Jump to content

What kind of user ratings should be available?


SgtKlaos
Followers 8

Recommended Posts

For all you geocachers that are also looking for an extra-ordinary experience while you are caching, there is a simple answer: WOW Factor ratings! When a cacher logs a find, he has the option to give a 1-5 star rating (with half stars), concisely characterizing the positive feelings or experience the cache provided. The WOW Factor should be a column on the search results page and shown on the cache details page.

 

It seems like it would be relatively simple to institute and would prove useful to many users. I count the following as benefits that don't take away from any other aspect of the game. User ratings would encourage cache placers to develop their skills. And many would also enjoy the competition and recognition!

 

So consider this a poll. Would you like to see, search by, and rate the WOW Factor of your local caches?

Edited by SgtKlaos
Link to comment

As has been brought up almost every time this topic arises, what makes a "wow" cache?

That would be defined as anything that provides an additional level of wonder, satisfaction or enjoyment. It doesn't even have to be called the "WOW Factor" - it would be just as useful to not name the stars. The common understanding of rating with stars could apply here; just show your appreciation or lack thereof. I'm simply calling for quick reference of all visitors' thoughts on a cache. Instead of reading all the logs, you count the stars!

Edited by SgtKlaos
Link to comment

But WHO gets to chose their definition of wow. I certainly isn't going to be the same for you as it is for me and we may well both have a different idea of wow than KoosKoos.

Like I said, a rating by stars doesn't even need a name. It could just be a general pleasure gauge - a simplified user input to compliment the logs. For quick reference!

Edited by SgtKlaos
Link to comment

But WHO gets to chose their definition of wow. I certainly isn't going to be the same for you as it is for me and we may well both have a different idea of wow than KoosKoos.

 

Like I said, a rating by stars doesn't even need a name. It could just be a general pleasure gauge - a simplified user input to compliment the logs. For quick reference!

 

No! No! A Thousand Times No!! That which we call a rating, by any other name would smell as sour.

Link to comment

For all you geocachers that are also looking for an extra-ordinary experience while you are caching, there is a simple answer: WOW Factor ratings! When a cacher logs a find, he has the option to give a 1-5 star rating (with half stars), concisely characterizing the positive feelings or experience the cache provided. The WOW Factor should be a column on the search results page and shown on the cache details page.

 

It seems like it would be relatively simple to institute and would prove useful to many users. I count the following as benefits that don't take away from any other aspect of the game. User ratings would encourage cache placers to develop their skills. And many would also enjoy the competition and recognition!

 

So consider this a poll. Would you like to see, search by, and rate the WOW Factor of your local caches?

 

Ok, but I WOW over lamp post hides...

Link to comment

But WHO gets to chose their definition of wow. I certainly isn't going to be the same for you as it is for me and we may well both have a different idea of wow than KoosKoos.

Like I said, a rating by stars doesn't even need a name. It could just be a general pleasure gauge - a simplified user input to compliment the logs. For quick reference!

No! No! A Thousand Times No!! That which we call a rating, by any other name would smell as sour.

How is a rating sour? Are the logs sour? Why not make the tone of the logs quickly referenceable and searchable? Are you against competition? Against awarding creativity?

Edited by SgtKlaos
Link to comment

...

So consider this a poll. Would you like to see, search by, and rate the WOW Factor of your local caches?

[/size]

 

Sure, if it could compare me to other folks who have the same WOW factor as me so that the site could predict what caches I would enjoy rather like netflix does.

 

By itself without the extra effort it's not much use. one mans wow is another mans ho hum. A kindred spirits WoW is worth something.

Link to comment

SgtKlaos

 

I'm happy to see how enthusiastic you have become after just 4 days of geocaching. You need to slow down and take a breath though before jumping in and recommending lots of changes to the Geocaching.com website.

 

A request is made almost weekly for some kind of rating system. It is often made by new cachers who see that there are an awful lot of caches to find - more they they can ever find - and they are looking for ways to tell which are the really good caches that they should be looking for (and sometimes what are the real stinkers the ought to skip). The problem is they might not realize at first that not everyone enjoys the same kinds of caches. Some people prefer hikes in the wilderness while others want to find caches they can drive right up to. Some people enjoy finding tiny well hidden micro caches, while others like regular sized containers with lots of items they can trade for. Some want easy finds, other want difficult challenges. Simple rating systems fall apart because there is no average cachers. Different people like different caches.

