Jump to content

An Idea For Geocaching.com


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Here is an idea for geocaching.com

I dont know if anyone who reads these forums has the power to inquire this idea to the "higher up" @ geocaching .com

The Idea: simply have a rating system for each Geo

 

This way the Geoers who find the cache (earn the smilely) can rate the cache (1-10 stars)

 

Geoers can rate the cache based on how well camouflaged, great view, destination, etc...

 

With so many geos, this would add a new level of separating the simple geos from the exquisite geos

 

just a thought? anyone agree disagree?

Link to comment

I'm sure you aren't aware of this, but that is a "Can-o-worms" topic* here. It has been discussed in many, many threads, and there are currently at least two threads open on the topic. In case you want to read up on the more recent threads, you'll find them:

 

here

and here

 

(not sure, but I think there's another recent one in the Website forum)

 

*I know that all too well... that was one of the first topics that I breached here several years ago!

Link to comment

Good idea, but it's been suggested to death. No official word from the front office yet, as far as I know, but it'd be a major coding project for them, as well as subject to abuse, so I'm not pinning my highest hopes to it.

 

Actually, this would be a trivial coding project. However, certainly subject to abuse.

 

If not intentionally, because ratings like this are subjective by nature rather than objective. I don't like micros in the woods, so I'd be likely to rate those lower. I bet others like them a lot.

Link to comment

Here is an idea for geocaching.com

I dont know if anyone who reads these forums has the power to inquire this idea to the "higher up" @ geocaching .com

The Idea: simply have a rating system for each Geo

 

This way the Geoers who find the cache (earn the smilely) can rate the cache (1-10 stars)

 

Geoers can rate the cache based on how well camouflaged, great view, destination, etc...

 

With so many geos, this would add a new level of separating the simple geos from the exquisite geos

 

just a thought? anyone agree disagree?

 

I also think the current rating systems works very well.

 

Since you brought this up, are you changing your geo-name?

Link to comment

Welcome to the forums, the volunteer help desk :D (private joke)

I dont know if anyone who reads these forums has the power to inquire this idea to the "higher up" @ geocaching .com

I don’t think it does, lots of good ideas and loads of discussions on a rating system have been mentioned on this forum, and nothing seems to get done. However, don’t let that discourage you from discussing issues, asking questions and fleshing out ideas

 

This way the Geoers who find the cache (earn the smilely) can rate the cache (1-10 stars)

 

Geoers can rate the cache based on how well camouflaged, great view, destination, etc...

OK if it's a simple overall 1-10 stars rating on each find then you are going to get different ratings from different geocachers, because geocachers are all different and geocache for different reasons and goals. What happens when a geocache has a fantastic camo, but lousy location _ your rating will be a detriment to the location.

 

If you want to have a list: 'camouflage', 'great view', 'destination' etc. and a 1-10 star rating for each category then you are putting a large requirement on the finder. There are some geocachers that just put one line in their logs, some don't even log online at all. Then what happens to the geocacher who has returned home from 100+ finds? Eventually finders will just not log online (bad bad news) or just pick the default star rating which defeats the whole point of rating in the first place.

 

The best rating system is mine _ 'Top 10 Profiling'.

Edited by Tavisman
Link to comment

If this is finder feedback, there's no reason to formally change te webswite. Justy add to your find log I rate this chache 8 on a scale of 1 to 10" If enough people start that, I bet the sight will change to follow. I also suspect there will be fewer caches, since some people don't take criticism well.

Link to comment

If this is finder feedback, there's no reason to formally change te webswite. Justy add to your find log I rate this chache 8 on a scale of 1 to 10" If enough people start that, I bet the sight will change to follow. I also suspect there will be fewer caches, since some people don't take criticism well.

If it isn't anonymous you might get some local angst from those cachers that hide film cans and key holders for smileys.

Edited by Knight2000
Link to comment

Good idea, but it's been suggested to death. No official word from the front office yet, as far as I know, but it'd be a major coding project for them, as well as subject to abuse, so I'm not pinning my highest hopes to it.

 

Actually, this would be a trivial coding project. However, certainly subject to abuse.

 

If not intentionally, because ratings like this are subjective by nature rather than objective. I don't like micros in the woods, so I'd be likely to rate those lower. I bet others like them a lot.

