A User Rating System for Diff/Terr

[+chrisrayn]

Hey everybody,

 

I was listening to the cache-a-maniacs podcast this morning and a user named bripod suggested a user rating system where the Finders of the cache could rate caches based on their experience rather than just have that be dictated by hiders.

 

It's mainly in response to people who have 50 finds and 25 hides, and think their stuff is incredibly easier or harder than it really is. With a user rating system, any user can find the cache and then adjust the user-rating through a voting system. I've seen this work on a number of platforms like metacritic, the xbox arcade, netflix, etc. User ratings always seem to improve the overrall environment and community.

 

Anybody else think this is a good idea? I'd love to tell Mr. LPC that he isn't, by any means, a 2.5 EVER. Should that ever happen, that is.

 

I've also seen a lot of confusion between difficulty and terrain. I did a 5/4 the other day that I would actually consider to be a 1/4.5. It involved a tree climb of 40 feet but I could see it from the ground. Once I got there it was no mistake that I'd found it.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

It would be a nice new feature to add to my smart naming in GSAK too. Would add a whole new perspective to finding a cache with my 60CSx.

[GOF and Bacall]

I thought this was scheduled for Thursdays.

[+Unkle Fester]

I thought this was scheduled for Thursdays.

No, Thursdays is Monty Python - your confusing that with the second Sturday after the first new moon of any month that ends in a Y.

[+chrisrayn]

I thought this was scheduled for Thursdays.

No, Thursdays is Monty Python - your confusing that with the second Sturday after the first new moon of any month that ends in a Y.

 

Dang. My second topic was all too common as well.

 

My bad.

[GOF and Bacall]

I thought this was scheduled for Thursdays.

No, Thursdays is Monty Python - your confusing that with the second Sturday after the first new moon of any month that ends in a Y.

 

Well in my defense they are so similar.

[GOF and Bacall]

I thought this was scheduled for Thursdays.

No, Thursdays is Monty Python - your confusing that with the second Sturday after the first new moon of any month that ends in a Y.

 

Dang. My second topic was all too common as well.

 

My bad.

 

No big deal. Someone will be along soon to not only discuss rating systems with you but declare me to be the devil incarnate for ribbing you. It's all cool.

[+J-Way]

Ummm.... I think the off-topic posters were overly distracted by the shiny word "rating". Threads discussing "rating" the quality of caches are all too common.

 

But this thread is about letting finders assign difficulty and terrain "ratings" for caches. While I do not agree with a complete change where the hider does not assign these ratings anymore (what would the rating be before the first find ??), I can see how a separate user-assigned D/T rating would be useful.

 

Something like

Hider D/T rating: 5.0/1.0

Finder D/T rating: 4.0/1.5

[+mrbort]

Ummm.... I think the off-topic posters were overly distracted by the shiny word "rating". Threads discussing "rating" the quality of caches are all too common.

 

But this thread is about letting finders assign difficulty and terrain "ratings" for caches. While I do not agree with a complete change where the hider does not assign these ratings anymore (what would the rating be before the first find ??), I can see how a separate user-assigned D/T rating would be useful.

 

Something like

Hider D/T rating: 5.0/1.0

Finder D/T rating: 4.0/1.5

 

I agree... this could be useful for some caches. Sometimes someone will list a cache as a certain difficulty but only by knowing that particular cacher's bias or digging through the logs will it be clear that the hide is either significantly more or less difficult. Also it would be nice for hiders to see if people agreed with the given rating.

 

While this idea would have some of the same problems of subjectivity that a rating system based on content would, subjective differences would hopefully be smoothed out by the fact that there is already a recommended semi-objective ratings rubric. Finders would either by direct knowledge of the ClayJar system or by osmosis in experience have an overall fairly objective way of rating the T/D. The largest problem would be the variety of experience in the finders; those with thousands of found caches might walk right up to a cache that might take me a long long time to find just because my geosense isn't as well developed.

 

Not sure if the limited utility of the system would justify the extra feature creation though. Usually digging through the logs a little bit can do the same thing; that type of result is just not as readily available for many many caches.

 

edited to change the wording on benefits for hiders.

Edited August 27, 2009 by mrbort

[+StarBrand]

Ummm.... I think the off-topic posters were overly distracted by the shiny word "rating". Threads discussing "rating" the quality of caches are all too common.

