turn into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the Net Flix system or my thoughts about it's usability. Please let's talk about the system that is proposed. Thanks

So no one is suppose to respond?

Try re-reading the post. It suggests a new rating/filtering system. I am asking those that respond to discuss the new suggestion rather than my reference to other suggestions and the net flix type system. I don't wish to debate the net flix system. Is that more clear?

Sure. Restating it exactly the same way cleared it right up.

July 16, 2009

sounds like a lotta extra work.

That is one of the good features of this system. If you are happy picking caches to hunt as you already do, you don't have to change anything. Those that are too lazy to take the survey or rate caches are not compelled to participate. Those that don't feel a need to filter for caches they might like, don't need to participate. Of course there will always be the people that say, "I wouldn't use it so it is a bad idea. I can't stand the idea of Groundspeak investing any time into ideas that don't benefit me. Until the web site is perfect for me, no other improvements should be made at all." I believe that enough people would voluntarily participate to allow the system to work. You may not find suggestions for every type of cache you would want to hunt in a new area, but you have a good chance of at least getting some suggestions.

Edited July 16, 2009 by traildad

July 16, 2009

I hope this topic will not turn into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the Net Flix system or my thoughts about it's usability. Please let's talk about the system that is proposed. Thanks

So no one is suppose to respond?

Try re-reading the post. It suggests a new rating/filtering system. I am asking those that respond to discuss the new suggestion rather than my reference to other suggestions and the net flix type system. I don't wish to debate the net flix system. Is that more clear?

Sure. Restating it exactly the same way cleared it right up.

Thanks for participating.

PS Usually when you use the word "exactly" I would expect the words to be kind of a cut and paste from the first explanation. The two posts you quote are clearly not "exactly" the same. Did you want me to explain it in Spanish?

Edited July 16, 2009 by traildad

8k · July 16, 2009

Everyone that wants to participate, can fill out a survey about their caching preferences. Then you could rate the caches you find and if you choose, go back and rate caches you already found. The ratings would be invisible to everyone, so no one would get their feelings hurt etc. Then if you want to hunt for caches you might like in your town or across the country, you would do a Pocket Querry for "caches I might like." Other people that agreed with you in the survey would be used to filter the caches. So if you both think park and grabs are the greatest, you would get a list of all the park and grabs that they rated as great. Your PQ would not have any park and grabs that they rated as lousy. The PQ would return a list of caches that someone with your preferences had rated as good caches.

This special pocket querry would be available to ALL members. I can imagine that premium members would have more liberal use of it. Maybe limit regular members to fewer results and less frequent use.

I think some improvement to the current bookmarking system would work better.

Any premium member who wants to participate could create a one ore more bookmark lists of favorite caches in a genre of cache they enjoy finding. So you might have a list of the best park 'n grabs and I might have a list of the best caches at historic locations. The description (or a list of keywords a new field for each bookmark list) would identify the genre of caches that are in the list. Anyone (regular or premium) would be able to search for lists of caches that that match the genres they are interested that have one or more caches in the geographic area they are looking in. Premium members could create PQs from the lists. Regular members would click on each cache to decide if they want to hunt it. Perhaps an enhancement would be to build a combined list that contains caches that appear on at least two or three of the lists (assuming you found more than one list). The only thing that really needs to be implemented to enable this is a way to search for bookmark lists based on location and genre.

4.7k · July 16, 2009

i think that to make the system be effective, you'd need an awful large data sample, and i don't think you're going to get enough people to rate enough caches to make it practicable.

more and more people can't be bothered to write more than tftc/tnlnsl in their logs, so i think the number of cachers who will be willing to provide additional data points is going to be low.

July 16, 2009

I think some improvement to the current bookmarking system would work better.

Any premium member who wants to participate could create a one ore more bookmark lists of favorite caches in a genre of cache they enjoy finding. So you might have a list of the best park 'n grabs and I might have a list of the best caches at historic locations. The description (or a list of keywords a new field for each bookmark list) would identify the genre of caches that are in the list. Anyone (regular or premium) would be able to search for lists of caches that that match the genres they are interested that have one or more caches in the geographic area they are looking in. Premium members could create PQs from the lists. Regular members would click on each cache to decide if they want to hunt it. Perhaps an enhancement would be to build a combined list that contains caches that appear on at least two or three of the lists (assuming you found more than one list). The only thing that really needs to be implemented to enable this is a way to search for bookmark lists based on location and genre.