 

Very well put. It could be OK but there are a FEW cachers who have issues and would take them out on the cache hider! Just look at bookmark ratings and you will find all of the abuse you need. Feel free to see my bookmark lists. I don't mind if you disagree with the list but as you can see, some people need therapy! Oh well, its probably the same people who delete cachers legit logs and vandalize geocaches and they know who they are! As a matter of fact, so do most of the local geocaching community.

Point is: don't look for objectivity where it may not be found. :P

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge
Link to comment

If this is finder feedback, there's no reason to formally change the website. Just add to your find log I rate this cache 8 on a scale of 1 to 10" If enough people start that, I bet the sight will change to follow. I also suspect there will be fewer caches, since some people don't take criticism well.

If it isn't anonymous you might get some local angst from those cachers that hide film cans and key holders them for smileys.

I think ras_oscar is spot on, if we all start rating caches in our logs then the I'm sure GC.com will follow suit _ consumer power!

 

However, I would like to point out that there is no criticism with 'Tavisman's Top 10 Profiling', because you are only bringing those caches you enjoyed into public view. So there is no need for anonymity because you are not downgrading caches.

Link to comment
Shouldn't we wait for page 2 before calling a deadhorse?
I think the idea of a "dead horse" is that the topic has already been discussed to death. Starting a new thread on an old topic doesn't mean the topic is no longer a "dead horse".

Someone should start a new thread on what constitutes a dead horse.

Frankly, I am inclined to be sick at the thought of another post stating a thread is a dead horse. Dead horse comments, are like beating dead horses.

 

Someone needs to call PETA, or a glue factory.

Link to comment
Shouldn't we wait for page 2 before calling a deadhorse?
I think the idea of a "dead horse" is that the topic has already been discussed to death. Starting a new thread on an old topic doesn't mean the topic is no longer a "dead horse".

Someone should start a new thread on what constitutes a dead horse.

Frankly, I am inclined to be sick at the thought of another post stating a thread is a dead horse. Dead horse comments, are like beating dead horses.

 

Someone needs to call PETA, or a glue factory.

 

Getting a little OT....wait....someone put up a graphic of a dead horse so we can all rate it

Link to comment

<Breaks out the paddles> "CLEAR!!!! I've got a pulse!!" :D

 

I'd like to put my 2 cents in on this.

 

I am new to the forums and relatively new to geocaching in general. I am up to 17 finds since June 12th. Yay!

 

If this topic had not been brought up again, I would have had to read who knows how many old topics before I found out about the Greasemonkey script GCVote. So even tho its been discussed to death by many, there are many others that can learn from this new thread.

 

Anyway, I now use the GCVote script and I went back and rated all my previous caches. I rate based on location (was it well thought out), creativity (was the description well thought out and what did I learn/see in searching for this cache and camo/hiding quality.

 

I think its a great idea and I hope it catches on.

Link to comment

I also use GCvote.

Here's the thing:

If a simple, anonymous, rating system is used, it probably will become quite useful over time. We all have our likes and dislikes. With time, those should average out, and you will be left with an overall impression of the "quality" of caches.I know "quality" is subjective, but I am ok with it.

Most caches will come out with an average rating, to be expected (and not very useful). Occasionally though, some caches will average out to have higher ratings, some lower, and I think it will then become useful.

If a cache scores 1 out of 5 after 300 votes (assuming the system only allowed one vote per cacher) then I would probably put it on my ignore list!

 

I would also still be left with the option of ignoring any information it presented.

 

Caches of mine rated with low ratings, coupled with brief, TFTC type logs, may push me to more creative hides.

 

I think there is some value (and choice) regarding rating systems.

Link to comment

Talk about throwing fuel on the angst fire. With a little experience anyone can tell quickly what type of hide any particular cache will be. And avoid if they feel it necessary. Votes are subjective, and GCVote is not anonymous. First, those without Greasemonkey installed see a log edit and "GCVote" in that user's log entry. In our area we have one person using it - hmmm, I wonder who rated this LPC at 4 stars? Which loops us right back to the subjective thing.

 

I'm surprised we haven't seen the anti-ALR crowd in here with their battle-cry (that I happen to agree with) of "you shouldn't be trying to control my caching experience!"

Edited by nelson crew
Link to comment

Okay, I've read these topics multiple times now, and I think I have a VERY simple suggestion that GC.com could add.

 

When a cacher logs a find, there is a check box for "Rate Up". (Like the thumbs up/down option on some comment boards.) This way, only those who enjoyed the caches can affect the rating, and only those who actually found the cache can submit their opinions.

 

Seems very simple, and the cache page (under the pertinent information) could list either the number of rate-ups, or a percentage, depending on which was easier/more useful.

 

Comments on this?

 

Mike (Mike & Kate)

Link to comment

Okay, I've read these topics multiple times now, and I think I have a VERY simple suggestion that GC.com could add.

 

When a cacher logs a find, there is a check box for "Rate Up". (Like the thumbs up/down option on some comment boards.) This way, only those who enjoyed the caches can affect the rating, and only those who actually found the cache can submit their opinions.

 

Seems very simple, and the cache page (under the pertinent information) could list either the number of rate-ups, or a percentage, depending on which was easier/more useful.

Umm…

 

Comments on this?

OK.

 

Good Points: This is simple (which is good) and doesn't put too much burden on the finder. I agreed that there should only be a rate up (and not a rate down) because I don’t think it helps the sport if we state which caches were don't like.

 

Bad Points: It doesn't differentiate between a fantastic cache and great cache. The statistics (number of rate-ups and percentage) are great but there is no room for improvement, like how many finders rated it fantastic and how many rated it as great. You have to trawl through the logs to see the rating (no quick number at the top of the page to check out) and you cannot easily get a 'how many of my friends (GC.com feature) enjoyed this cache' sort of statistic.

 

Solution: 'Tavisman's Top 10 Profiling' has all the good points and addresses every one of the bad points.

Link to comment
and GCVote is not anonymous. First, those without Greasemonkey installed see a log edit and "GCVote" in that user's log entry

To add GCVote to a log is an option. There is a button placed above the log entry which, if clicked, adds your rating to your log. Anonymity remains an option.

As regards one vote...would you take the opinion of just one log?. The system needs time and many votes to be of any use. Even then, it can be ignored, and in my opinion, be used in conjunction with your conventional judgements of rating a cache (reading the listing, looking at the location, reading the logs).

I feel, use it, don't use it, your option.

Link to comment
and GCVote is not anonymous. First, those without Greasemonkey installed see a log edit and "GCVote" in that user's log entry

To add GCVote to a log is an option. There is a button placed above the log entry which, if clicked, adds your rating to your log. Anonymity remains an option.

As regards one vote...would you take the opinion of just one log?. The system needs time and many votes to be of any use. Even then, it can be ignored, and in my opinion, be used in conjunction with your conventional judgements of rating a cache (reading the listing, looking at the location, reading the logs).

I feel, use it, don't use it, your option.

 

I just might take the opinion of one log. If that log was well written and described the type of caching adventure I enjoy. You can't get that from a simple five star rating system.

Link to comment
Shouldn't we wait for page 2 before calling a deadhorse?
I think the idea of a "dead horse" is that the topic has already been discussed to death. Starting a new thread on an old topic doesn't mean the topic is no longer a "dead horse".

Someone should start a new thread on what constitutes a dead horse.

Frankly, I am inclined to be sick at the thought of another post stating a thread is a dead horse. Dead horse comments, are like beating dead horses.

 

Someone needs to call PETA, or a glue factory.

The Glue wouldn't stick.

 

PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals. Yes, I am a Meat-a-tarian. If it was good enough for Noah, it's good enough for me.

 

Found a dead horse next to a cache once...

 

Anyhow... I see huge issues with abuse being poissible. But one thing this does not encompass is the newly hidden caches. The first few people could rate it a 10 because the area was pristine. Then, after a thoughtless individual comes through and tears the area up, it may get rated a 1. Or the first person rates the 10, number two rates it a 1, your average becomes 5. I see a whole lot of average caches being rated.

 

Personally I don't think I would use any system like this, I want to go to the cache and see it for myself to make the judgment if I will like it or not. I don't want someone elses opinion dictating what I do. Once that happens you become Sheeple (Sheep+People)

 

A great thing about geocaching is the ability to do your own thing and not follow a crowd.

Link to comment

Looks to me like there is a rating system.

TFTC = I didn't like your cache very much (Or I'm too lazy to write a decent log)

100 +/- words = Good job!

 

PP

 

I don't know, seems TFTC most often means: I don't like to write logs, I just want to record my find.

