Feature Request: Rate this cache

[+msaintonge]

1: Add a rate this cache on the "Found it" log page (1 to 5)

2: Allow users to order caches based on average user community rating

2b: Alternative, allow users to filter lists based on minimum user rating. Ex. 3 and above.

 

Why?

There are some gems of caches out there and having people rate the cache is a quick way to visit top quality caches. Faster than reading the logs.

 

Also, it would favour visits to the best caches and show fellow geocachers some neat tricks to employ. Ex. PVC puzzle, Natural Mushroom Minis or Custom PVC (as seen on GeoSnipits on YouTube).

 

Imagine being the owner of the top rated cache of a City, Local or State.

 

Well gotta go, there's a great multi 12 stage in the biggest cemetary in Canada to visit.

[+The Leprechauns]

Oh, goodie. A site tool so that all the anti-micro folks can rate every micro 1 out of 5, even the good ones. A site tool that allows a group of geocachers involved in a dispute to down-rate their adversaries' caches "just for fun." Me, I would be tempted to down-rate every puzzle cache that I can't solve... but I'd resist the urge.

 

No thanks.

 

As I've stated in many similar threads over the past five years or so, I remain in favor of a positive-feedback only system, based on having a special bookmark list for "Favorite Caches." Up to five percent of a user's cache finds can be designated as "Favorite Caches." Caches that appear on three or more "Favorites" lists get a special star on the cache page and on the search results list. A checkbox could be added to the Pocket Query generator so that only caches that appear on a "Favorite Caches" list would be returned in the search results.

[+baloo&bd]

I thought this was a subject for Tuesdays? Has the schedule changed and the rating threads are Friday now?

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh, goodie. A site tool so that all the anti-micro folks can rate every micro 1 out of 5, even the good ones. A site tool that allows a group of geocachers involved in a dispute to down-rate their adversaries' caches "just for fun." Me, I would be tempted to down-rate every puzzle cache that I can't solve... but I'd resist the urge.

 

No thanks.

 

 

I disagree with the first point. The number obsessed that run from parking lot to parking lot to find every cache listed on the website in their area, combined with the casual Geocacher who finds such caches just because they're there and listed on the website greatly outnumber us alleged anti-micro folks. A Wally World LPC would get no worse than average ratings in my opinion under such a simplistic system. The 2nd point I totally agree with, geocachers involved in disputes would down-rate each others caches.

 

Much better systems have been proposed. Every Tuesday, as a matter of fact.

[+Wogus!]

I don't really care one way or the other about the whole rating-system thing, but there are other geocaching sites that employ a user-based rating system that seem to do so successfully. Most notably perhaps would be terracaching dot com which spells it out pretty plainly on their front-page saying, in part, "TerraCaching.com employs a complex, dynamic rating system which learns from members and actively encourages a focus on the quality, not quantity, of caches that members post. TerraCaching.com does not have as many cache listings as other geocaching sites, which is exactly the point..."

 

Just sayin' is all...

[+Lil Devil]

... successfully. Most notably perhaps would be terracaching dot com

No, they don't have it right either. I just looked at the list of Terracaches near me, and of the 5 I've found, the best ones were rated lowest, and the lame drive-ups (which have been found the most) are rated highest. When the caches all have less than a handful of finds, including the # of finds in the calculation is going to yield bad results.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I was hoping for good things from terracache ratings.

 

However, as Lil Devil notes, it's a lousy system. Compounded by the fact that they list virts and locationless. Most of what's around me is boxless, and will probably last forever, so that the site's intent, which early on stated as for the more adventurous, has instead become the caching site for people who can't stand the thought that a hunt might end in a DNF.

 

Favorites list with special character, per Lep's post. So you could PQ on caches that are on at least 3 Favorites lists.

 

There are ratings on Wherigo carts. 1 -5 stars. Most all ratings are 3.5 stars or higher. It's a useless rating and system. No need to port it over here.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Isonzo Karst

[+Wogus!]

... the best ones were rated lowest, and the lame drive-ups ... are rated highest.

Personally I think a large part of the problem is in defining terms like "best" and "lamest".

[+niraD]

Welcome to the forums, msaintonge. As you may gather from some of the comments, this topic comes up frequently.

 

You can have a simple 5-star rating system now, using the GCVote plugin for Firefox.

 

TPTB have expressed interest in some sort of reward system for good caches (like the public "Favorites" bookmark lists that some premium members create, only official). A system like that could be useful. So could a "you may also like" recommendation system based on the ratings of those with similar preferences. But many of us doubt that a simple 5-star rating system would be useful, and TPTB don't seem to be interested in creating one.

[Mr.Yuck]

... successfully. Most notably perhaps would be terracaching dot com

No, they don't have it right either. I just looked at the list of Terracaches near me, and of the 5 I've found, the best ones were rated lowest, and the lame drive-ups (which have been found the most) are rated highest. When the caches all have less than a handful of finds, including the # of finds in the calculation is going to yield bad results.

 

I do agree with this fault in the TC system. Not just the number of finds, but also how long since the last find. The highest rated TC near me is a chapstick tube micro placed in 2005 by a guy from Baltimore while on vacation in Niagara Falls. Hasn't been found in over 2 years I believe.

[+tozainamboku]

... the best ones were rated lowest, and the lame drive-ups ... are rated highest.

Personally I think a large part of the problem is in defining terms like "best" and "lamest".

Exactly why a simple rate this cache on a scale of 1 to 5 doesn't work. Every cacher has their own ideas of what is "lame" and what is "good". It may be that the some caches will have a higher average rating and some will have a lower average rating, showing that an "average" cacher might find the cache "good" or "lame". But is there really an average cacher? I suspect that there is no such thing. Everyone will find some average ratings to be wrong. Some people may feel that they can live with it. They believe that the "average" will be right more often than not. I can see no evidence one way or the other that this would be the case.

 

What most people are looking for is a way to have some caches recommended to them. The OP sums it up nicely

There are some gems of caches out there and having people rate the cache is a quick way to visit top quality caches. Faster than reading the logs.

He believes that the gems will get the highest ratings and instead of having to read logs he could just look for the highest rated caches. There are some alternative rating schemes that might serve this purpose better. A simple one that has been proposed is to allow cachers to recommend a limited number of caches (e.g., 10% of their finds). This could be done using the premium member bookmark feature, designating a bookmark list for each cacher for the their favorite caches. The site could then return caches that get at certain number of recommendations.

[+flask]

i still vote no.

 

i'll vote no next week, too. people who care about which caches i like already know which ones i like.

[+JBnW]

... the best ones were rated lowest, and the lame drive-ups ... are rated highest.

Personally I think a large part of the problem is in defining terms like "best" and "lamest".

No doubt! For example, there was this recent thread over in the Topics Forum: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=230949

 

I wonder how VK and crew would have rated of all those PNGs that went into making their massive numbers run??

[Motorcycle_Mama]

If we are voting, I vote "No" for adding a rating system to the caches on Geocaching.com.

[+Markwell]

Welcome to the forums. You've certainly stirred up a hornet's nest.

 

Recent threads

 

A real old post

 

It's kinda been discussed around here.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Markwell

[+mfamilee]

Imagine being the owner of the top rated cache of a City, Local or State.

Imagine being the owner of the worst rated cache of a City, Local, or State.

[GOF and Bacall]

Imagine being the owner of the top rated cache of a City, Local or State.

Imagine being the owner of the worst rated cache of a City, Local, or State.

 

I suppose that would make one rethink ones hide style. I doubt there would be a worst rated cache. A number of them tied for worst I could believe, but not just one. A one to five star system doesn't have the room for only one cache per rating value. If there was that kind of situation I suspect some hiders would be dissapointed, but that's part of life.

 

A side effect could be the constant emulation of top rated caches. Could we see so many copy the best that the best becomes too common place and thus looses the edge that made them the best?

[+Arrow42]

A side effect could be the constant emulation of top rated caches. Could we see so many copy the best that the best becomes too common place and thus looses the edge that made them the best?

 

It's worst then that... what if that particular style is a kind of cache you don't like? A simple 5-star rating system enforces a "right" way of caching and a "wrong" way and right-wrong would be defined by the lowest common denominator.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Arrow42

[GOF and Bacall]

Either way the rating system is a kick in the pants to happy caching.

[+Lil Devil]

A side effect could be the constant emulation of top rated caches.

I don't see where copying good caches could ever be considered a bad thing?

 

Do you prefer the status quo where n00bs copy their first find, which was an LPC?

Edited September 26, 2009 by Lil Devil

[GOF and Bacall]

A side effect could be the constant emulation of top rated caches.

I don't see where copying good caches could ever be considered a bad thing?

 

Do you prefer the status quo where n00bs copy their first find, which was an LPC?

 

Nah, I was just in the mood to be contrary. I don't think we will see a simple 5* system anyway. As I recall the frog master favors some sort of rewards system.

[+Wacka]

Feature request: an automatic closing of any thread with feature request and rate in the title.

[+mfamilee]

Imagine being the owner of the top rated cache of a City, Local or State.

Imagine being the owner of the worst rated cache of a City, Local, or State.

I suppose that would make one rethink ones hide style.

Agree.

I know I would pronto.

[+Arrow42]

A side effect could be the constant emulation of top rated caches.

I don't see where copying good caches could ever be considered a bad thing?

 

Do you prefer the status quo where n00bs copy their first find, which was an LPC?

 

This only works if everyone agrees that the kinds of hides you like are good caches. You already make the assumption that people will be rating LPCs low.

[+msaintonge]

Thanks for the info. Installed a few moments ago and have now some ratings to prioritize my searches. Also will be able to indicate my 2 all time best cache found.

 

Welcome to the forums, msaintonge. As you may gather from some of the comments, this topic comes up frequently.

 

You can have a simple 5-star rating system now, using the GCVote plugin for Firefox.

 

TPTB have expressed interest in some sort of reward system for good caches (like the public "Favorites" bookmark lists that some premium members create, only official). A system like that could be useful. So could a "you may also like" recommendation system based on the ratings of those with similar preferences. But many of us doubt that a simple 5-star rating system would be useful, and TPTB don't seem to be interested in creating one.

[+zyphs]

I am a happy user of GCVote, but I also live in Dresden Germany where it's pretty active. I find it very useful when visiting different areas of Germany and want to experience something better than average. I don't usually have that much time to just try a couple of caches and see how it works out, with GCvote I can see on the google maps overlay how many stars a cache has and concentrate doing these caches.

 

Of course no system is going to be perfect with people being people and all, some will find a cache exhilarating and some will find it boring. But any system is better than nothing.

[+tindling]

A native rating system would be great! Why? Go ahead!

 

Since I began to cache, I am a user of GCVote. Over the time it became an important tool, which helps me to decide, whether a cache is interesting for me or not. But I am still very careful. I know that a simple star-rating can not tell me anything about the complexity of a cache. This is obvious. There is also another problem, that nobody knows, who has rated the cache. I don't think of nicknames, but of real cachers, who did the cache or friends of the owner, who didn't do the cache, but rated it with 5 stars.

 

The last problem is very easy to solve. As soon as GS implemented a native rating system, each cacher could only rate a cache, when he or she also found and logged it.

 

Ok, but the bigger problem is, that each cacher is different and has other scales and expectations for a cache. So one would like the cache and rate it with 5 stars and another one dislikes the cache and rates it with 2 stars. But this is simple statistic. The smaller the group of people, the worse is the result. In the case of GCVote the group is naturally smaller, because not all cachers are using it. (based on technical things or because they don't like to rate or even because they don't know anything about the existence of GCvote)

 

This problem could also be solved with a native rating system, at least in parts of it. What about caches, which are not in high populated areas and are very low frequented? GCVote attempts to solve this problem with a minimum number of ratings, before the calculated rating for the cache appears. However in case of a native rating system, this parameter should be set by GS or by the owner of a cache. If the number of ratings is e.g. below 5, the cache is labeled "less than 5 ratings". The rating should be calculated using the Median, not the simple Mean. This does not bring more cachers to the cache, but the result is better.

 

At the beginning I mentioned, that a simple 5 star rating can not describe a complex, great multi cache. This is a very difficult question. Consider e.g. Amazon; each book or article can be rated 1 to 5 stars. Nobody can tell me, that e.g. a book is not complex, but the rating systems works and many people are using it. Amazon allows its customers to leave detailed textual feedback, on GS we have the more or less detailed log entry. Another attempt of a simple but good rating system was introduced by Ebay some month ago. After rating a seller with a short textmessage, the costumer can rate the seller in four different categories, optionally. This could also be possible for caches.

 

Finally if any owner dislikes the rating system, he or she is able to disable the rating system for all own or individual caches.

 

Now the conclussion, what do I suppose:

- Implement a native rating system on GS

- Everybody who found the cache, is able to rate it

- The overall rating of the cache is visible on the map and on each list (similar to GCVote)

- There should be different icons for a disabled rating system and to less votes

- Besides the overall 1 to 5 star rating, there should be a detailed, optional rating (max 3 to 4 questions) depending on the type of the cache (examples see below)

- There should be a filter to hide caches with ratings below a defined number of stars

- The calculated ratings should be 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, .... 5 stars

- The rating system is enabled for every cache by default. The owner can disable the rating system.

- The overall rating of a cacher is visible with the log. This is common praxis on Amazon, Ebay and many other web sites and stores.

 

Example Questions:

Traditionals (also Mystery Tradi):

- Did you like the location of the cache?

- How was the interieur of the cache?

- Do you agree with the description of the cache?

 

Multis (also Mystery Multi):

- Did you like the location of the final?

- Did you like the stages of the cache?

- How was the interieur of the cache?

- Do you agree with the description of the cache?

 

What do you think of my suggestions?

 

Greets

Stefan

[Rhialto]

GCVote is now compatible with Internet Explorer since yesterday. I think I should announce that but it is still in beta and Guido wants to proceed carefully. I will make a post in the Geocaching Topics section, not here. Edited November 5, 2009 by Rhialto

[+L0ne.R]

 

What do you think of my suggestions?

 

Greets

Stefan

 

I like them very much. I hope TPTB are reading your detailed outline. Very nice, thanks for sharing your rating system ideas.

[+niraD]

Ok, but the bigger problem is, that each cacher is different and has other scales and expectations for a cache. So one would like the cache and rate it with 5 stars and another one dislikes the cache and rates it with 2 stars. But this is simple statistic. The smaller the group of people, the worse is the result. In the case of GCVote the group is naturally smaller, because not all cachers are using it. (based on technical things or because they don't like to rate or even because they don't know anything about the existence of GCvote)

I'm confused. How does increasing the number of people rating a cache address the fact that different people like different things?

 

I enjoy caches with 4-star camouflage, blinkers on public sculptures, and puzzle caches with great "Aha!" moments (even if the hide itself is mundane). I really don't care about ratings from moms who prefer caches with "treasure" for their kids, ratings from 4x4/scuba/climbing/kayaking/whatever enthusiasts who enjoy only 5-star terrain, ratings from people who refuse to search longer than 5 minutes for a cache, etc.

 

I find simple 5-star rating systems useless, and I'm glad that TPTB don't seem to be interested in creating one for geocaching. A "you may also like" recommendation system based on the ratings of those with similar preferences could be useful though. So could some sort of reward system to recognize good caches (like the public "Favorites" bookmark lists that some premium members create, only official), which is something TPTB have expressed interest in.

