GCVote

[+Nosfera]

Hi again

 

Just a short question.

 

Do any of you use GCVote?

 

 

Peace and Happy Caching

 

[+BCNorwich]

Yes certainly, don't know if it achieves much yet though. In my neck of the woods it seems not many folk use it.

 

Regards

Bernard

[+scottpa100]

I've started using it, but it's still early days. It won't ever have mass appeal because of the requirement of Firefox and Greasemonkey. However.... I think the scoring that is offered through the system is likely to be fairly accurate. I think this because it will mainly be harder core cachers may use this scoring as they will already have Firefox and Greasemonkey for the OS overlays.

[+Nosfera]

I tend to agree, and as you both say it does seem to still be early days.

 

We (that is Team nosfera) have only just found out about it ourselves, and wondered how many others knew it even excisted, and of those that did, how many were using it.

 

Peace and Happy Caching

 

[+SidAndBob]

Yes certainly, don't know if it achieves much yet though. In my neck of the woods it seems not many folk use it.

Ditto.

[+Knight2000]

Some folks across the pond use it too.

[+andyfee]

I use it, would be nice to see more people use it. As a previous poster says, only Firefox and greasemonkey users can use it.

[+drdick&vick]

Yup we use it as well.

[+Nosfera]

I had noticed that at the moment it was only for FF

 

I run a few websites and the stats on that show that more people seem to use FF than any other browser.

Personally I only use FF for geocaching

 

I have looked and although you can get greasemonkey for IE or another option is Trixie (a kind of greasemonkey emulator), the required gcvote java script still does not work with those.

 

Peace and Happy Caching

 

[+martlakes]

Tried it and decided not to bother. One less thing to worry about and in the end the scores will probably all be about average. I hope I know what makes a good cache without needing stars - the logs give a much better impression of what people think.

Also I don't like the idea that anyone can log a rating without having to have found the cache first. Unlike UK one that used to exist.

If you want to rate a cache poorly, it would be better to give some specific feedback rather than just low stars. If you liked it a lot, you'll probably say so in your log.

[+*mouse*]

I use it and so do a few others in the area so it is a useful little tool which I hope will grow in popularity.

So far the best thing about it for me is using it to see what people think of my own hides. People are generally to polite in their logs sometimes, but are far more honest when it comes to the vote!

[+Amberel]

I started using it but have now stopped. I didn't really want to have to run greasemonkey in the first place, but slightly reluctantly decided to try it out. After a few weeks it tried to update itself and went off into some german language stuff that I coudn't find a way round, and I was quite relieved to have an excuse to disable it .

 

Rgds, Andy

[+JeremyR]

I run a few websites and the stats on that show that more people seem to use FF than any other browser.

This is a bit of a tangent risk but it's relevant to the point that not so many people will use GC vote because of the Firefox requirement.

 

I also run a site that pulls in geocachers and the stats are clear - far more geocachers do use Firefox than the amongst general population.

 

Current stats for my site are as follows:

MS Internet Explorer: 44.2%

Mozilla Firefox: 41%

Safari: 7.4%

 

Whereas the browser breakdown amonst the general population is:

MS Internet Explorer: 65.2%

Mozilla Firefox: 25.7%

Safari: 3.74%

 

So according to my data, just under twice as many (likely UK-based) geocachers use a non-IE browser as compared against the general population.

 

Myself, I have a number of GM scripts that I wouldn't live without but I don't use GCVote. I had a look at the source and didn't like the fact that the voting doesn't seem to be anonymous (your gc.com username appears to be submitted to a server in Germany). [edit] That and as Amberel said, it attempts to auto-update which seems a little OTT for a GM script...

Edited September 14, 2009 by JeremyR

[+molfrew-mosstoad]

Ive been using it for a while now as an alternative to Teasels Geocache UKs rating (whihc I liked), but one thing I dont like is that you dont have to visit caches to give them a rating. As every cache page you visit allows you to vote on it. I guess it just allows on honesty.

 

Still it is early days.

[+pklong]

Yes I use it, but it won't give a useful rating until caches get rated half a dozen times or more. I like it and want it to succeed.

[+keehotee]

I like the idea - but don't like the fact that it's anonymous.

If people aren't prepared to rate a cache accurately and honestly in their named logs, why should they be given the opportunity to do so behind the cover of GCVote??

[+drdick&vick]

I like the idea - but don't like the fact that it's anonymous.

If people aren't prepared to rate a cache accurately and honestly in their named logs, why should they be given the opportunity to do so behind the cover of GCVote??

 

Quite agree and have just started to work back through my finds and rate them and enter the rating on the log page. I also add a note to say that there is an explanation of how I grade on my profile page.

[+Fuchsiamagic]

I like the idea - but don't like the fact that it's anonymous.

If people aren't prepared to rate a cache accurately and honestly in their named logs, why should they be given the opportunity to do so behind the cover of GCVote??

Voting anonymously has its uses and does give following cachers a more accurate idea of the cache quality. You only have to look back at some of the posts on here to see how upset people get if a disparaging remark is left in their logs, and I've suffered the wrath of a few myself after doing so, so most people don't say what they really think! In my opinion, GCVote can only go to improve the calibre of caches and should have been brought in ages ago.

[+drdick&vick]

My grading using GC Vote is basic and should not upset. If I actually decided to go down the lines of making long comments to the same effect on logs then they might but the last line says it all.

Plus of course that I am taking the time to actually make a helpful comment/marking online to maybe guide the cache hider in future..

 

1 Star = Very very boring could be much better placed and thought out

2 Star = Plain and could have been better thought out.

3 Star = Just an average cache but okay otherwise.

4 Star = Nicely hidden cache with some thought going into the container and a nice location.

5 Star = An absolutely brilliant well maintained cache in a fantastic location and a great container that is hidden well within it's surroundings.

These are meant as constructive comments and nothing else.

[+spannerman]

My grading using GC Vote is basic and should not upset. If I actually decided to go down the lines of making long comments to the same effect on logs then they might but the last line says it all.

Plus of course that I am taking the time to actually make a helpful comment/marking online to maybe guide the cache hider in future..

 

1 Star = Very very boring could be much better placed and thought out

2 Star = Plain and could have been better thought out.

3 Star = Just an average cache but okay otherwise.

4 Star = Nicely hidden cache with some thought going into the container and a nice location.

5 Star = An absolutely brilliant well maintained cache in a fantastic location and a great container that is hidden well within it's surroundings.

These are meant as constructive comments and nothing else.

 

"Marking online".......If I got less than grade 3 more than once would I have to do detention?

[+drdick&vick]

My grading using GC Vote is basic and should not upset. If I actually decided to go down the lines of making long comments to the same effect on logs then they might but the last line says it all.

Plus of course that I am taking the time to actually make a helpful comment/marking online to maybe guide the cache hider in future..

 

1 Star = Very very boring could be much better placed and thought out

2 Star = Plain and could have been better thought out.

3 Star = Just an average cache but okay otherwise.

4 Star = Nicely hidden cache with some thought going into the container and a nice location.

5 Star = An absolutely brilliant well maintained cache in a fantastic location and a great container that is hidden well within it's surroundings.

These are meant as constructive comments and nothing else.

 

"Marking online".......If I got less than grade 3 more than once would I have to do detention?

 

Just my interpretation of the marking and a guide for anybody whose cache I have marked and wants to know why I arrived at that GC Vote.

[+Bambography]

I like the idea - but don't like the fact that it's anonymous.

If people aren't prepared to rate a cache accurately and honestly in their named logs, why should they be given the opportunity to do so behind the cover of GCVote??

Anonymity makes people more honest. If people believe that you will know what they've said they will be slightly nicer about things (in this case ratings).

Anyway, I can't really see much use in knowing who rated what. Maybe if you had loads of 4*s and there was suddenly a 1* then you might like to ask them why but beyond that...?

 

The rating system shown on their website is:

? - neutral / not rated yet

1 - poor

2 - below average

3 - average

4 - better than average

5 - awesome

 

Maybe DrDick&Vick should send them your version as it is more descriptive. I would reword #1 though 'Poor and not well hidden or thought out'.

[+Stuey]

I went through rating all of my cache finds years ago when ratings were available on geocacheuk.com. That site went by the wayside, so the ratings were a waste of time. What's to say that GCVote won't go the same way when demand for the service outstrips the web hosts bandwidth capacity?

 

I'm not going to bother. Honest logs rule! Even if they do upset some cache owners.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Stuey

[+Bambography]

Whats to say Groundspeak won't get hit by the recession and disappear? Its all a risk and if no one bothered in case it did disappear, it would be gonea whole lot quicker and nothing would ever get anywhere.

 

I've only just installed it and am surprised how many locally have ratings, even if it is just one or two. I'm going to give it a shot and see how it goes.