 

100 words = Good job! Again, not necessarily. 1 word could = Good job! I'm not a wordy writer of logs and I don't want to give away anything so I'll often right - "Wow" or "Fantastic" or "Very nice. Thanks." or "More people should plant caches like this" or "Clever and sneaky" or "Great view"

Link to comment

At first a rating system sounds like a nice idea. Would only need to be 1 - 5. Here would be the problems.

 

There are already a lot of cachers who do not even write a log. Just TFTC. The system most likely be utilized and it would be an inaccurate measure.

 

Second, There are a lot of different types of caches, and not every cacher likes the same kind of cache. If some one didn't like micros, even if it was a really cool hide, it would get a 1 from that person no matter. Also rating something very high just because they like the type of hide, and are not rating it off of actual specifics of the hide.

 

The biggest problem, is if some one doesn't find it, or it has been muggled. If some one doesn't find it, they will most likely put a 1. But it may be a really nice cache. If its been muggled, they may put a 1, even if it was one of the better caches out there before it was muggled. Once its rated, its been rated. Its stuck with that.

 

We already have a log. Most people who do write them, will give you enough feedback on it. You can get a good idea from how good the cache is by reading the first few logs. As well, if there is a problem or a change needs to take place, some one will put that in the log, for instance, Cache should be rated less in difficulty, etc. Also with the current log, nothing is permanent. If its been muggled, or listed not difficult and should be listed more difficult etc, we can change it, and write a note. There would be no predefined label on the cache that may influence a cacher from finding it even if the issue has been fix, i.g. cache has been improved, or ratings fixed etc.

 

If some one wants to rate the cache, they can always say in the log, 4 out of 5 stars if they want, or what ever way they want to rate it.

 

Log is more effective.

Ratting system is less effective.

Link to comment

I don't know, seems TFTC most often means: I don't like to write logs, I just want to record my find.

 

Which is one of the many reasons rating systems never work. I am too lazy to right transmits to I will always just rate the default or wherever my cursor lands.

 

Even the top 10 that Markwell proposed some time back suffers from this.

Link to comment

There are already a lot of cachers who do not even write a log. Just TFTC. The system most likely be utilized and it would be an inaccurate measure.

 

Rating a cache should be optional. If it's optional it's more likely that people who care about ratings will choose to rate and rate wisely. Those that rate as a goof, will likely get bored quickly and stop. It'll even out in the end.

 

Second, There are a lot of different types of caches, and not every cacher likes the same kind of cache. If some one didn't like micros, even if it was a really cool hide, it would get a 1 from that person no matter.

 

Really? I generally don't like micros (why, because from my experience they are cheap - a way to play the game with minimal investment) but if you take me to an interesting location, say a cave with bats and you hide a bison tube in a rubber bat that's hanging off the wall - I'm going to give it a high mark for creativity.

 

The biggest problem, is if some one doesn't find it, or it has been muggled. If some one doesn't find it, they will most likely put a 1. But it may be a really nice cache. If its been muggled, they may put a 1, even if it was one of the better caches out there before it was muggled.

 

Only those that log a find should rate the cache. How do you rate something that you didn't find? Like rating a book you haven't read yet.

 

We already have a log. Most people who do write them, will give you enough feedback on it. You can get a good idea from how good the cache is by reading the first few logs.

 

Sure, that's what we currently do now. But let's say you're going out of town for a few days and you have a few hours of free time to go caching. You do a search for caches within 10 miles of your hotel and find there are 500 caches. If you allow yourself 2 minutes to read each cache description including a couple of log entries it'll take you 1000 minutes (approx. 17 hours) to determine which caches people think are nice caches to visit.

 

If some one wants to rate the cache, they can always say in the log, 4 out of 5 stars if they want, or what ever way they want to rate it.

 

Still requires reading each log. In fact, that system will add to the time because instead of reading a couple of the most current logs you'll need to scan them all to see if anyone left a rating in their log.

Link to comment

I don't know, seems TFTC most often means: I don't like to write logs, I just want to record my find.

 

Which is one of the many reasons rating systems never work. I am too lazy to right transmits to I will always just rate the default or wherever my cursor lands.

 

Even the top 10 that Markwell proposed some time back suffers from this.

 

Rating caches should be a choice not a requirement.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...