[+tindling]

I'm confused. How does increasing the number of people rating a cache address the fact that different people like different things?

Of course a simple star rating can not fit to every one, but the more people are rating a cache, the better fits it to the average of the people.

 

I also agree with you, that you do not want to see scuba or T5 caches, which are rated with 5 stars, if you can't do them. But this should not be a problem, because if the rating system is integrated as a native system, you can filter the caches via pocket queries the same way you filter the caches by attributes, types or diffculty.

 

Concerning the favorite list: I like them, but they are useless when you want to look for good caches on the map or in lists. You always have to open the details of a cache to see if and on which favorite lists it is listed.

 

In my opinion a 5-star rating in combination with all the complex query functions is very useful to find good caches.

[+jhauser42]

I'm confused. How does increasing the number of people rating a cache address the fact that different people like different things?

Of course a simple star rating can not fit to every one, but the more people are rating a cache, the better fits it to the average of the people.

 

I also agree with you, that you do not want to see scuba or T5 caches, which are rated with 5 stars, if you can't do them. But this should not be a problem, because if the rating system is integrated as a native system, you can filter the caches via pocket queries the same way you filter the caches by attributes, types or diffculty.

 

Concerning the favorite list: I like them, but they are useless when you want to look for good caches on the map or in lists. You always have to open the details of a cache to see if and on which favorite lists it is listed.

 

In my opinion a 5-star rating in combination with all the complex query functions is very useful to find good caches.

 

I have to disagree with this. No matter how you implement such a system you will get a significant portion of finders that love the cache and rate it 5 stars. You will also get a significant portion that hated it and rate it 1 star. This will lead to all caches ratings trending to the mid-point.

[ao318]

I have a rating system already in play. I prefer to do urban caches along trails that I can hike with my dog. I will do LPC with my kids because they think it's fun and we can do a lot, but I don't really like to do them.

 

I really like to solve puzzles but haven't visited a lot of the puzzles I have solved, the answers and correct coordinates are sitting in my GSAK data. I like to cache at my own leisure and will review the previous logs of the caches that I plan on visiting to see if there have been any issues at the cache site.

 

I believe reading previous logs to be a more accurate way of getting an idea of a caches "value". If I read on the logs things like, best ever cache, this is one of my favorites so far, this is a must do, or similar comments. This will make me want to do the cache. If I read things like, this area has really gotten bad, had to search through trash, or don't feel comfortable here on my own, I will avoid until cache maintenance has been performed or the area has been cleaned up.

 

Most caches in an area are going to be rated 2-3 no matter what. There just aren't a lot of great spots to hide a cache that haven't already been used in some communities. Most people don't try to hide caches in bad areas, areas just sometimes become bad. What of the person who is having fun hiding a lot of micro's, which I don't prefer, starts to get a lot of low rartings just because they are like every other hide. Will they continue to hide caches or will stop because they think that no one likes their hides, yet in the logs everyone says they are having a great time.

 

This is just a fun game that allows you to pick and choose what type of caches you want to find and hide. There are cache hiders that we look forward to one of their hides and there are others that we say, "Great another LPC." Why do we have to justify things and risk the possibility of hurting someones feelings that is having a lot of fun doing what they like to do?

[GOF and Bacall]

I'm confused. How does increasing the number of people rating a cache address the fact that different people like different things?

Of course a simple star rating can not fit to every one, but the more people are rating a cache, the better fits it to the average of the people.

 

I also agree with you, that you do not want to see scuba or T5 caches, which are rated with 5 stars, if you can't do them. But this should not be a problem, because if the rating system is integrated as a native system, you can filter the caches via pocket queries the same way you filter the caches by attributes, types or diffculty.

 

Concerning the favorite list: I like them, but they are useless when you want to look for good caches on the map or in lists. You always have to open the details of a cache to see if and on which favorite lists it is listed.

 

In my opinion a 5-star rating in combination with all the complex query functions is very useful to find good caches.

 

I have to disagree with this. No matter how you implement such a system you will get a significant portion of finders that love the cache and rate it 5 stars. You will also get a significant portion that hated it and rate it 1 star. This will lead to all caches ratings trending to the mid-point.

 

So far that is not the case. At least not in our area. If you install GCvote and look you will find that, with the exception of a couple of Wherigo caches, nobody has rated anything. Even if the masses had rated the local caches it would not mean much.

 

On a scale of 1-5 I'd say that a simple five star rating system would be about a 1.5 on usefulness.

[+Markwell]

(sigh).

[GOF and Bacall]

(sigh).

[+tindling]

I have to disagree with this. No matter how you implement such a system you will get a significant portion of finders that love the cache and rate it 5 stars. You will also get a significant portion that hated it and rate it 1 star. This will lead to all caches ratings trending to the mid-point.

I don't think, that this is a problem. Of course you are right. There are always some people who will rate a cache with less stars than the majority does. But as I said before, have in mind, that Amazon & Co are also using simple rating systems and it works good. Nobody tells you, that you should only use the star rating to decide whether a cache is good or not. I also attempt to do three star caches, but when I plan a caching tour some kilometers/miles away from my home, I want to have some clues, which caches are interesting. And I want these clues already when I make a PQ or when I look on the map of the target area.

 

I don't know exactly how popular GCvote is in the US, but here in Germany many caches, even outside of cities, are rated several times and I could agree with all ratings so far. I also talked to many cachers, who confirmed that.

 

If a cache is good, than the cacher rates it with 4 or 5 stars. I can not imagine, that there are people who will rate a cache with one star, when 10+ rated it 4 or 5 stars before. Each cache should have a description, which helps the cacher in advance if he or she might like it or not. Additionally there are the logs, which should also be read.

 

I believe reading previous logs to be a more accurate way of getting an idea of a caches "value". If I read on the logs things like, best ever cache, this is one of my favorites so far, this is a must do, or similar comments. This will make me want to do the cache. If I read things like, this area has really gotten bad, had to search through trash, or don't feel comfortable here on my own, I will avoid until cache maintenance has been performed or the area has been cleaned up.

I totally agree with you. I've never said, that you should rely only on the star-rating-system. Of course you have to check the logs, if there are currently some problems with the cache. But these are all temporary problems, which should be solved. I'm sorry for all cachers, who rely on a 5 star rating, don't reading the logs and finding a totally wasted cache. That happens...

 

Most caches in an area are going to be rated 2-3 no matter what. There just aren't a lot of great spots to hide a cache that haven't already been used in some communities. Most people don't try to hide caches in bad areas, areas just sometimes become bad. What of the person who is having fun hiding a lot of micro's, which I don't prefer, starts to get a lot of low rartings just because they are like every other hide. Will they continue to hide caches or will stop because they think that no one likes their hides, yet in the logs everyone says they are having a great time.

That's okay. Let these people hide their micros and let everybody, who likes them, hunt these caches. But makes this those caches to good caches? I'm sorry for all people living in areas which are very crowded with caches. But there is a point in time, when an area is full, finished. People should not try to hide more and more caches in areas, which are already full of caches, when they do not have new and good ideas. This simple micro hiding und hunting is nothing else than the run for points for the GC.com statistic, sorry. That's my opinion.

 

This is just a fun game that allows you to pick and choose what type of caches you want to find and hide. There are cache hiders that we look forward to one of their hides and there are others that we say, "Great another LPC." Why do we have to justify things and risk the possibility of hurting someones feelings that is having a lot of fun doing what they like to do?

I do not think, that anybodies feelings will be hurt with a native rating system. Actually those feelings must already be hurt, because many caches are already voted via GCvote and nobody can do anything against it. Those "micro-hiders" always have the possibility to disable the native rating system for their caches, but strictly speaking these people know, that their caches are not the greastest ones and so they would not expect a 4 or 5 star rating.