I think this system would be helpful also. One difference I note that "may" be undesirable, is the public nature of it. Will your fellow geocaching club member feel hurt because his cache is not on your favorites bookmark list?

July 16, 2009

i think that to make the system be effective, you'd need an awful large data sample, and i don't think you're going to get enough people to rate enough caches to make it practicable.

more and more people can't be bothered to write more than tftc/tnlnsl in their logs, so i think the number of cachers who will be willing to provide additional data points is going to be low.

Your 2nd point have been made many times. You very well may be right. I am not sure that I agree that you would need a large data sample.

Just for the discussion lets say there were 7 cache types. If your survey says you like the first two and the 7th. If the system can find any other cacher that likes for example #2 as you do. The pocket querry would suggest all cache #2 types that they liked. The system could use any other cacher that might hate #2 but likes #7's. All the #7 caches he likes would be in your search. Granted if the number of people that participate was less than ten in any given area then you would quickly run out of new caches if you got any at all.

3.2k · July 16, 2009

I hope this topic will not turn into a debate on the pluses and minuses of the Net Flix system or my thoughts about it's usability. Please let's talk about the system that is proposed. Thanks

So no one is suppose to respond?

Try re-reading the post. It suggests a new rating/filtering system. I am asking those that respond to discuss the new suggestion rather than my reference to other suggestions and the net flix type system. I don't wish to debate the net flix system. Is that more clear?

Sure. Restating it exactly the same way cleared it right up.

Thanks for participating.

PS Usually when you use the word "exactly" I would expect the words to be kind of a cut and paste from the first explanation. The two posts you quote are clearly not "exactly" the same. Did you want me to explain it in Spanish?

No, I think I understand. You mean to say "I know I have an idea that is flawed since I based it on another flawed system that has been shown not to work and since I know it has and is being discussed in a number of other threads where it has also been pointed out to me it is flawed, I am starting my own thread and don't want anyone to disagree with me. Please just respond if you agree with me and do not address the merits of the system suggested or the one it is compared to."

Yep, I got it.

July 16, 2009

No, I think I understand. You mean to say "I know I have an idea that is flawed since I based it on another flawed system that has been shown not to work and since I know it has and is being discussed in a number of other threads where it has also been pointed out to me it is flawed, I am starting my own thread and don't want anyone to disagree with me. Please just respond if you agree with me and do not address the merits of the system suggested or the one it is compared to."

Yep, I got it.

:wacko:

Thank you for participating and for not going off topic to discuss the merits of net flix rating systems.

PS It is a good thing Geocaching.com is a perfect system since there is no point is trying to use a flawed system.

Edited July 16, 2009 by traildad

18.9k · July 16, 2009

Everyone that wants to participate, can fill out a survey about their caching preferences. Then you could rate the caches you find and if you choose, go back and rate caches you already found. The ratings would be invisible to everyone, so no one would get their feelings hurt etc. Then if you want to hunt for caches you might like in your town or across the country, you would do a Pocket Querry for "caches I might like." Other people that agreed with you in the survey would be used to filter the caches. So if you both think park and grabs are the greatest, you would get a list of all the park and grabs that they rated as great. Your PQ would not have any park and grabs that they rated as lousy. The PQ would return a list of caches that someone with your preferences had rated as good caches.

This special pocket querry would be available to ALL members. I can imagine that premium members would have more liberal use of it. Maybe limit regular members to fewer results and less frequent use.

I think some improvement to the current bookmarking system would work better.

Any premium member who wants to participate could create a one ore more bookmark lists of favorite caches in a genre of cache they enjoy finding. So you might have a list of the best park 'n grabs and I might have a list of the best caches at historic locations. The description (or a list of keywords a new field for each bookmark list) would identify the genre of caches that are in the list. Anyone (regular or premium) would be able to search for lists of caches that that match the genres they are interested that have one or more caches in the geographic area they are looking in. Premium members could create PQs from the lists. Regular members would click on each cache to decide if they want to hunt it. Perhaps an enhancement would be to build a combined list that contains caches that appear on at least two or three of the lists (assuming you found more than one list). The only thing that really needs to be implemented to enable this is a way to search for bookmark lists based on location and genre.