 

You made another mistake as a newbie. You read a post I made in a thread about bringing back virtual caches where I referred to the "Wow" factor. Since you weren't around you probably didn't quite catch my sarcasm in that thread. When we had virtual caches on Geoaching.com there were complaints by many people that virtuals were pushing out traditional caches. It was much easier and cheaper to create a virtual cache with no container, so people would "hide" these and simply say they were unable to hide traditional there. In order to control the run away virtual caches, the guidelines were changed to specify that virtual caches had to be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that set it apart from everyday subject. This became know as the "Wow" requirement. The volunteer cache reviewers were asked to determine for each virtual that was submitted if it met the requirement. Over time it became harder and hard to find places that were novel and met the "Wow" requirement. There was a virtual ban on new virtual caches. Of course all the people who had virtual caches turned down would complain that reviewers weren't applying the guidelines fairly and that their cache was "Wow" and should be approved. Eventually Waymarking.com was setup as place for virtual caches and another type of cache - the locationless cache. The existing virtual caches were grandfathered but no new ones were allowed. Locationless caches were either moved to Waymarking or archived.

 

In the meantime there were people who would post on the forums that physical caches were being placed in uninteresting and boring locations and that caches should really take you some place that had some special quality and wasn't just another lamppost in a parking lot or a guardrail at the end of a dead-end street. Of course any change to the guidelines requiring a location to have a special quality would have to be enforced by the reviewers and they already knew what that meant from the virtuals. This just wasn't going to happen.

 

So the word "Wow" has a special connotation on Geocaching.com and asking users to rate the "Wow-ness" of a cache is going to look pretty silly. Now of course you are not asking that caches that fail to get a minimum average "wowness" rating be archive (are you?). But it is clear that their is no consensus over what "wow" means and while you know what it means to you, you'd be wrong to assume everyone else has that same point of view. My guess though is that whatever you call it, there will be many people who would object to the rating of cache precisely because it doesn't add to the information that is already available. Reading peoples logs and looking at pictures they post will give you a good idea if a cache is something that you would find "Wow". There have been several other suggestions for way to recommend caches or recognize outstanding caches and cache hiders. Groundspeak has mentioned that they plan to add some features like this in the future. Perhaps this will help those who find it to difficult or time consuming to read logs or look at that gallery photos.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Here are a few of the most recent threads on the same subject:

 

rating system for Geocaching.com

GeoCache Rating System

Rating or review for caches

Top 10 Rating System

Rating cache quality

Feature Request: GeoCache Rating System

Feature Request - Rating

Cache rating System

 

As long as users could choose to not see the ratings and CO's had the option to disable ratings on their caches I'm not totally opposed to the idea of a rating system...

Edited by Yossarian
Link to comment

SgtKlaos

 

I'm happy to see how enthusiastic you have become after just 4 days of geocaching. You need to slow down and take a breath though before jumping in and recommending lots of changes to the Geocaching.com website.

 

A request is made almost weekly for some kind of rating system. The problem is they might not realize at first that not everyone enjoys the same kinds of caches.

I appreciate your extensive explanation and patience with my "obnoxious topic". I may not know the whole background, but I learn quick. Your responses that people bring this type of thing up every week or so confirms the legitimacy of this thread. Apparently, it is apparent to new, energetic cachers that caches could really use a little more characterization. And they are right it's the cache visitors that should be rating them.

 

This seems to be an ongoing discussion, so let's figure it out - get a consensus going. Help Groundspeak decide what and how.

 

You made another mistake as a newbie. The word "Wow" has a special connotation on Geocaching.com and asking users to rate the "Wow-ness" of a cache is going to look pretty silly.

Understood. The topic should be worded something more like "What kind of user ratings should be available?". Moderator?

 

In the meantime there were people who would post on the forums that physical caches were being placed in uninteresting and boring locations and that caches should really take you some place that had some special quality and wasn't just another lamppost in a parking lot or a guardrail at the end of a dead-end street. Of course any change to the guidelines requiring a location to have a special quality would have to be enforced by the reviewers and they already knew what that meant from the virtuals. This just wasn't going to happen. Of course you are not asking that caches that fail to get a minimum average "wowness" rating be archive (are you?).

No. I agree no one should be denied their cache from being listed due to any kind of ratings.

 

Some people prefer hikes in the wilderness while others want to find caches they can drive right up to. Some people enjoy finding tiny well hidden micro caches, while others like regular sized containers with lots of items they can trade for. Some want easy finds, other want difficult challenges. Simple rating systems fall apart because there is no average cachers. Different people like different caches.

Great, if these are common preferences, then it would improve the site by making this information readily available, would it not? Some preferences are straightforward and objective, such as a wilderness location vs. urban. No need for user ratings on that - just add the optional "attributes for quick assessment" for the cache submitter. So, objective preference - might justify an attribute.

 

Subjective qualities are suited to be rated by the community - of course, as you all have pointed out, a single rating is too ambiguous. However, a couple specific qualities may be worth rating. Some possible categories my include creative/original, suspenseful, or scenic. What are the most common qualities that people are looking for that the current system does not address?

Edited by SgtKlaos
Link to comment

If you want simplistic 5-star ratings for geocaches, then you can have them now with GCVote.

 

I like blinkers on interesting public sculptures, puzzle caches with great "Aha!" moments, and caches with 4-star camouflage. My ratings are not going to be useful to a mom who likes caches with "treasure" for her kids, or for 4x4/kayaking/scuba/rock-climbing enthusiasts who like 5-star terrain. And vice versa.