[+The Blorenges]

(sigh).

 

That was so wistful.

 

MrsB

[+niraD]

But as I said before, have in mind, that Amazon & Co are also using simple rating systems and it works good.

Really? I find simple 5-star rating systems to be pretty useless for books, movies, restaurants, etc.

 

If a cache is good, than the cacher rates it with 4 or 5 stars. I can not imagine, that there are people who will rate a cache with one star, when 10+ rated it 4 or 5 stars before.

You can't? I can. Just read some of the discussions here about micro-caches, caches where stealth is required, whether certain types of camouflage should be allowed, etc., etc., etc. People play the game with different goals, and people with different goals will rate many caches differently.

 

Or if you don't think people can disagree that much, then consider a container that isn't waterproof, but is hidden during a dry summer. After 10 people find it and rate it highly, a storm hits and the 11th finder gives a 1-star rating to the waterlogged mess. Should I pay attention to the 10 good ratings, or to the one bad rating?

[Rhialto]

Or if you don't think people can disagree that much, then consider a container that isn't waterproof, but is hidden during a dry summer. After 10 people find it and rate it highly, a storm hits and the 11th finder gives a 1-star rating to the waterlogged mess. Should I pay attention to the 10 good ratings, or to the one bad rating?

Anyone with judgement won't rate it 1 for that reason only. And even if someone alone would enjoy to give a 1, the average would show as probably 4 if most of the people rated it 4 and 5. A 4 would probably attract you so you would probably look at the description as to why people seems to like it and also at the few last logs and then you would find out there was a problem with the last found and maybe you would gladly go find that cache people liked and bring a new log with you. Anyway I think I don't need to elaborate on this. Edited November 5, 2009 by Rhialto

[+tozainamboku]

Of course a simple star rating can not fit to every one, but the more people are rating a cache, the better fits it to the average of the people.

I don't quite understand this. Is there such a thing as an average geocacher? I thought you were on the right track when you suggested the rating be a median instead of a mean. The median would tell you half the people rated it higher and half rated lower. It might be easier to imagine just a thumbs up or down rating and give the percentage of the thumbs up. That would tell you if more than half the people who rated the cache liked it or not. If you had more than just a few people who rate this might begin to tell you something about the odds that a random cacher would like the cache or not. It isn't a whole lot of information but my guess is that your are asking for this solution because you have a problem selecting the caches you want to hunt using the current system. You would like to find more caches that you enjoy and avoid more of the ones you don't. Or perhaps you want to have the some really exceptional caches recommended for you to find and also be told which caches have many people recommending you avoid.

 

Most people are satisfied with the current tools for doing this. They either like finding every caches (sure some are better but even the worst caches are fun), or they take the time to select the kinds of caches they like. They may filter caches on size or terrain ratings, they may look at maps and satellite photos to get an idea what the area will be like, they read the cache description and the logs to see what other people say, they look for bookmark lists of certain types of caches or someone's favorites, they ask friends to recommend caches. For these people an integrated rating system on Geocaching.com would provide absolutely no benefit. That such a system may benefit others is not clear. I suspect that people who keep asking for a rating system will almost certainly find one beneficial. But they would also find beneficial a system that tried to learn what caches they enjoy and find recommendations base on these. And they would find beneficial as system that used the existing bookmark list to find caches that get a lot of recommendations. Any system that will automatically give a list of cache to search for where you think it is selecting the caches you are more likely to enjoy would save you the trouble of having to do the hard work required to make the selections yourself with the current tools. And whether or not it actually found you better caches than selecting caches at random probably wouldn't matter. (Although if you are not enjoying the caches you find now it would certainly be no worse).

 

In any case, Groundspeak says they are working on some kind of system to allow cachers to recognize exceptional caches. Let's see what that system is instead of asking for a system that has many flaws (as you listed) that require overly complicated solutions and it is not clear these solutions will fix the flaws.