Very similar to my thoughts as well.

19k · July 16, 2009

i think that to make the system be effective, you'd need an awful large data sample, and i don't think you're going to get enough people to rate enough caches to make it practicable.

more and more people can't be bothered to write more than tftc/tnlnsl in their logs, so i think the number of cachers who will be willing to provide additional data points is going to be low.

Incentives, my dear flask. Incentives. Give them one free smiley for every ten reviews. Its all in the marketing details.

3.9k · July 16, 2009

I think some people spend way too much time on trying to turn the best thing about geocaching - serendipity - into some kind of cookie-cutter world. All rating systems will tend towards whatever actively displeases the lowest number of people. That's how we in the Western world got to have identical malls everywhere. Now of course a lot of people like identical malls with Sbux and McD everywhere, but I prefer to have a slightly unpredictable dinner, even if it sometimes disappoints.

For the OP, here's my suggestion: instead of asking Groundspeak to do it, build it yourself. If you don't have the technical skills to do it, they are easily available - all you'd need is a little hosting space and someone who knows how to program in PHP and Javascript. (I'd be very surprised if you couldn't arrange this for free.) Implement it as an overlay to the cache page via a Greasemonkey script in Firefox. If people think this is a good idea, they will flock to it. And if they flock to it, Groundspeak will very likely buy it off you for a respectable sum. Result: system is built, you're a hero and make some coin, and Groundspeak doesn't have to invest their valuable programmers' time in something which might, in fact, turn out to appeal to only a very small number of people.

4.7k · July 16, 2009

Incentives, my dear flask. Incentives. Give them one free smiley for every ten reviews. Its all in the marketing details.

that's repulsive.

July 17, 2009

i think that to make the system be effective, you'd need an awful large data sample, and i don't think you're going to get enough people to rate enough caches to make it practicable.

more and more people can't be bothered to write more than tftc/tnlnsl in their logs, so i think the number of cachers who will be willing to provide additional data points is going to be low.

Incentives, my dear flask. Incentives. Give them one free smiley for every ten reviews. Its all in the marketing details.

Creativity at it's best.

July 17, 2009

I think some people spend way too much time on trying to turn the best thing about geocaching - serendipity - into some kind of cookie-cutter world. All rating systems will tend towards whatever actively displeases the lowest number of people. That's how we in the Western world got to have identical malls everywhere. Now of course a lot of people like identical malls with Sbux and McD everywhere, but I prefer to have a slightly unpredictable dinner, even if it sometimes disappoints.

For the OP, here's my suggestion: instead of asking Groundspeak to do it, build it yourself. If you don't have the technical skills to do it, they are easily available - all you'd need is a little hosting space and someone who knows how to program in PHP and Javascript. (I'd be very surprised if you couldn't arrange this for free.) Implement it as an overlay to the cache page via a Greasemonkey script in Firefox. If people think this is a good idea, they will flock to it. And if they flock to it, Groundspeak will very likely buy it off you for a respectable sum. Result: system is built, you're a hero and make some coin, and Groundspeak doesn't have to invest their valuable programmers' time in something which might, in fact, turn out to appeal to only a very small number of people.

If it is supposed to be a pocket querry of Groundspeak's cache database I am not sure how that could be done without violating the TOS. Keep in mind that one of the reasons for this particular forum area is for us to make suggestions on how we would like Groundspeak to invest their valuable programmers' time.

3.9k · July 17, 2009

If it is supposed to be a pocket querry of Groundspeak's cache database I am not sure how that could be done without violating the TOS.

You're right - I hadn't spotted that your idea is more ambitious than the usual collaborative rating system.

Keep in mind that one of the reasons for this particular forum area is for us to make suggestions on how we would like Groundspeak to invest their valuable programmers' time.

Fair enough. Based on my understanding of Jeremy's view on serendipity (I think he likes it), I'm not putting any money on this one, though.

Edited July 17, 2009 by sTeamTraen

Caches I might like Pocket Querry

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment