What kind of user ratings should be available?

[CoyoteRed]

The nature of those awards are not yet known but will be intelligently discussed and implemented in a positive way that promotes caches/users instead of criticizing "bad" caches/users.

I know there is a big push for feel-good types of reward systems, but, me, I'm just looking to weed out the crap. I'm not just looking for the cream of the crop, but I don't want to waste my time on junk.

 

I know, can I filter on the top 90%?

[KoenigDickBauch]

You are coming to a new area and search for good caches. Starting by reading logs is boring and takes time.

 

But looking to the geocaching Map Results with the GCvote addon, you know directly witch descriptions and logs you have to read.

 

Cache along a route does not work any more for me. The maximum number of 500 is reach after 80km if you take a neighbourhood of 2km. There is no filter to get the boring one off. But if i move the map over the road, i see the best one directly.

 

In germany we are talking about a voting system over 2 years and the discussion was not very good in the beginning. But the force of bad and boring caches is so high, that the counterpart against a voting system are lighter.

 

On the site of GCvote you can read how many people use this system: Zu Zeit sind 699671 einzelne Bewertungen für 179144 unterschiedliche Caches gespeichert und 2227 Benutzer registriert And it is still growing.

[+JBnW]

But the force of bad and boring caches is so high, that the counterpart against a voting system are lighter.

 

What, exactly, is a bad and boring cache?

[+ElliPirelli]

If there has to be a voting system apart from writing a log, which for me up to now was enough, than I'd like to see a system like Opencaching.de has implemented:

 

For every 10th find you get to recommend one cache.

After the huge debate about GCVote in the Green Forum, I created a bookmarklist with caches, I really enjoyed and would recommend, when visitors come to the area.

 

Out of my over 1000 finds, only about 35 caches made it on the list. So I guess, if I was given the option to recommend one for every 10 finds, that would be more than enough to get all the really outstanding ones voted.

 

I wouldn't like to see a system, where I can give negativ votes, this can quickly turn into mobbing of certain members.

 

As everyone has different tastes as to which kind of cache they'd like to search, a voting can never replace reading the logs. And even if I prefer Multicaches with interesting stories or through an nice landscape, there are days with less time on my hands, when I'm happy to just park and grabb a cache... Those caches tend to get downvoted, though.

 

Just my two €cent....

ElliPirelli

[+fizzymagic]

My main reason for making the comment that fizzy quoted above it that we often get suggestion for a rating system expecting to get from it more than it can really deliver. They often feel it will identify the caches the find as "lame" - usually certain types of urban park and grabs. The popularity of these hides indicates that many people actually enjoy these caches. I am not convinced that these caches will be ranked low on a 5 star system. You need to understand what ratings means and just what you can expect to use them for.

I am glad you didn't take my comments personally. I picked on you because I know from experience that you are a solid contributor to the forums and you would understand my general point. I almost picked on flask but apparently you drew the short straw!

 

Actually, I agree that a simple 5-star rating system is inadequate. I tried that greasemonkey one but turned it off after a couple of days. besides slowing everything down, the simplistic 5-star rating does not give enough information.

 

I'm glad that we are having a good discussion about what a rating system should look like to be useful. That seems to me much more productive than simply arguing about whether there should be one or not.

 

At amazon.com, I especially like the little histogram they show of the numbers of each rating type. Thus, a book that has a lot of 5-star and 1-star ratings is likely to be controversial, while a book with all 3-star ratings is likely to be boring. The same could easily hold true for caches: those that I and many others think are lame might show up with a bunch of 1-star scores and then many higher scores. If I could see the histogram, then at least I know that something is going on and I can go read the cache logs.

 

More likely, given the surfeit of caches out there, I would make a filter to choose only those with several 5-star ratings and then read those logs.

 

My overall point, however, is that the current system does not provide me enough tools to efficiently and accurately find caches that I will (probably) like. A carefully designed rating system could have a big impact and make my caching a lot more enjoyable.

[+niraD]

At amazon.com,

The main thing I like about the Amazon.com system is its recommendations, and a big part of what makes them work is that the average user doesn't need to do anything extra. The recommendations are based on information that Amazon.com already has: the purchase histories of its customers. I'm not sure how to build a recommendation system on information that Geocaching.com already has though.

 

I especially like the little histogram they show of the numbers of each rating type. Thus, a book that has a lot of 5-star and 1-star ratings is likely to be controversial, while a book with all 3-star ratings is likely to be boring. The same could easily hold true for caches: those that I and many others think are lame might show up with a bunch of 1-star scores and then many higher scores. If I could see the histogram, then at least I know that something is going on and I can go read the cache logs.

Actually, I can see how this histogram could provide useful information in situations like that.

 

More likely, given the surfeit of caches out there, I would make a filter to choose only those with several 5-star ratings and then read those logs.

I wonder whether you'd be able to do that, or whether you'd have to search based on the average rating. Searching on complex criteria like the ratio of 5-star ratings to total ratings or the distribution of the ratings would confuse a lot of people.

 

On review sites, another feature that can be useful is rating whether a particular review was helpful or not. Reviews that are rated as more helpful will bubble to the top. When combined with positive/negative ratings within the review itself, the site can display the most useful positive reviews and the most useful negative reviews together. I find this kind of information even more useful that simply listing the most useful reviews.

 

I'm just not sure how to apply this to Geocaching.com.

[cezanne]

No, that does not apply to me at all.

...and that's where the failure for you to understand comes into play.

 

It isn't all about you. It isn't all about your friend. It isn't all about me.

 

Of course, it is not about me, or any other single individual. It seems that you misunderstood what I tried to say. Maybe one of the reasons is that I am not writing in my mother tongue.

 

It's about creating a number that represents a group of people who think their friends (not the plural) will likely enjoy the cache.

 

I cannot understand how you think that this will work with a single number. If your message is that

a simple 1*-5* system with no subcategories (providing information for which group a cache is most probably recommendable) works reasonably well for cachers whose preferences match very closely with the mainstream in their area, I do agree. Systems like GCVote prove that.

 

For the remaining cachers where the correlation between their own preferences and the mainstream is a little bit smaller, I can only imagine that a system along the lines you suggested

(1* for waste of time, 3* for either way and 5* for must have) if the ratings concern specific properties of a cache.

 

Take e.g. caches that get a 5* (on a scale from 1*-5*) for an ingenious hideout.

Such caches then are good candidates for showing up on recommendation lists for cachers

who like ingenious hideouts and do not mind to search for such cachers for an hour or more.

I would not recommend, however, such a cache to cachers who hate ingenious hideouts and get frustrated after 10 minutes.