 

I find simplistic 5-star rating systems useless. But systems that compare my preferences with others, and that recommend items based on the ratings of others who have preferences similar to mine, those are useful.

Link to comment

Subjective qualities are suited to be rated by the community

I found this chart on the internet. I think I will use it next time I go to the store to buy ice cream :lol:

Favorite ice cream flavors
Rank 		Flavor 		Percent 
1. 	Vanilla 		 29.0% 
2. 	Chocolate 	   8.9 
3. 	Butter Pecan 	5.3 
4. 	Strawberry 	  5.3 
5. 	Neapolitan 	  4.2 
6. 	Chocolate chip   3.9 
7. 	French vanilla   3.8 
8. 	Cookies 'n' cream 3.6 
9. 	Fudge ripple 	2.6 
10.	Praline 		 1.7

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Sorry but I too vote "no".

 

Any system that would make some caches "appear" to have a negative or bad rating would lead to nothing more than lots of geo-trash. I appreciate that you are trying to find the caches that you are most likely to enjoy but a simple star rating system just isn't it.

 

I perfer a system proposed by Markwell some years ago. Each cacher could list up to 10% of thier finds on a favorite's list. Then we could search for caches that appear on lots of people's "fav list" or we could find like minded cachers and see what area caches they marked as favs. A sort of - "users that liked this cache also liked cache xxx nearby" system.

Link to comment

I perfer a system proposed by Markwell some years ago. Each cacher could list up to 10% of thier finds on a favorite's list. Then we could search for caches that appear on lots of people's "fav list" or we could find like minded cachers and see what area caches they marked as favs. A sort of - "users that liked this cache also liked cache xxx nearby" system.

 

I agree that an "award" system would be much better than a general rating system. If that geocaching.com v2.0 ever comes out, maybe it'll be there.

 

Our area has a set of annual geocaching awards where cachers nominate and then vote on what are the "best" caches in Austin. There are tons of geocaches that might be rated a 4/5 because people had a good time with it, but they wouldn't be recognized as some of the community's consensus favorites.

 

How many books on Amazon are rated a 4 as a great book? If 1000 caches are rated a 4, how do you pick the ones that are most appealing to YOUR preference? (pretty much the same way you have to do it without a rating system)

Link to comment

 

This seems to be an ongoing discussion, so let's figure it out - get a consensus going. Help Groundspeak decide what and how.

 

 

there already IS a consensus. it's "no".

 

the only reason it's an ongoing discussion is because every week somebody who just got their foot in the door decides it would be a swell idea and they start a new thread about it.

 

this was your week. next week it will be someone else who just joined, didn't search the topic, and starts a new thread.

Link to comment

I found this chart on the internet. I think I will use it next time I go to the store to buy ice cream :lol:

Favorite ice cream flavors
Rank 		Flavor 		Percent 
1. 	Vanilla 		 29.0% 
2. 	Chocolate 	   8.9 
3. 	Butter Pecan 	5.3 
4. 	Strawberry 	  5.3 
5. 	Neapolitan 	  4.2 
6. 	Chocolate chip   3.9 
7. 	French vanilla   3.8 
8. 	Cookies 'n' cream 3.6 
9. 	Fudge ripple 	2.6 
10.	Praline 		 1.7

Fortunately, this chart is correct. Vanilla is, in fact, the best flavor. All others may be ignored.

 

-eP

Link to comment

Subjective qualities are suited to be rated by the community

I found this chart on the internet. I think I will use it next time I go to the store to buy ice cream :lol:

Favorite ice cream flavors
Rank 		Flavor 		Percent 
1. 	Vanilla 		 29.0% 
2. 	Chocolate 	   8.9 
3. 	Butter Pecan 	5.3 
4. 	Strawberry 	  5.3 
5. 	Neapolitan 	  4.2 
6. 	Chocolate chip   3.9 
7. 	French vanilla   3.8 
8. 	Cookies 'n' cream 3.6 
9. 	Fudge ripple 	2.6 
10.	Praline 		 1.7

My favorite is "Praline". Does that make me weird?

 

And FWIW, I still would like to see a form of a rating system. While my favorite Ice cream is last on the list above, it is still FAR FAR higher on the complete list of ice creams than flavors such as "Stale Grease" (rated #334 on the ice cream list, comparable to the hide-a-key cache under the dumpster at the fried fast-food joint) and "Booger" (rated #481, comparable to the leaky Gladware in a swamp down stream and down wind from a large municipal sewage treatment plant).

Link to comment

I perfer a system proposed by Markwell some years ago. Each cacher could list up to 10% of thier finds on a favorite's list. Then we could search for caches that appear on lots of people's "fav list" or we could find like minded cachers and see what area caches they marked as favs. A sort of - "users that liked this cache also liked cache xxx nearby" system.

First, thank you for your support of the site when the sport was fledgling.