 

But this thread is about letting finders assign difficulty and terrain "ratings" for caches. While I do not agree with a complete change where the hider does not assign these ratings anymore (what would the rating be before the first find ??), I can see how a separate user-assigned D/T rating would be useful.

 

Something like

Hider D/T rating: 5.0/1.0

Finder D/T rating: 4.0/1.5

I agree - that would be useful.

[knowschad]

I thought this was scheduled for Thursdays.

No, Thursdays is Monty Python - your confusing that with the second Sturday after the first new moon of any month that ends in a Y.

 

Dang. My second topic was all too common as well.

 

My bad.

 

 

Where did you get a bad, anyway? I've searched the internet and checked all of the stores in town, and none of them sell any bads. I'd love to own one... maybe several, but I just can't seem to find one.

 

 

OH!!! (I feel so stupid!!!) You mean, your mistake!!!

 

 

My bad.

 

 

(sorry... pet peeve relief was neccessary)

 

 

 

To the topic at hand (lightly), I have never seen this exact topic suggested before. User ratings, of course. But user D?T ratings...? Nope. Not that I can remember, anyway.

[AZcachemeister]

So the cache would start out unrated?

 

I think the 'first wave' needs to know what they are up against, and the owner's ratings (however questionable) must be in place for some sort of reference.

Around here, most owners are open to suggestion of possible rating issues, and will change them as needed based on feedback from the finders.

[+chrisrayn]

Ummm.... I think the off-topic posters were overly distracted by the shiny word "rating". Threads discussing "rating" the quality of caches are all too common.

 

But this thread is about letting finders assign difficulty and terrain "ratings" for caches. While I do not agree with a complete change where the hider does not assign these ratings anymore (what would the rating be before the first find ??), I can see how a separate user-assigned D/T rating would be useful.

 

Something like

Hider D/T rating: 5.0/1.0

Finder D/T rating: 4.0/1.5

 

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about.

[+chrisrayn]

So the cache would start out unrated?

 

I think the 'first wave' needs to know what they are up against, and the owner's ratings (however questionable) must be in place for some sort of reference.

Around here, most owners are open to suggestion of possible rating issues, and will change them as needed based on feedback from the finders.

 

No, not that. It would be like a supplemental rating. An EXTRA rating to aid finders in more accurately determining the find they are going for.

[knowschad]

In our area, at least, this happens anyway. People freely post things like "Seemed more like a 4T to me" or "I've found 4.5 caches that were easier than this 1.5 hide!" Frequently the cache owners make adjustments based on that feedback. Very much like suggested coordinate changes.

[+mrbort]

In our area, at least, this happens anyway. People freely post things like "Seemed more like a 4T to me" or "I've found 4.5 caches that were easier than this 1.5 hide!" Frequently the cache owners make adjustments based on that feedback. Very much like suggested coordinate changes.

 

This happens around here too but really, a lot of COs don't pay attention or don't care or think they're right. I'm sure we all know a local cacher whose hides are always under or overrated (consistently). It would be nice to know that beforehand if not clued into the local scene but a system like this would be probably of overall limited utility since a lot of the adjustments happen anyway.

[knowschad]

In our area, at least, this happens anyway. People freely post things like "Seemed more like a 4T to me" or "I've found 4.5 caches that were easier than this 1.5 hide!" Frequently the cache owners make adjustments based on that feedback. Very much like suggested coordinate changes.

 

This happens around here too but really, a lot of COs don't pay attention or don't care or think they're right. I'm sure we all know a local cacher whose hides are always under or overrated (consistently). It would be nice to know that beforehand if not clued into the local scene but a system like this would be probably of overall limited utility since a lot of the adjustments happen anyway.

 

 

The longer I've been caching (and hiding) the more important I think it is that a relatively consistant system like Clayjar be used. It isn't perfect, but it goes a long ways toward putting things on an even plane.

[+mrbort]

In our area, at least, this happens anyway. People freely post things like "Seemed more like a 4T to me" or "I've found 4.5 caches that were easier than this 1.5 hide!" Frequently the cache owners make adjustments based on that feedback. Very much like suggested coordinate changes.

 

This happens around here too but really, a lot of COs don't pay attention or don't care or think they're right. I'm sure we all know a local cacher whose hides are always under or overrated (consistently). It would be nice to know that beforehand if not clued into the local scene but a system like this would be probably of overall limited utility since a lot of the adjustments happen anyway.