 

Another example: A very nice and scenic, but rather exhausting hiking multi-cache with a standard hideout (rather close to the starting point) would typically get a high rating with respect to the scenic landscape and the hiking experience. I would recommend such a cache to someone who likes hiking, but not to someone for whom the container and the route to the cache plays the essential role and for whom hiking is boring.

 

With a single rating 1*-5* as you suggested, I cannot see any way how 1* should mean waste of time, 3*

either way and 5* must go.

 

I hope that you got the message now.

 

It appears so many folks are trying to create something that will pinpoint a recommendation. It's not something that will say "You will like this cache." It's to say "based on what other folks are saying you're likely to enjoy this cache." (...or not depending on the rating.)

 

As a mathematician I am well aware of the fact that it is impossible to make claims of that type regarding a simple individual. Of course any sort of rating will always stay some statement of the type with a reasonable chance/probability (I do not want to debate what will be regarded as reasonable as it does not play a role here for my arguments) some statement will be true.

 

I am aware of the fact that even if there existed a rating system with the subcategory "scenic hike" and

a cache ended up with the highest possible ranking on that scale, it still can happen that I would not like that cache although this type of caches is my favourite one (same situation for a hiking cache with a rating below the average that still could please me).

 

My argument is that I cannot see how a simple 1*-5* rating with no subcategories should be able to

to the job you claim above it does (namely "based on what other folks are saying you're likely to enjoy this cache.")

 

Now, if you have a friend that, say, simply hates micros simply because it's a micro, then sure, they'll hate a 5 star micro that almost everyone loves--except for your friend.

 

My examples were of a different type and did not involve someone hating a cache just for being a micro or just for being a drive-in (or anything that simple).

 

I admit, however, that a boring cache on the area of a shopping mall does not become more interesting for me because instead of being an easy park and grab it is hidden up 10 meters above the ground at a place which is not allowed to be reached legally. What happens with systems like GCVote (in the areas where GCVote is popular) is that a cache hidden at a level reachable from the ground in a legal way at the same coordinates ends up with a 2* rating on average and if it is hidden high up in a crazy way (most probably such caches will not eben be published in many countries) it suddenly gets high ratings (typically 4-5*). Personally, I enjoy none of the two types of caches, but the one receiving the lower rating is the one I feel much more comfortable with. These high ratings further push such caches and increases their number -

something rather unfortunate in my opinion.

 

 

Can't help that, but that is not even close to a reason to toss out a rating system.

 

I have never tried to toss out a rating system. I only provided arguments for why I think that a system like GCVote (and your example for 1*, 3* and 5* exactly matched with what GCVote is claiming to do) does a bad job.

 

 

Besides, I don't think anyone is going to base a hunt solely on the user ratings when they can't stand a type that is easily filtered out. That's simply a dumb proposition.

 

Personally, I am even willing to have a look at the logs, but as logs get shorter and shorter, this gets increasingly difficult. It is not rare in my area to come across one line logs in cases where the cacher really enjoyed the cache. Moreover, some message that the cacher enjoyed the cache does not help me to find out why he enjoyed the cache. The terrain rating does not help either.

3* can imply a nice hike or it can mean that the final of a multicache with total walking length of only 200m (those which I do not like in most cases) is not easy to reach.

 

Again, a 1 star is likely to disappoint you with that "genre." A 3 star cache could go either way--you might like it, you might not. 5 stars would mean you're most likely to like the cache--even if it's the type of cache you might not generally enjoy.

 

I do not agree in this generality and I tried to give some arguments for my disagreement already above.

I agree with what you brought up with your Tube Torcher example. My experiences are similar. There exist indeed caches that are somehow special so that even cachers who generelly do not like caches of a particular type will like them. Although I do not appreciate urban caches in general, there exist some urban caches that I enjoyed very much.

I typically have an ambivalent attitude to caches with ingenious hideouts, but there exist some which I enjoyed (essentially those whose hideout is not too difficult to find with an old GPS-device and where the container can also be handled by people like me who are clumsy).

 

Your statement above, however, is too strong from my point of view. Look for example at the arguments I am going to provide below in my next paragraph.

 

 

 

I think you're wrong in saying that a highly rated cache of a type that is generally disliked by someone would be university disliked, by that same person, regardless of how well it is done--some examples excluded like ones that require skills beyond that person's capabilities.

 

For me it depends on why the person dislikes such a cache. I am not able to do climbing caches in the mountains or in climbing parks, but I explicitely welcome their existence. It is fine if others enjoy these caches and I simply would skip such caches whatever rating system would exist (as I cannot judge on how they are done without having been there). On the other hand, there are caches that I am able to do (with some tools), but feel that they are hidden at places where no cache should be at all. There exists however a reasonably large group of cachers who loves the thrill and the adventure of visiting such forbidden places and thus such caches get high ratings. I know of some cachers who have tried to rate caches of that type with low rates without being there (something I do not approve personally). Unfortunately, the supporters of GCVote feel that is a proper approach to delete ratings if they substantially differ from the majority of the votes and in particular if a whole group of caches is concerned.

For me there it is a significant difference between rating a cache as 1* just because it is a micro or because it is hidden at a place where one definitely wants to avoid being seen by the police or by some security staff.

(Note that this is just an example - I could come up with other examples as well.)

 

Cezanne

[AZcachemeister]

Actually, I agree that a simple 5-star rating system is inadequate. I tried that greasemonkey one but turned it off after a couple of days. besides slowing everything down, the simplistic 5-star rating does not give enough information.

 

Yes, it does slow things down. Probably due to the need to access a privately funded database. It might be faster if Groundspeak actually supported the feature.

 

I'm glad that we are having a good discussion about what a rating system should look like to be useful. That seems to me much more productive than simply arguing about whether there should be one or not.

 

At amazon.com, I especially like the little histogram they show of the numbers of each rating type. Thus, a book that has a lot of 5-star and 1-star ratings is likely to be controversial, while a book with all 3-star ratings is likely to be boring. The same could easily hold true for caches: those that I and many others think are lame might show up with a bunch of 1-star scores and then many higher scores. If I could see the histogram, then at least I know that something is going on and I can go read the cache logs.

 

GCVote does just this. If you click on the rating, the table is expanded and you can see just how many one-star votes have been cast, how many two-star, etc...

 

More likely, given the surfeit of caches out there, I would make a filter to choose only those with several 5-star ratings and then read those logs.

 

My overall point, however, is that the current system does not provide me enough tools to efficiently and accurately find caches that I will (probably) like. A carefully designed rating system could have a big impact and make my caching a lot more enjoyable.

 

If you want to know exactly what each cacher thinks, read all the logs!

Getting people to participate is a problem, and few will feel like answering a 20 question survey for each cache they find. Perhaps some would (and someday later if this is implemented more fully, one could opt for a more in-depth report), but really, isn't that what the log is supposed to be for?