That idea has some functionality, but I'm talking about more specific user descriptions. (Like the highlights of the logs but condensed and searchable.)

I agree that an "award" system would be much better than a general rating system. If that geocaching.com v2.0 ever comes out, maybe it'll be there.

 

Our area has a set of annual geocaching awards where cachers nominate and then vote on what are the "best" caches in Austin. There are tons of geocaches that might be rated a 4/5 because people had a good time with it, but they wouldn't be recognized as some of the community's consensus favorites.

 

How many books on Amazon are rated a 4 as a great book? If 1000 caches are rated a 4, how do you pick the ones that are most appealing to YOUR preference? (pretty much the same way you have to do it without a rating system)

Right, even a 5 star system might not be very accurate. And as you all have pointed out, :lol: and as I have admitted, a single rating is too ambiguous. So I would simplify it a little more.

 

For each cache find, the visitor logging it could give the cache a single thumbs up or thumbs down in a few categories. That way, a clear consensus would start to form; or even visitors could be polarized on a category which would be interesting. I'm talking a simple system of user feedback for people looking for certain cache qualities.

 

Again, some categories rated on could be the qualities you all have mentioned:

Creative

"Aha!" moment (for puzzles)

Camouflage

Scenery

 

And these rated attributes would need a little standardized description.

Camouflage: The quality of camouflage originally intended, not an unfortunate condition caused by a recent, lazy cacher.

Scenery: The quality of location and atmosphere. (A smelly, bland hide under a loud highway deserves a thumbs down. It's opposite of what people look for in a scenic spot.)

I found this chart on the internet. I think I will use it next time I go to the store to buy ice cream.

Haha. But your analogy doesn't compare to what I'm proposing. People are looking for chocolate ice cream, so they need a list of places to get chocolate ice cream, ranked in order of chocolaty goodness.

Edited by SgtKlaos
Link to comment

This seems to be an ongoing discussion, so let's figure it out - get a consensus going. Help Groundspeak decide what and how.

there already IS a consensus. it's "no".

 

the only reason it's an ongoing discussion is because every week somebody who just got their foot in the door decides it would be a swell idea and they start a new thread about it.

 

this was your week. next week it will be someone else who just joined, didn't search the topic, and starts a new thread.

It's great you don't question the status quo. If there were no followers in this world, no movement would gain enough momentum to accomplish anything. For example, if my bowels didn't follow their urges to push, I would never relieve myself.

 

The only reason it's an ongoing discussion every week is because there's something there. And I guarantee I could keep this up 'til next week. My initial cookie cutter idea (a single 5 star rating system) has much against it. As people pointed out its problems, my ideas changed. As I said, I would change the thread topic if I could. Do I need to start a new thread to get away from the "WOW factor", single rating idea I started with? Could you comment on my revised ideas?

Link to comment

A rating system may not work for everybody, but saying that it cannot work for most geocachers is simply wrong. There are nearly 2000 registered users of GCVote. It seems to work for them and I know that it works for me. It greatly helps when looking for nice caches in unknown areas.

Most of the 170000 rated caches are located in Germany, but the system is spreading to other countries, too.

Link to comment

I say no.

You can't wote for a cache because it's too subjective. I found 2 out of 30 caches in Prague that were great. Others were just ok. They were all in a nice hiding place and on nice places but only 2 were something special. So who is wrong? Me or the cachers from Prague that love those caches. How many stars would you give to such a cache.

 

That simply wouldn't work. You'd need a lot of other atributes to just rate a cache but even then you'd get some haters that would just give a 1 star rating to the cacher they don't like and that means that a cache that had 2 raters one great and one bad would become a 3 star cache that no one would even bother to search and again the cacher who has a lot of friends would put up a LPC that would have 5 stars (that would be later rated one star and would have a 3 star rating).

 

Rating is ok but you'd need a lot of other atributes and you would have to be able to rate only when you post a found it log. But again some people just copy/paste logs so how would they rate a cache that they may not even remember? To answer they would probably use the middle rating (that's what I would do). And again you'd have a lot of 3* caches and you're back on square one.

 

Just my 2 €. :huh:

 

Edit:

I have checked the GCVote website. The cache number GCPZ0J that's on the screenshots (on the linked page) has a 3.7 star rating and that kind of proves my point.

Edited by Team Veverca
Link to comment

That simply wouldn't work. You'd need a lot of other atributes to just rate a cache but even then you'd get some haters that would just give a 1 star rating to the cacher they don't like and that means that a cache that had 2 raters one great and one bad would become a 3 star cache that no one would even bother to search and again the cacher who has a lot of friends would put up a LPC that would have 5 stars (that would be later rated one star and would have a 3 star rating).

 

I doubt if gc implements a rating system that there will only be 3 votes for most caches. When there are 10s of votes it'll even out in the wash, I wouldn't worry much about the haters.

 

But again some people just copy/paste logs so how would they rate a cache that they may not even remember?