 

 

The longer I've been caching (and hiding) the more important I think it is that a relatively consistant system like Clayjar be used. It isn't perfect, but it goes a long ways toward putting things on an even plane.

 

I totally agree. It's interesting to see the d/t ratings vary by region... come to think of it, a lot of things do and are often the source of rather than the acknowledged factor in disagreements about containers, methods etc etc etc. I doubt that a user ratings system would change that since the vast majority of cachers cache in their region and would rate the cache based on their region's standards and interpretations of the Groundspeak suggested rating system.

[+J-Way]

Suggested ratings in logs:

I don't make "suggested ratings" in logs, unless it's blatantly wrong or if it crosses a few thresholds, such as:

- A non-handicap-accessible cache rated 1.0

- A decidedly non-child-safe cache rated under 3.0

- A cache requiring special equipment rated under 5.0

Some owners don't like people commenting on their caches, so I take the peaceful path and don't comment. Also, future seekers have to go back and read all the old logs to get the info. But I would use a Groundspeak-authorized rating method.

 

And yeah, ratings definitely vary by region. Locally (Chattanooga, TN, USA, area), caches that require long hikes or 4WD vehicles are rated based on the hikes. So if you can hike several miles up a mountain (3-4 stars), or drive to within a few feet with a 4WD (1.5 star park-n-grab), the rating is based on the hike because most people do NOT have 4WD vehicles. In southern California, USA, the standard is exactly opposite. Caches in the Sonora desert that require a hike/drive up sandy wash "trails" are rated 1.5, because with a 4WD vehicle they are park-n-grabs. So if you only have a 2WD rental car (me) you either ignore them or suffer multi-mile hikes over soft ground for a measly 1.5 stars.

Edited August 27, 2009 by J-Way

[+paleolith]

The longer I've been caching (and hiding) the more important I think it is that a relatively consistant system like Clayjar be used. It isn't perfect, but it goes a long ways toward putting things on an even plane.

clayjar is decent for evaluating terrain, but is totally divorced from reality on rating difficulty. I've thought about doing a study, and I'm definitely not going to, it's more fun to post my opinions. But I think if difficulty were consistently rated by clayjar, that 98% of caches would be difficulty 1 or 1.5. That's not useful, and it's not how difficulty is actually rated.

 

Edward

[+niraD]

The ClayJar system has 6 questions for evaluating terrain, but only 1 question for evaluating difficulty. The TechBlazer system is more balanced, with 4 questions for each. Still, rating difficulty is harder and much more subjective than rating terrain. Everyone can tell what the terrain looks like: how long a hike, what kind of trail, what natural obstacles, etc. But the guidelines fall back to the search time required ("a few minutes of searching", "less than 30 minutes of hunting", "a good portion of an afternoon", etc.), and different people can have wildly different search times.

 

I spent hours (spread over several trips) searching for one 4-star cache. Others found it immediately, in the first place they searched. But I found a different 4-star cache in about 10 minutes, while others required multiple trips even after receiving detailed hints from the cache owner. Was either 4-star cache was rated incorrectly? I really don't think so. But it shows that the experience of a cache's difficulty varies much more widely than the experience of a cache's terrain.

[knowschad]

The ClayJar system has 6 questions for evaluating terrain, but only 1 question for evaluating difficulty. The TechBlazer system is more balanced, with 4 questions for each. Still, rating difficulty is harder and much more subjective than rating terrain.

 

 

I DO like that (TechBlazer)! But no system, of course, is going to be perfect, and any system at all would be better if it were used consistantly.

[+ecanderson]

In our area, at least, this happens anyway. People freely post things like "Seemed more like a 4T to me" or "I've found 4.5 caches that were easier than this 1.5 hide!" Frequently the cache owners make adjustments based on that feedback. Very much like suggested coordinate changes.

 

Seems to get managed pretty well in log entries. If I feel that a cache is more than 1/2 a star +/- of what I expected when I find it, I'll usually make a note of it in my log entry. Sometimes I'll even note a 1/2 star difference -- e.g., send me down into an easy 4 foot ditch to find a cache under a bridge, and I'll politely suggest in the log that your 1.5 is really a 2.0.

 

Then again, if someone is out there with only the basic information (no logs), they'll never see it.