[Rhialto]

Another example: A very nice and scenic, but rather exhausting hiking multi-cache with a standard hideout (rather close to the starting point) would typically get a high rating with respect to the scenic landscape and the hiking experience. I would recommend such a cache to someone who likes hiking, but not to someone for whom the container and the route to the cache plays the essential role and for whom hiking is boring.

You rank it high since you liked it. The geocacher who see it ranked will read the cache description and see hicking is essential to get to the cache, if he's not into that, he will simply look for another cache. And you know hwat? If the cache show 30*5 stars, maybe he will ask a friend to go visit that cache that so many people don't stop to praise in every log and this one could become his best geocaching experience in a while!

Edited August 6, 2009 by Rhialto

[GOF and Bacall]

Another example: A very nice and scenic, but rather exhausting hiking multi-cache with a standard hideout (rather close to the starting point) would typically get a high rating with respect to the scenic landscape and the hiking experience. I would recommend such a cache to someone who likes hiking, but not to someone for whom the container and the route to the cache plays the essential role and for whom hiking is boring.

You rank it high since you liked it. The geocacher who see it ranked will read the cache description and see hicking is essential to get to the cache, if he's not into that, he will simply look for another cache. And you know hwat? If the cache show 30*5 stars, maybe he will ask a friend to go visit that cache that so many people don't stop to praise in every log and this one could become his best geocaching experience in a while!

 

Of course this assumes that the cache description tells about the hike or the scenery or any of the rest.

[CoyoteRed]

I cannot understand how you think that this will work with a single number.

It won't work with a single number. You simply will not be able to go on rating alone if you have any preferences at all.

 

As I tried to illustrate in the Tube Torcher example, if you disliked a certain type of hunt an average rating probably wouldn't change your mind about finding any particular cache in that "genre." However, if one is rated very high, then it might.

 

Conversely, even among types that you do generally enjoy, a very low rating will most likely mean you won't enjoy that one either. You could skip that one in favor of one that is higher rated.

 

You won't be looking just at the rating, but also still looking at the difficulty and terrain ratings, size, etc. etc.

[cezanne]

I cannot understand how you think that this will work with a single number.

It won't work with a single number. You simply will not be able to go on rating alone if you have any preferences at all.

 

Ok, let's state it more precisely: I cannot understand how you think that this will work with a single number obtained from the rating opposed to a rating with respect to specific aspects of the cache. Informations as difficulty, terrain, size etc. are available for the decision as well.

 

As I tried to illustrate in the Tube Torcher example, if you disliked a certain type of hunt an average rating probably wouldn't change your mind about finding any particular cache in that "genre." However, if one is rated very high, then it might.

 

It might change my mind if I get an idea why it might like the cache under consideration (terrain, size, difficulty do not provide any information in that regard, neither does a 1*-5* rating). Just having a high rating in a certain genre is counterproductive at least for me. As I already mentioned within the class of caches that I regard as boring urban caches, the worst representatives from my personal point of view end up with the highest ratings

(e.g. caused by the thrill to undergo something forbidden and not being caught) and other ones in the clas which I prefer end up with low ratings.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Another example: A very nice and scenic, but rather exhausting hiking multi-cache with a standard hideout (rather close to the starting point) would typically get a high rating with respect to the scenic landscape and the hiking experience. I would recommend such a cache to someone who likes hiking, but not to someone for whom the container and the route to the cache plays the essential role and for whom hiking is boring.

You rank it high since you liked it. The geocacher who see it ranked will read the cache description and see hicking is essential to get to the cache,

 

What different people regard as hiking is very different. I already encountered many multi-caches in area which would have invited for a nice hike, but where the second and final stage was 300m from the start and where most of the time was to be invested into the search for the cache containers - this is not something I regard as hike. There is often no way to recognize such caches. (The terrain rating does not do the job in most cases) often not even with reading all the logs.

 

Cezanne

[+Kit Fox]

I would be happy if Groundspeak incorporated the "Style" system thought up by CoyoteRed:

 

""Style" would be different than "type" in that it incorporates various elements like type, size, difficulty, etc. and more in varying degrees to define a style. For instance, "urban park-n-grab" could be a cache one would expect (though not necessarily have to be) a micro in a mundane location in an urban environment. "Classic" could be a single stage, non-micro or non-unknown in a park or rural setting where you don't have to read the description while "Traditional" would be the same but you would need to read the description. "Mystery" would be a puzzle cache where the start is unknown while "puzzle" would be one with puzzle elements other than the start location. "Quest" for the challenges where you find caches that fit certain criteria while a "bonus" would be a cache where you find a set of particular caches. Etc."

 

 

I could certainly use a "style" classification to purposely avoid caches I dislike. I wouldn't waste half as much time trying to weed out chaff looking for outstanding caches. Other geocachers could Rate the style of a cache which would help classify it. Some owners may get their feeling hurts when everyone rates their cache as a "park & grab, but that isn't a bad thing.

[+Markwell]

It might change my mind if I get an idea why it might like the cache under consideration (terrain, size, difficulty do not provide any information in that regard, neither does a 1*-5* rating). Just having a high rating in a certain genre is counterproductive at least for me.

First off, if this idea doesn't help you or makes you enjoy caching less, then the obvious answer is to ignore the ratings, as many have suggested, and opt your caches out of being rated. However...

 

...within the class of caches that I regard as boring urban caches, the worst representatives from my personal point of view end up with the highest ratings.

There's the problem. You've already determined that you don't like "boring urban caches". So, if you exclude those from your list already, something with a high rating wouldn't appeal to you, even if it was listed as being on 80 or 90 accounts' Top 10% list.

 

Here's how I would use this if I were caching in an unfamiliar territory.

=============================

Once I find out where I'm going to be staying (and how much free time I'll have), I'd plot out a drive-time perimeter and figure out the farthest distance.

Example: I'm going to St. Louis, and will be staying at the Hilton Hotel in Frontenac, MO (N 38° 38.028, W 090° 24.353). According to Streets and Trips, I could potentially drive 60 miles west on 64/70 and still be within 60 minutes, but let's take it down to 40 miles so I'm not just interstate driving. With no other criteria, that's 1,722 caches

 

Then I would apply the criteria of the caches for which I typically enjoy a hunt:

Container: Regular or Large

Type: Traditional

Terrain: >1.0

Difficulty: <4.5

Is Active

That narrows the list down to 315 caches. When I get the results into GSAK, I'd also limit the upper level of terrain to 3, and boost the minimum difficulty to 1.5, which would eliminate 30 caches, leaving me with 285. Already I'm fairly confident that these are caches I'd like to find, only 16½% of the caches match this criteria.