 

Hopefully people who don't want to post individual logs because it's not a priority for them, will also not bother with rating a cache.

Link to comment

As has been brought up almost every time this topic arises, what makes a "wow" cache?

That would be defined as anything that provides an additional level of wonder, satisfaction or enjoyment. It doesn't even have to be called the "WOW Factor" - it would be just as useful to not name the stars. The common understanding of rating with stars could apply here; just show your appreciation or lack thereof. I'm simply calling for quick reference of all visitors' thoughts on a cache. Instead of reading all the logs, you count the stars!

 

Yes. I agree.

Link to comment

But WHO gets to chose their definition of wow. I certainly isn't going to be the same for you as it is for me and we may well both have a different idea of wow than KoosKoos.

 

Like I said, a rating by stars doesn't even need a name. It could just be a general pleasure gauge - a simplified user input to compliment the logs. For quick reference!

 

No! No! A Thousand Times No!!

 

Yes! Yes! A Zillion Times Yes!!

 

For those who don't want their caches rated, offer an opt out feature. Fair deal.

Link to comment

But WHO gets to chose their definition of wow. I certainly isn't going to be the same for you as it is for me and we may well both have a different idea of wow than KoosKoos.

 

I vote no.

 

Don't like it - Don't vote. Ignore the ratings. Opt out of having your cache rated.

Link to comment

"The only reason it's an ongoing discussion every week is because there's something there."

 

And the only reason those that have been around for a while shoot it down is because they have discussed it many times and worked out many of the reasons it would not work. Its a discussion every week because every week there are new people that have not been a part of the previous discussions. Yes it is wise to question the status quo, but it is unwise to toss it out as simply "status quo", too.

 

I live on the east side of town. Less populated, both by people, and by caches than the west end. Say I put out an awesome cache, and 20 people log it in the first month, and each one rates it at the max.

 

Someone else on the west end of town puts out an ordinary cache. Twenty people log that one in the first week. The cache owner's buddies rate it high, a few rate it medium, and maybe there are even some low ratings.

 

Now, which of those caches are you going to hunt?

 

A absolutely awesome, but very remote cache in the mountains may go unfound for months, while a peanut butter jar in the bushes outside the library is found by dozens the first day. Which one is going to have the highest rating? Which one would you rather hunt for, if all else was equal?

 

I, and others, could go on, but these are just a few of the many points that have been raised and discussed before, which is why it is wise to enlighten yourself by reading previous threads first. There are even a couple that others that are currently active.

Link to comment

But WHO gets to chose their definition of wow. I certainly isn't going to be the same for you as it is for me and we may well both have a different idea of wow than KoosKoos.

 

I vote no.

 

Don't like it - Don't vote. Ignore the ratings. Opt out of having your cache rated.

 

I would happily opt out. While I'm at it I'd like to opt out of having my find count displayed. If you want to play the ratings game go to gcvote. When you get there ask them to remove my caches from consideration. Tell 'em I don't want my caches rated.

Link to comment

SgtKlaos

 

I'm happy to see how enthusiastic you have become after just 4 days of geocaching. You need to slow down and take a breath though before jumping in and recommending lots of changes to the Geocaching.com website.

 

I think the newbies can see right off the mark, how overwhelming it is. 100s of caches to choose from within just a few miles.

 

A request is made almost weekly for some kind of rating system. It is often made by new cachers who see that there are an awful lot of caches to find - more they they can ever find - and they are looking for ways to tell which are the really good caches that they should be looking for (and sometimes what are the real stinkers the ought to skip).

 

Not just newbies. I've been at it since December 2001 (7+ years). I don't rack up the numbers, so just going over to the next city for some fresh finds becomes overwhelming. I want to maximize my time and gas money to get the most fun out of geocaching.

Link to comment

But WHO gets to chose their definition of wow. I certainly isn't going to be the same for you as it is for me and we may well both have a different idea of wow than KoosKoos.

 

I vote no.

 

Don't like it - Don't vote. Ignore the ratings. Opt out of having your cache rated.

 

I would happily opt out. While I'm at it I'd like to opt out of having my find count displayed. If you want to play the ratings game go to gcvote. When you get there ask them to remove my caches from consideration. Tell 'em I don't want my caches rated.

 

That's why it would be nice if gc implemented it's own rating system.

Link to comment

 

I live on the east side of town. Less populated, both by people, and by caches than the west end. Say I put out an awesome cache, and 20 people log it in the first month, and each one rates it at the max.

 

Someone else on the west end of town puts out an ordinary cache. Twenty people log that one in the first week. The cache owner's buddies rate it high, a few rate it medium, and maybe there are even some low ratings.

 

OK, so they're both getting good ratings - one because it really is good, the other because the cache owner's buddies rate it high. If they both float to the top I'm going to have a closer look. I'll read the description and logs, then make my final choice. Maybe I'll go to both, depends on what I read.