 

But how do I choose from this whittled down list of caches? Read through the logs of 285 pages? I've already spent a great deal of time figuring out what ones I'd like or not like. But if I'm in an area with a limited amount of time, I can't find all 285 caches, and I wouldn't try. I could just choose from the list and be relatively happy with the caches I've found as they all objectively meet criteria I've already established as favorable to my getting a smile (not a smiley).

 

But if there is some phenomenal cache out there, I'd love to get a "WOW" experience. I've had quite a few in caching, and I'd like to have more. From that list of 285 caches, if some of these also had an attribute assigned to them from this method that says these are on a bunch of people's top 10% list, I might choose to try for those first. If there's a cluster of them in a particular area - for example, to the northeast of my central location - I might choose to go to that spot and find some of the cream-of-the-crop, and any of the other 285 that area in that area.

====================

So - no, a single number is not all anyone would be going on, but rather I would add it as the last limiting criteria on my search.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Markwell

[+fizzymagic]

If you want to know exactly what each cacher thinks, read all the logs!

Sorry, that does not work. As has been reported many times in these forums, cache owners often delete logs critical of the hide. Reading logs turns out to be a very ineffective way to find out how good a cache is, unless one is very skilled at reading between the lines.

 

Getting people to participate is a problem, and few will feel like answering a 20 question survey for each cache they find. Perhaps some would (and someday later if this is implemented more fully, one could opt for a more in-depth report), but really, isn't that what the log is supposed to be for?

Perhaps it is what the logs are supposed to be for, but it is not how logs are actually used.

[cezanne]

...within the class of caches that I regard as boring urban caches, the worst representatives from my personal point of view end up with the highest ratings.

There's the problem. You've already determined that you don't like "boring urban caches".

 

I needed to do that in order to come up with an argument against what CR wrote.

 

So, if you exclude those from your list already, something with a high rating wouldn't appeal to you, even if it was listed as being on 80 or 90 accounts' Top 10% list.

 

The Top 10% list approach is however one that I find much more appealing than the 1*-5* approach as

I can see on whose Top list the cache can be found and that helps me a lot to guess why the cache ended up there.

 

The Top 10% list approach is implemented on another geocaching site I am familiar with and the tests

I have made with this system applying it to a region I know very well led to results that I was satisfied with. I also made experiments with GCVote (a simple 1*-5* system) in the same region and was disappointed by the results.

 

So - no, a single number is not all anyone would be going on, but rather I would add it as the last limiting criteria on my search.

 

I can well understand how such a number woul support your way of searching for caches you would like to go to. I guess that cachers for whom the WOW aspect is something important in caching and who like many different styles of caches as long as they feel that the cache has a WOW aspect for them, are well off even with a simple number in combination with terrain rating/difficulty rating and size.

 

My approach to caching is quite different and I do not care about the WOW factor. Moreover, typically (with the exeception of a few exceptions) I am not first fixing the location and then searching there for caches, but I am deciding my target location on base of the selected caches. Looking at the Top 10% list of some cachers of whom I know that they have similar preferences than I do have, is much more helpful for me than using numbers that are mainly influenced by cachers with different or at least much wider preferences than my own.

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

...within the class of caches that I regard as boring urban caches, the worst representatives from my personal point of view end up with the highest ratings.

There's the problem. You've already determined that you don't like "boring urban caches". So, if you exclude those from your list already, something with a high rating wouldn't appeal to you, even if it was listed as being on 80 or 90 accounts' Top 10% list.

 

Here's how I would use this if I were caching in an unfamiliar territory.

=============================

Once I find out where I'm going to be staying (and how much free time I'll have), I'd plot out a drive-time perimeter and figure out the farthest distance.

Example: I'm going to St. Louis, and will be staying at the Hilton Hotel in Frontenac, MO (N 38° 38.028, W 090° 24.353). According to Streets and Trips, I could potentially drive 60 miles west on 64/70 and still be within 60 minutes, but let's take it down to 40 miles so I'm not just interstate driving. With no other criteria, that's 1,722 caches

 

Then I would apply the criteria of the caches for which I typically enjoy a hunt:

Container: Regular or Large

Type: Traditional

Terrain: >1.0

Difficulty: <4.5

Is Active

That narrows the list down to 315 caches. When I get the results into GSAK, I'd also limit the upper level of terrain to 3, and boost the minimum difficulty to 1.5, which would eliminate 30 caches, leaving me with 285. Already I'm fairly confident that these are caches I'd like to find, only 16½% of the caches match this criteria.

 

But how do I choose from this whittled down list of caches? Read through the logs of 285 pages? I've already spent a great deal of time figuring out what ones I'd like or not like. But if I'm in an area with a limited amount of time, I can't find all 285 caches, and I wouldn't try. I could just choose from the list and be relatively happy with the caches I've found as they all objectively meet criteria I've already established as favorable to my getting a smile (not a smiley).

 

But if there is some phenomenal cache out there, I'd love to get a "WOW" experience. I've had quite a few in caching, and I'd like to have more. From that list of 285 caches, if some of these also had an attribute assigned to them from this method that says these are on a bunch of people's top 10% list, I might choose to try for those first. If there's a cluster of them in a particular area - for example, to the northeast of my central location - I might choose to go to that spot and find some of the cream-of-the-crop, and any of the other 285 that area in that area.

====================

So - no, a single number is not all anyone would be going on, but rather I would add it as the last limiting criteria on my search.

 

Exactly. Thanks for illustrating your strategy (I use the same method) and how a rating system fits in to it.

[+L0ne.R]

Reading logs turns out to be a very ineffective way to find out how good a cache is, unless one is very skilled at reading between the lines.

 

Oh so true.

Does TFTC mean....

1. Thanks for the cache, I enjoyed it.
   
2. I really didn't enjoy the cache experience, you didn't put any effort into it so I'm not going to put any effort into this log,
   
3. I found 50 caches that day and don't have time to leave a personal note on each one that I log,
   
4. I liked the cache but I don't like to write logs.
   
5. I'm logging this for my child and I've already written a personal note under my own trailname, so I'll write TFTC here,
   
6. etc.
   

[+Markwell]

My approach to caching is quite different and I do not care about the WOW factor. Moreover, typically (with the exeception of a few exceptions) I am not first fixing the location and then searching there for caches, but I am deciding my target location on base of the selected caches.

 

You and I agree.

 

I have long said that the rating of caches really only benefits a certain type of cacher that fits into one (or more) of these groups: (1) Brand-New to caching and wants to find some really cool ones to start off; (2) Brand-New to an area and wants to find some really cool ones to start off; (3) Short-time in area with limited time and wants to find some really cool ones. For the cachers that want to clear an area like a mine-sweeper finding every single cache, or for someone that caches every weekend or every other weekend, this probably wouldn't help much.

 

I've often tagged on to this the idea that a side benefit might be found in that if some of the caches are rewarded with some type of distinction (on many people's Top 10%) as an attribute, cache hiders might put some more thought into their caches and locations to gain the distinction. This might raise the overall thoughtfulness of caches and their placement in general.

[Rhialto]

Here's how I would use this if I were caching in an unfamiliar territory.

=============================

Once I find out where I'm going to be staying (and how much free time I'll have), I'd plot out a drive-time perimeter and figure out the farthest distance.

Example: I'm going to St. Louis, and will be staying at the Hilton Hotel in Frontenac, MO (N 38° 38.028, W 090° 24.353). According to Streets and Trips, I could potentially drive 60 miles west on 64/70 and still be within 60 minutes, but let's take it down to 40 miles so I'm not just interstate driving. With no other criteria, that's 1,722 caches

 

Then I would apply the criteria of the caches for which I typically enjoy a hunt:

Container: Regular or Large

Type: Traditional

Terrain: >1.0

Difficulty: <4.5

Is Active

That narrows the list down to 315 caches. When I get the results into GSAK, I'd also limit the upper level of terrain to 3, and boost the minimum difficulty to 1.5, which would eliminate 30 caches, leaving me with 285. Already I'm fairly confident that these are caches I'd like to find, only 16½% of the caches match this criteria.

 

But how do I choose from this whittled down list of caches? Read through the logs of 285 pages? I've already spent a great deal of time figuring out what ones I'd like or not like. But if I'm in an area with a limited amount of time, I can't find all 285 caches, and I wouldn't try. I could just choose from the list and be relatively happy with the caches I've found as they all objectively meet criteria I've already established as favorable to my getting a smile (not a smiley).

There is a GSAK macro that will let you sort on GCVote's ranking so on those 285 you could possibly eliminate those with 2 stars and less.

 

Ok you will maybe say that currently the area is not covered a lot by people who use GCVote so not many cache have a rating but I wanted to show you another possibility.

[Rhialto]

Reading logs turns out to be a very ineffective way to find out how good a cache is, unless one is very skilled at reading between the lines.

Oh so true.

I don't know how it is where you live but here in the province of Québec you have a very good idea reading the last 5-10 logs. Yes it happen that there is a log with very few words in it but that's about 1 log out of 10 so no problem here...

[CoyoteRed]

I'm wondering what's the difference between a Top 10% list and a straight 1-5 star rating where you only pick the 5 star rated caches. Wouldn't your top 10% or so be rated 5 stars?

 

(...besides the bottom 90% not being sorted as 1 through 4 stars would. What if I wanted the top 25%? SOL?)

[+niraD]

I'm wondering what's the difference between a Top 10% list and a straight 1-5 star rating where you only pick the 5 star rated caches. Wouldn't your top 10% or so be rated 5 stars?

I would expect a Top 10% system to prevent anyone from listing more than 1 cache in 10 as one of their Top 10%. With a simple 5-star system, I'd expect some people to give a 5-star rating to more than 10% of their finds.

[+KoosKoos]

I'm wondering what's the difference between a Top 10% list and a straight 1-5 star rating where you only pick the 5 star rated caches. Wouldn't your top 10% or so be rated 5 stars?

 

(...besides the bottom 90% not being sorted as 1 through 4 stars would. What if I wanted the top 25%? SOL?)

 

This highlights my issue with the straight rating vote. If I'm a cacher who LOVES lamp post park-n-grabs so much that I've found 1000 of them, I might rate every single one of them a 5 because they're my FAVORITES.

 

While many feel that lamp post caches aren't the community's favorite type of cache, there's no arguing that they get found way more than a long hike ending in a big ammo can cache. Who knows if all those 100s of caches would vote the lamp post a 4 or a 2 compared with the 5 finders who rate the ammo can.

 

By awarding a favorite rating, you're saying that "of all of the caches I've found, this one was something special" instead of saying "I've found 100 caches and to me, they're all 4's/5's".

Edited August 6, 2009 by KoosKoos

[cezanne]

I'm wondering what's the difference between a Top 10% list and a straight 1-5 star rating where you only pick the 5 star rated caches. Wouldn't your top 10% or so be rated 5 stars?

 

(...besides the bottom 90% not being sorted as 1 through 4 stars would. What if I wanted the top 25%? SOL?)

 

Whether my top 10% would be 5* depends on various things.

First, it depends how 5* is defined. If 5* means that I enjoyed the cache very much, then my top 10% would mostly consist of 5* caches. If 5* should mean a very exceptional cache that I recommend others as a must go cache, then many of them would not end up as 5*.

 

A more relevant difference between the top 10% system and the straight 1-5* rating system I know of is that in the first case there is no element of anonymity and that I can have a look at all recommendations of a certain cacher. A 1*-5* rating system where I could list for any participating cacher all caches he/she rated aas 1*, all rated as 2* etc would be different and close (with finer categories) to a top x% system provided that the steps of the 1-5* scale are solely defined via personal enjoyment. (For me that makes a big difference - I know caches that are 1* caches for me, but which I would rate at least as 4* for the majority of the cachers I know in person).

 

Cezanne

[CoyoteRed]

What happens if someone only hunts caches with a lot of Top 10% selections? What if a lot of people do that. Wouldn't that then lower those caches scores as those folks can only pick 10% of the Top 10%?

[+L0ne.R]

What happens if someone only hunts caches with a lot of Top 10% selections? What if a lot of people do that. Wouldn't that then lower those caches scores as those folks can only pick 10% of the Top 10%?

 

Now there's food for thought. Hmmm.

[CoyoteRed]

This highlights my issue with the straight rating vote. If I'm a cacher who LOVES lamp post park-n-grabs so much that I've found 1000 of them, I might rate every single one of them a 5 because they're my FAVORITES.

Only in an unweighted system. If you weight it, the average becomes a 3 and all that person's score are adjusted accordingly.

 

A favorite is not a recommendation. Even among the most mundane there will be standouts and there will be ones that don't exactly thrill. Basically, if someone is rating everything as 5 stars then they're not really thinking about the experience.

 

This and my previous post illustrates the dangers of either scheme, if someone can only rate a cache he finds, then he would have to hunt caches that he doesn't care for to get his Top 10% to coincide with the communities, or hunt caches that he would rate lower so his ratings wouldn't be weighted downward. Neither are acceptable, IMHO.

 

I think the best solution, and one I've not yet seen suggested here, is a "sock puppet" cache reviewer (for lack of a better word as the person is writing a review of the cache) and allow folks to review a cache and provide 1 through 5 stars. One will not know if the reviewer (not publisher/approver) has found the cache without reading the review. Readers can vote up or down the helpfulness of review or reviewer. The score is displayed but only the individual reader's opinion of the review or reviewer counts for them. So, if you want to trust all reviewer then just go with the raw score. If you don't like some reviewers, pull them from consideration.