Link to comment

A absolutely awesome, but very remote cache in the mountains may go unfound for months, while a peanut butter jar in the bushes outside the library is found by dozens the first day. Which one is going to have the highest rating? Which one would you rather hunt for, if all else was equal?

 

Without a rating system, it's not likely that I'd consider going to a cache in the mountains. I filter out terrain over 2.5. It's strenuous and I'm in OK shape but not great shape. But with a rating system I'd look at all caches (micro, high terrain ratings, multi, etc.) if it's getting top ratings that would be the incentive I need to make the trip out there.

 

A don't know why a peanut butter jar would rate higher simply because it received more visitors. A unimaginative peanut butter jar at the library would likely rate an average of 3. A mountain regular cache would like likely rate 4s and 5s. So the mountain cache would be rated higher.

Link to comment

A absolutely awesome, but very remote cache in the mountains may go unfound for months, while a peanut butter jar in the bushes outside the library is found by dozens the first day. Which one is going to have the highest rating? Which one would you rather hunt for, if all else was equal?

 

Without a rating system, it's not likely that I'd consider going to a cache in the mountains. I filter out terrain over 2.5. It's strenuous and I'm in OK shape but not great shape. But with a rating system I'd look at all caches (micro, high terrain ratings, multi, etc.) if it's getting top ratings that would be the incentive I need to make the trip out there.

 

A don't know why a peanut butter jar would rate higher simply because it received more visitors. A unimaginative peanut butter jar at the library would likely rate an average of 3. A mountain regular cache would like likely rate 4s and 5s. So the mountain cache would be rated higher.

 

No... the mountain cache hasn't been found yet. It has a rating of zero.

 

So, you would use the terrain ratings to eliminate the mountain hide... not the ranking. But I said, "all else being equal", so let's you don't care about terrain ratings. You now have a 3 star rated peanut butter jar vs a 0 star rated ammo box in the mountains with a spectacular view. But you're going to the library instead.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

 

It's great you don't question the status quo.

 

it's interesting that you assume that just because i think the idea sucks that i don't question the status quo.

 

sometimes i question it and decide i like it much, much better than what someone proposes.

Link to comment

 

It's great you don't question the status quo.

 

it's interesting that you assume that just because i think the idea sucks that i don't question the status quo.

 

sometimes i question it and decide i like it much, much better than what someone proposes.

 

If there is anybody here that questions the status quo, you're it, flask!

Link to comment

A don't know why a peanut butter jar would rate higher simply because it received more visitors. A unimaginative peanut butter jar at the library would likely rate an average of 3. A mountain regular cache would like likely rate 4s and 5s. So the mountain cache would be rated higher.

No. Because the owners friends would give it high ratings and that's what knowschad is trying to explain to you. I have two caches (so far) one very easy and you can find it under 2 minutes and one a little tougher. Which cache would be rated highest? The one that gets more visitors is the answer. And (as posted in another topic) you'll always get people that will just rate with the middle ratings (2.5 or 3). So even if you get a 100 finds and 50% of them gives you 5 stars can you count on the other 50 and on all DNF's to rate apropriately because I can guarantee you that some of the cachers will just give you a one star if they don't find the cache or they'll make some sock puppets and rate with them.
Link to comment

A absolutely awesome, but very remote cache in the mountains may go unfound for months, while a peanut butter jar in the bushes outside the library is found by dozens the first day. Which one is going to have the highest rating? Which one would you rather hunt for, if all else was equal?

 

Without a rating system, it's not likely that I'd consider going to a cache in the mountains. I filter out terrain over 2.5. It's strenuous and I'm in OK shape but not great shape. But with a rating system I'd look at all caches (micro, high terrain ratings, multi, etc.) if it's getting top ratings that would be the incentive I need to make the trip out there.

 

A don't know why a peanut butter jar would rate higher simply because it received more visitors. A unimaginative peanut butter jar at the library would likely rate an average of 3. A mountain regular cache would like likely rate 4s and 5s. So the mountain cache would be rated higher.

 

No... the mountain cache hasn't been found yet. It has a rating of zero.

 

So, you would use the terrain ratings to eliminate the mountain hide... not the ranking. But I said, "all else being equal", so let's you don't care about terrain ratings. You now have a 3 star rated peanut butter jar vs a 0 star rated ammo box in the mountains with a spectacular view. But you're going to the library instead.

 

No probably not. If we have a cream-of-the-crop type of rating system, a 3 star rated cache would not get a "gold star" to denote a cache that a majority of finders enjoyed quite a bit. 3 denotes an average cache. So I'd be going to neither the 3 star peanut butter jar or the not-rated yet mountain cache. But as soon as the mountain cache gets its well deserved "gold star" I'd be making plans to get out to it.

Link to comment

A don't know why a peanut butter jar would rate higher simply because it received more visitors. A unimaginative peanut butter jar at the library would likely rate an average of 3. A mountain regular cache would like likely rate 4s and 5s. So the mountain cache would be rated higher.