[+Markwell]

What happens if someone only hunts caches with a lot of Top 10% selections? What if a lot of people do that. Wouldn't that then lower those caches scores as those folks can only pick 10% of the Top 10%?

If someone chooses to only hunt the Top 10% caches, their Top 10% would be (kinda) in the Top 1%. But since no one account would count more than another, it really wouldn't matter, right?

[+baloo&bd]

What happens if someone only hunts caches with a lot of Top 10% selections? What if a lot of people do that. Wouldn't that then lower those caches scores as those folks can only pick 10% of the Top 10%?

 

What if someone only hunts 5 star caches, wouldn't all their votes be 5's thus skewing the system?

 

None of the rating systems beyond the current one are very reliable or work.

[+Markwell]

What happens if someone only hunts caches with a lot of Top 10% selections? What if a lot of people do that. Wouldn't that then lower those caches scores as those folks can only pick 10% of the Top 10%?

 

What if someone only hunts 5 star caches, wouldn't all their votes be 5's thus skewing the system?

 

None of the rating systems beyond the current one are very reliable or work.

But how do I choose from this whittled down list of caches? Read through the logs of 285 pages? I've already spent a great deal of time figuring out what ones I'd like or not like. But if I'm in an area with a limited amount of time, I can't find all 285 caches, and I wouldn't try. I could just choose from the list and be relatively happy with the caches I've found as they all objectively meet criteria I've already established as favorable to my getting a smile (not a smiley).

 

But if there is some phenomenal cache out there, I'd love to get a "WOW" experience. I've had quite a few in caching, and I'd like to have more.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Markwell

[CoyoteRed]

What happens if someone only hunts caches with a lot of Top 10% selections? What if a lot of people do that. Wouldn't that then lower those caches scores as those folks can only pick 10% of the Top 10%?

If someone chooses to only hunt the Top 10% caches, their Top 10% would be (kinda) in the Top 1%. But since no one account would count more than another, it really wouldn't matter, right?

It could be a situation like the differences between a 4.5/4.5 and 5/5. Generally speaking, 4.5/4.5 caches are actually a lot harder than most 5/5s.

 

The primary thing I'm exploring is the unintended consequences of any scheme.

 

What I was trying to say is that if I only hunt caches that have been on several Top 10% list then because I'm finding only very good caches I can also give a nod to those caches. Why? Because I've not gone and found a bunch of much lesser caches simply up my find count in order that extra 1 in 10 vote. I don't like where this is going.

 

Folks place caches simply as a "gift of a smile"--so someone can find a cache that is empty calories to increment a find count. Cache D/T ratings are manipulated to facilitate the fulfillment of the Fizzy Challenge. Caches are placed in a certain town only because of the first letter in the name of that town. ...or certain Delorme grids or counties. Folks holding a Found It log over someone's head to force them to do something more than simply sign the log. ...and so.

 

Yeah, I can see shenanigans if a scheme which rewards finds with ability to put another cache in their Top 10% is implemented.

 

That person who only hunts top rated cache could then either fake find caches to get his count up or simply find caches without regard to, or respect for, those caches. So, not only would there be the smilie count incentive to place cheap caches, but now ever more pressure to get smilies to get more votes on the Top 10%.

 

The more I think about it the less I like it.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

What makes geocaching so special that it deserves/needs a different rating system than 99% of all other rating systems that use the 5-star method? Do all these other entities have it wrong?

 

Someone earlier mentioned that all of those who have been around a while keep saying "no" to the idea. The only reason I can think of for this is that they don't want to go back and rate the thousands of finds they already have. Either that or they would get their feeling hurt if someone rated one of their caches low. I don't think anyone should voice their opinion unless they've tried the closest thing to a rating system we have (GCvote). I've tried it, and although I'm the only one who has rated any of the 160+ caches I've found, I can say from experience that all of the objections have been proven unmerited. I ranked friends' caches low if I think they deserved it. I've ranked park and grab micros 5-stars.

 

Like I said, unless geocaching itself is SO special that it deserves a custom rating system, just implement the 5-star system that everyone else uses. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple.

 

Sgt Klaos is right. This topic keeps coming up because it has real merit.

[+niraD]

What makes geocaching so special that it deserves/needs a different rating system than 99% of all other rating systems that use the 5-star method? Do all these other entities have it wrong?

I wouldn't say "wrong" as much as I'd say "useless". But that's just me.

 

Recently, I was shopping for a tent. The ratings came straight from Lake Wobegon: every model that met my basic criteria was rated well above average. I ended up buying a model that had one of the lower ratings. The 1-star review that really dragged down its average ended up being one of the most useful reviews--definitely more useful that many of the reviews with 5-star ratings. The key complaint voiced in the 1-star review was perfectly valid for that reviewer, but didn't affect me at all. (Actually, it was a positive factor for me.) So, what use were the stars?

 

And I find numeric ratings of movies and books and restaurants and so on to be similarly useless.

 

Someone earlier mentioned that all of those who have been around a while keep saying "no" to the idea. The only reason I can think of for this is that they don't want to go back and rate the thousands of finds they already have. Either that or they would get their feeling hurt if someone rated one of their caches low.

Or maybe they realize that the folks running Geocaching.com have limited resources, and they'd prefer those resources be applied to something more useful. Maybe a "you may also like" recommendation system. Maybe a Top 10% favorites system. But something like the useful systems we've seen elsewhere, rather than something like the useless systems we've seen elsewhere.

 

And FWIW, I might or might not start rating new finds, but I wouldn't worry about rating all my old finds, except possibly for the few that I've already put on public favorites lists. And no, I'm not worried about anyone giving my hides poor ratings.

 

I don't think anyone should voice their opinion unless they've tried the closest thing to a rating system we have (GCvote).

I may not have experience using GCVote, but I do have experience with other 5-star rating systems. Or is geocaching so special that its 5-star rating system is different from 99% of all other rating systems that use the 5-star method?

[cezanne]

Someone earlier mentioned that all of those who have been around a while keep saying "no" to the idea. The only reason I can think of for this is that they don't want to go back and rate the thousands of finds they already have. Either that or they would get their feeling hurt if someone rated one of their caches low

 

I am a counterexample to your hypothesis. My reasons to say no to a system like GCVote are completely different ones. I do not care if others use the system (so they can rate my caches whenever they wish to do so). So I did not have my caches removed from the system (which is possible and has been done by quite a number of cachers in Germany and Austria).

 

I don't think anyone should voice their opinion unless they've tried the closest thing to a rating system we have (GCvote).