No. Because the owners friends would give it high ratings and that's what knowschad is trying to explain to you. I have two caches (so far) one very easy and you can find it under 2 minutes and one a little tougher. Which cache would be rated highest? The one that gets more visitors is the answer. And (as posted in another topic) you'll always get people that will just rate with the middle ratings (2.5 or 3). So even if you get a 100 finds and 50% of them gives you 5 stars can you count on the other 50 and on all DNF's to rate apropriately because I can guarantee you that some of the cachers will just give you a one star if they don't find the cache or they'll make some sock puppets and rate with them.

 

DNFs should not rate the cache. To rate a cache you have to find it.

 

Re: the couple of friends who skew the system. A couple of people may not make much of a dent in the long run. After 6 months let's say 100 people find it. Of those 50 rate the cache. Of the 50 2 of those finders are friends who rate it inappropriately high (and have no ethical qualms about doing that) Let's say 35 people rate it a 3, 13 people rate it a 2 and 2 people rate it a 5. That averages out to: 2.8 - no "gold star" for this cache.

 

Of course, if your friends are really unethical or the owner is - he/she could create many sock puppet accounts just to dup people into going to their caches but I think the disappointment will be reflected in the cache logs --- "I have no idea how this leaky film canister micro cache in a Walmart parking lot got a "gold star", something seems fishy". Then, as a finder, I would promptly ignore anything else the CO has planted, gold star or not.

Link to comment
Again, some categories rated on could be the qualities you all have mentioned:

[...]

"Aha!" moment (for puzzles)

For the record, some non-puzzle caches have "Aha!" moments too.

 

I found this chart on the internet. I think I will use it next time I go to the store to buy ice cream.
Haha. But your analogy doesn't compare to what I'm proposing. People are looking for chocolate ice cream, so they need a list of places to get chocolate ice cream, ranked in order of chocolaty goodness.
Except for those of us who prefer saffron pistachio ice cream, and who don't care about "chocolaty goodness" or the ranking thereof.
Link to comment

I agree that an "award" system would be much better than a general rating system. If that geocaching.com v2.0 ever comes out, maybe it'll be there.

 

How many books on Amazon are rated a 4 as a great book? If 1000 caches are rated a 4, how do you pick the ones that are most appealing to YOUR preference? (pretty much the same way you have to do it without a rating system)

Right. As many point out, there is error in a generic 5 star rating system. People rate in different ways (excitably handing out 5 stars to every decent cache vs. spoiled grumpy complainer). AND it's already been done; enter GCVote. That site shows you how to add 5 star ratings to your view of geocaching.com. I think it's safe to say Groundspeak won't be adding a 5 star rating system.

 

What they can do is break down the popular qualities people admire about certain caches with a simple user input (e.g. thumbsup-1.png, (no input), or thumbsdown-1.png). People may like caches with nice scenery, challenging camouflage, witty setups producing "Aha!" moments, maybe even a great overall cache design such as a well planned theme cache or a details page with a great setup or story that makes that caching that much better. With a few categories, it is unlikely a cache would get all thumbsdown-1.png's in all categories; this scheme prevents caches from turning into geo-trash and encourages better cache design.

 

They could display pertinent ratios such as thumbsup-1.png to thumbsdown-1.png, or thumbsup-1.png to no inputs. A count comparing thumbs to no input would need to ignore all the finds before the rating system was installed. The ratios could be displayed as a percentage or on a 5 or 10 star scale.

Edited by SgtKlaos
Link to comment

I agree that an "award" system would be much better than a general rating system. If that geocaching.com v2.0 ever comes out, maybe it'll be there.

 

How many books on Amazon are rated a 4 as a great book? If 1000 caches are rated a 4, how do you pick the ones that are most appealing to YOUR preference? (pretty much the same way you have to do it without a rating system)

Right. As many point out, there is error in a generic 5 star rating system. People rate in different ways (excitably handing out 5 stars to every decent cache vs. spoiled grumpy complainer). AND it's already been done; enter GCVote. That site shows you how to add 5 star ratings to your view of geocaching.com. I think it's safe to say Groundspeak won't be adding a 5 star rating system.

 

What they can do is break down the popular qualities people admire about certain caches with a simple user input (e.g. thumbsup-1.png, (no input), or thumbsdown-1.png). People may like caches with nice scenery, challenging camouflage, witty setups producing "Aha!" moments, maybe even a great overall cache design such as a well planned theme cache or a details page with a great setup or story that makes that caching that much better. With a few categories, it is unlikely a cache would get all thumbsdown-1.png's in all categories; this scheme prevents caches from turning into geo-trash and encourages better cache design.

 

They could display pertinent ratios such as thumbsup-1.png to thumbsdown-1.png, or thumbsup-1.png to no inputs. A count comparing thumbs to no input would need to ignore all the finds before the rating system was installed. The ratios could be displayed as a percentage or on a 5 or 10 star scale.