 

First I do not agree with your opinion. Second, I have experiences with GCVote (in areas where GCVote is used much more widely than in your area) . I also followed large parts of the many discussions on the topic which took place in German in various geocaching fora.

 

Some of my objections against GCVote concern simple 1*-5* rating systems in general and some only concern GCVote and the way the person who implemented GCVote is handling the rating data. (For example, he is deleting votes that vary considerably from the ratings given by the majority of cachers for certain caches classes when he becomes aware of such situations or when the hider of a cache complains about single low ratings.) For me such an interference is a no go.

 

Like I said, unless geocaching itself is SO special that it deserves a custom rating system, just implement the 5-star system that everyone else uses. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple.

 

I do not think that geocaching is so special. Let's take the example of Amazon. There I get a review along with the rating which allows me to see why a certain rating is given. (If someone e.g. rates a book with 1* and complains about the long Hermann Broch like sentences, then I know that this review is irrelevant for me as I appreciate this writing style in general). This is the element that I am missing in a system like GCVote. I would like to know whether a certain 5* rating is given due to the ingenious hideout or the nice landscape or the thrill when doing some forbidden or for whatever other reason. A 5* rating caused by the landscape is of relevance for me - a 5* rating caused by the thrill means for me that I will hate the cache with a probability of over 95%.

 

Cezanne

[+Starglider]

A rating or ranking system should be something that helps people to find the caches that they personally like.

 

I know GCVote and use it.

It is good to quickly identify two types of geocaches:

Those where almost everybody would agree that they are poor

and those where most people would at least agree that they are extraordinary.

One could say it is good to find the pearls and avoid the crap.

 

But the vast majority of geocaches on GCVote end up with an average rating of 3 stars (meaning "average").

While this is generally a fair overall rating for these caches it is not helpful.

 

If you read enough logs you'll notice that it is always the same things that people like about cache hunts:

 

Beautiful or at least special locations and sceneries,

clever camouflages,

cool gadgets,

stories told,

physical or intellectual challenges,

some kind of thrill,

learning something new while caching

and last but not least quick finds.

 

It's just not everybody likes all of the above.

I love great views and special locations but physical challenges like climbing are not my cup of tea.

 

Among the many caches that are "average" there are lots of caches that are quite good in one or two of the categories mentioned above.

 

A good recommendation system would tell me which caches are probably more to my taste than others instead of a ranking system with just an overall rating that may be fair but in most cases useless.

 

You would still be able to find the pearls because they would get many recommendations in several categories.

A cache that gets no recommendations at all (not even for a "quick find") is probably really poor (or very new). But getting no recommendations for their caches would not frustrate or offend cache owners as much as when people say that their caches are poor.

[markandlynn]

I'm wondering what's the difference between a Top 10% list and a straight 1-5 star rating where you only pick the 5 star rated caches. Wouldn't your top 10% or so be rated 5 stars?

I would expect a Top 10% system to prevent anyone from listing more than 1 cache in 10 as one of their Top 10%. With a simple 5-star system, I'd expect some people to give a 5-star rating to more than 10% of their finds.

 

This top 10% has its own issues.

 

We now days carefully select the caches we visit in fact id say if the top 10% existed we would go for only those but we could then only vote for 10% of the top ten % ........... in effect meaning we need to find more caches we dont want to to enable us to vote for the top 10%

whereas a cacher who minesweeps the area will get more votes than me the selective cacher.....

 

just a point for Markwell to consider in his much vaunted 10% system ..

[+tozainamboku]

This top 10% has its own issues.

 

We now days carefully select the caches we visit in fact id say if the top 10% existed we would go for only those but we could then only vote for 10% of the top ten % ........... in effect meaning we need to find more caches we dont want to to enable us to vote for the top 10%

whereas a cacher who minesweeps the area will get more votes than me the selective cacher.....

 

just a point for Markwell to consider in his much vaunted 10% system ..

Perhaps there is a misconception about how the top 10% system would work. The idea is for each person to be able to provide a list of recommended caches. The limit to 10% of finds is meant to force people to give some consideration to which caches are included. Otherwise people may recommend every cache or may always recommended a friends cache whether or not it deserves it. Also a limit would mean that just because you didn't recommend a cache implies that it isn't a good cache. It may be be that you have found so many great caches that you couldn't put them on the list.

 

The way this rating system might be used would be to search for caches that appear on at least a certain number of top 10% lists - for example, any cache that appears on 3 or more lists. If you were to only hunt caches that occur in 3 or more top 10% list you would of course not be able to put all these caches in your top 10% list. Instead you would have to decide which of these cache were in your top 10%. Those caches would now appear in one more top 10% percent list. If being in at least 3 top 10% lists returned too many caches for someone visiting the area to find, they might look for cache that are on 4 or more top 10% list. Now the votes from people who were able to select the top 10% caches that were on 3 or more top 10% list become important. These votes will basically provide an indication of which of the caches with 3 or more top 10% lists are even better - the top 1% of cache so to speak. That would be useful in finding really exceptional caches.

 

The biggest problem with top 10% list system is that it may favor popular urban PnG caches. These caches will have lots of finders and more chances to be on someone's top 10% list. Difficult puzzles and hikes that have fewer visitors will have fewer chances to be on a top 10% list. However, based on seeing what caches are in people's favorites lists now, this seems to be countered by people who find both types of caches being far more likely to add a long hike or a difficult puzzle or something that is really well camouflaged and challenging to find to a favorites list than they are an LPC.

[CoyoteRed]

The biggest problem with top 10% list system is that it may favor popular urban PnG caches.

I think it would most certainly favor convenient established cache over newer less visited caches.

 

In the scheme you outlined it would return a cache that has been around for a long time and in a convenient location far more often than a newer better cache. The first cache might have had 1000 visits and be on only 10 favorite lists while the newer cache could have been visited by only 5 people and be every single one of those finder's favorite lists. By your scheme the one with 1% of favorites versus would be deemed a better cache than the one with 100% favorites to finds.

 

No, not a good scheme.

 

You'd have to compare the number of times the cache is on a list to the number of chances it's been able to get on a list--at the bare minimum for a 10% scheme to work.

 

If you're to talk percentages of lists over finds, then there is no reason to increase the thumbs up votes to 50%. Then a so-called average cache would be around 50%, exceptional caches higher, lesser caches lower.

[cezanne]

You'd have to compare the number of times the cache is on a list to the number of chances it's been able to get on a list--at the bare minimum for a 10% scheme to work.

 

opencaching.de uses a formula that also takes the age of the cache into account.

 

Personally, I am, however, not such much interested into on how many recommendation lists a cache arises, but rather whether or not it occurs on the lists of cachers with similar caching preferences.

 

The system at oc.de allows me to see e.g. which other caches a cacher who liked a certain cache equally well than I did has on his/her list of favourites. I am using this feature much more often than looking how often a cache has been recommended.

 

As I would not like to apply the system to 1000 caches or more to select a few, I prefer systems that provide more information, but of course require also more time to be invested.

 

Those who prefer very simple systems quite often just want to select very quickly from a great number of caches a reasonably small subset.

 

Cezanne

[+Starglider]

Perhaps there is a misconception about how the top 10% system would work. The idea is for each person to be able to provide a list of recommended caches. The limit to 10% of finds is meant to force people to give some consideration to which caches are included. Otherwise people may recommend every cache or may always recommended a friends cache whether or not it deserves it.

So that'is bascially restiricted to 10% because there is a lack of trust in the users of the scheme.

 

Misuse would be an issue if the recommendations were anonymous.

While there may be good reasons for anonymity in a scheme where you can "bash" a cache with a "poor" rating I don't see why positive recommendations should be anonymous.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Starglider

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I am, however, not such much interested into on how many recommendation lists a cache arises, but rather whether or not it occurs on the lists of cachers with similar caching preferences.

You can have both in the same system.

 

For instance, if you allowed cachers to give a thumbs up to up to half the caches they find, then you can look at aggregates from two views.

 

One view is from the cache. How many thumbs up does this cache have compared to the total visits? You could limit it to only a certain time-frame. This returns a percentage. Groundspeak could push a couple of figures into the database, say, the over all percentage of thumbs up and one limited to the last year (or six months, whatever). This would allow the database query find caches by your personal criteria very fast. If I only wanted caches with a percentage of 75 and higher, then it could do that. If I lower my standard and ask for 25 and higher, it could do that, too.

 

Another view is from the cacher. You can look up a friend and get a bookmark of all of their thumbs up votes, you in turn make a PQ of that bookmark. You create additional PQs using the some technique. You download all of those PQs. I believe GSAK has a macro to compare PQs to find overlaps, but I'm not sure. But that would be a great way to see if any particular cache in on more than one list. Bingo, you just got a personalized recommendation for you by your friends using the same scheme as the one that provided a percentage of thumbs up over visits. Of course, it would be slick if Groundspeak could provide the comparative PQs.

 

I must add, though, a scheme that will only provide recommendations based on your friends will fail when you go to an area where your friends have never been. That's why it important to have a recommendation scheme based on the community at large.

Edited August 8, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+Kit Fox]

 

Misuse would be an issue if the recommendations were anonymous.

While there may be good reasons for anonymity in a scheme where you can "bash" a cache with a "poor" rating I don't see why positive recommendations should be anonymous.

 

Thin-skinned, and insecure cache owners could look at the ratings on their cache, and via the process of elimination, they could figure out who gave the poor ratings based on who gave the good recommendations. There are way too many cache owners that are malicious, going so far as to delete unfavorable logs, and even resort to cache removal of caches hidden by those that they feel wronged them.

 

Anonymous is the only method that would work best. I think finders of crappy caches should have the option to "decline to rate." For some, this is an "out" and it follows the adage, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

[cezanne]

 

I must add, though, a scheme that will only provide recommendations based on your friends will fail when you go to an area where your friends have never been. That's why it important to have a recommendation scheme based on the community at large.

 

I have talked about cachers with similar caching preferences, not about friends. The first group exists in most areas. Of course it is not always easy to find at least one such cacher or a suitable cache from where a search for cache candidates to be visited could be started.

 

The key issue why I personally prefer a system based on lists of cache favourites to a 1* to 5* rating is that the latter systems typically allow anonymous vote (making them useless for me) and that many cachers

use a 1*-5* system in a manner that does not measure the degree of personal enjoyment, but criteria like the degree of exceptionality. There exist many caches that I would rate 4-5* in terms of being exceptional, but 1-2* in terms of personal enjoyment and also vice versa. In case of GCVote even the most unfortunate case arises that some cachers vote in the one way and some in the others and there is no way to see what a particular cacher is doing.

 

I guess that the main difference between my way of thinking about cache rating systems and yours (and the one of the majority) is that I am mainly thinking of a system that will support me in manually looking for

suitable caches while you are looking for automatic filtering of thousands of caches.

 

Cezanne

[+hukilaulau]

 

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.

Just for the record... I've been caching nearly 5 years, have over 2000 finds and 60 hides, and I support some kind of rating system. I find most of the objections pretty silly to the point of paranoia, but I've pretty much stopped arguing about it here. Once in a while someone tries to shout down a new user making a suggestion in such an obnoxious manner that I feel inclined to point out that not every experienced cacher agrees with the "consensus."

[+BigFurryMonster]

I've often tagged on to this the idea that a side benefit might be found in that if some of the caches are rewarded with some type of distinction ... as an attribute, cache hiders might put some more thought into their caches and locations to gain the distinction. This might raise the overall thoughtfulness of caches and their placement in general.

 

This is exactly why we need a system to enhance on-site findability of the really good caches.

 

There is a reward system in place on geocaching.nl, the geocaching portal site for the Netherlands. And it works.

As a cache owner, I try to put even more attention to quality caches to gain distinctions from cache seekers. As a cache seeker, I try to hunt rewarded caches more often than I do non-rewarded caches.

 

The idea is very simple:

 

For every 20 caches that you found, you may award one 'star' to any one cache that you found. This makes it a top-5% system effectively.

 

There is a minimum number of founds required to participate, to prevent gaming the system.

 

There are several rankings such as : most awarded cache, most awarded cache per number of finds, most awarded cacher.

 

This way, opinions do not average out. Caches accumulate stars as they're found and liked. The best ones come floating to the top. "Best" can be any reason, of course, but it turns out to be a very good indicator of how caches are liked.

 

For me, receive a star is like the icing on the cake of a great log. I try hard to be high on the 'awarded cacher' list.

 

Note that such a system also makes it possible to recommend caches to anyone by the concept of 'you liked cache X. Others who liked cache X also liked caches Y and Z'.

 

I really hope Groundspeak would implement this worldwide. I'm quite fed up with having to spend so much time weeding out bad or average caches from the really good ones. I'd rather spend that time in the field.

[+ctconaway]

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?

 

I would love it. The thing I enjoy most about geocaching is finding new places. The act of hunting and finding a cache is not near as exciting to me as finding a waterfall 10 miles from my home that I never knew existed. I would love to be able to sift through the 100s of caches and know which ones are going to take me somewhere new, exciting, or intresting.

[+ctconaway]

Plus, it would expand the sport tremendously. I could take friends and know they are going to good, quality caches. Not some tuppeware hidden in the bushes at the local community center.