If the rating system leaves the possiblilty of any cache's "rating" being very low (or perceived to be of low quality) then I believe we would be creating a lot of geotrash out there - I continue to vote "no".

 

The goal needs to be allowing users to find caches they would enjoy - not punishing any caches.

Link to comment

I agree that an "award" system would be much better than a general rating system. If that geocaching.com v2.0 ever comes out, maybe it'll be there.

 

How many books on Amazon are rated a 4 as a great book? If 1000 caches are rated a 4, how do you pick the ones that are most appealing to YOUR preference? (pretty much the same way you have to do it without a rating system)

Right. As many point out, there is error in a generic 5 star rating system. People rate in different ways (excitably handing out 5 stars to every decent cache vs. spoiled grumpy complainer). AND it's already been done; enter GCVote. That site shows you how to add 5 star ratings to your view of geocaching.com. I think it's safe to say Groundspeak won't be adding a 5 star rating system.

 

What they can do is break down the popular qualities people admire about certain caches with a simple user input (e.g. thumbsup-1.png, (no input), or thumbsdown-1.png). People may like caches with nice scenery, challenging camouflage, witty setups producing "Aha!" moments, maybe even a great overall cache design such as a well planned theme cache or a details page with a great setup or story that makes that caching that much better. With a few categories, it is unlikely a cache would get all thumbsdown-1.png's in all categories; this scheme prevents caches from turning into geo-trash and encourages better cache design.

 

They could display pertinent ratios such as thumbsup-1.png to thumbsdown-1.png, or thumbsup-1.png to no inputs. A count comparing thumbs to no input would need to ignore all the finds before the rating system was installed. The ratios could be displayed as a percentage or on a 5 or 10 star scale.

If the rating system leaves the possiblilty of any cache's "rating" being very low (or perceived to be of low quality) then I believe we would be creating a lot of geotrash out there - I continue to vote "no".

 

The goal needs to be allowing users to find caches they would enjoy - not punishing any caches.

Alright. I was hoping some thumbs down would push cache maintainers to correct flaws or make it better but you're right, it could just as easily discourage them. Awards only is responsible. But descriptive awards, OK...for specific accomplishments. Your wisdom is true, and a million thanks for making the site possible.

Peace.

Link to comment

I vote no. The cache pages and logs give me all of the feedback I need. Of course my method doesn't work for the paperless hordes who never read cache pages or logs. :huh:

This works if you have time to read all the description and logs in the area, especially if it's your home area. I cache paperless, but I almost always read the description and logs before visiting; if not, I'll read them on-site on my PDA.

 

I periodically visit the left coast on business trips. There are approximately 283 squintillion caches in the LA basin, so reading that many descriptions is not feasible. So I typically look for places to hike and hit caches along the trail. Last trip I hiked in Griffith Park, where the Hollywood sign is; time before that was Puente Hills. But what if I'm driving past half a dozen truly awesome caches (surrounded by 5,000 park-n-grabs) in less prominent parks on my way to my pre-chosen destination? Sometimes I don't have time for a long hike, but have time to grab a few caches. Where do I start?

 

I would love and regularly use some way, any way, to narrow down the list of potential caches to seek. This can be a straight rating system (1-5 stars or whatever); it can be official top-ten-percent lists (each cacher gets to nominate 10% of finds as exceedingly awesome); it can be a cache categorization system (park-n-grab, hike, view, just-for-the-numbers, etc.). Anything.

Link to comment

I vote no. The cache pages and logs give me all of the feedback I need. Of course my method doesn't work for the paperless hordes who never read cache pages or logs. :huh:

This works if you have time to read all the description and logs in the area, especially if it's your home area. I cache paperless, but I almost always read the description and logs before visiting; if not, I'll read them on-site on my PDA.

 

I periodically visit the left coast on business trips. There are approximately 283 squintillion caches in the LA basin, so reading that many descriptions is not feasible. So I typically look for places to hike and hit caches along the trail. Last trip I hiked in Griffith Park, where the Hollywood sign is; time before that was Puente Hills. But what if I'm driving past half a dozen truly awesome caches (surrounded by 5,000 park-n-grabs) in less prominent parks on my way to my pre-chosen destination? Sometimes I don't have time for a long hike, but have time to grab a few caches. Where do I start?

 

I would love and regularly use some way, any way, to narrow down the list of potential caches to seek. This can be a straight rating system (1-5 stars or whatever); it can be official top-ten-percent lists (each cacher gets to nominate 10% of finds as exceedingly awesome); it can be a cache categorization system (park-n-grab, hike, view, just-for-the-numbers, etc.). Anything.

 

Exactly J-Way.

 

I think the 'no' voters are focussing on their home area. It's easy to hunt everything with 25 miles of your house. But what about trips - I have yet to see a post from a 'no' voter that explains the best and quickest way to sift through 283 squintillion caches to find the ones that most finders thought were really good (exceeding average standards).

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 8
×
×
  • Create New...