[GOF and Bacall]

Or if you don't think people can disagree that much, then consider a container that isn't waterproof, but is hidden during a dry summer. After 10 people find it and rate it highly, a storm hits and the 11th finder gives a 1-star rating to the waterlogged mess. Should I pay attention to the 10 good ratings, or to the one bad rating?

Anyone with judgement won't rate it 1 for that reason only. And even if someone alone would enjoy to give a 1, the average would show as probably 4 if most of the people rated it 4 and 5. A 4 would probably attract you so you would probably look at the description as to why people seems to like it and also at the few last logs and then you would find out there was a problem with the last found and maybe you would gladly go find that cache people liked and bring a new log with you. Anyway I think I don't need to elaborate on this.

 

I don't know. If I find a soggy, molding, mess I am unlikely to rate it high. Many caches that start out as great fun deteriorate over time into just another package of mush. So a cache that was highly rated may not deserve that rating as it ages.

 

That sort of thing aside a simple 5 star system still can't account for the difference between those who would rate a great hike highly and those who prefer a clever urban nano.

[Rhialto]

That sort of thing aside a simple 5 star system still can't account for the difference between those who would rate a great hike highly and those who prefer a clever urban nano.

I understand what you mean but... this summer I visited a cache rated 5 for terrain requiring climbing equipement and a local geocacher who enjoy climbing sports (and own the equipment) called anyone interested to do it on a weekend day and I believe we were 20 who went to do it. We all enjoyed the cache, the meeting, the overall experience that took a few hours all together and I personally rated it 5.

 

I don't know anyone who would have rated it 1 unless maybe a frustated person who knows cannot do it because of fear (and that he cannot add +1 to his total) or something else I cannot figure out yet... and then again it would be only one person. Would someone really rate so low for such a reason?

 

All my other 488 caches were rated 3 terrain or below and most of them are around my city but I enjoyed that cache and would enjoy another similar challenging cache anytime I believe unless all logs state otherwise (or ratings state otherwise) then maybeI would also find it below average too.

 

I personally like to look at ratings and go read the cache description and recent logs as to why it is rated below or higher than average.

[GOF and Bacall]

The top one percent or the bottom one percent aren't going to be the problem. The stand out caches will stand out with or without a rating system. It is those other caches that you found that will very wildly.

 

Nothing I have seen from a simple rating system addresses the fact that so many cachers are looking for something different than so many other cachers. If you start a thread to nail down what makes a good cache you will get many different answers. Not only that but many of those answers will be directly opposed to each other.

[+sbell111]

no thanks

[+Team Cotati]

1: Add a rate this cache on the "Found it" log page (1 to 5)

2: Allow users to order caches based on average user community rating

2b: Alternative, allow users to filter lists based on minimum user rating. Ex. 3 and above.

 

Why?

There are some gems of caches out there and having people rate the cache is a quick way to visit top quality caches. Faster than reading the logs.

 

Also, it would favour visits to the best caches and show fellow geocachers some neat tricks to employ. Ex. PVC puzzle, Natural Mushroom Minis or Custom PVC (as seen on GeoSnipits on YouTube).

 

Imagine being the owner of the top rated cache of a City, Local or State.

 

Well gotta go, there's a great multi 12 stage in the biggest cemetary in Canada to visit.

 

Good idea. I think that over time, it would provide a really good indicator of a combination of factors such as location, condition, difficulty of find and so fourth. That same info is often available in the found logs and this could serve the geocaching community well as a quick indicator.

 

The Team does not hunt micros even though we are sure that there are some interesting ones out there. A rating scheme could be useful in identifying micros that might be worth our time to check out...for example.

[+Team Cotati]

I thought this was a subject for Tuesdays? Has the schedule changed and the rating threads are Friday now?

 

Yes, they are now on Friday and only on Friday.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Why not a system where...

• You add cachers who you feel may have tastes in caches that parallel your own.
  
• When logging a found it there would be an option that could be checked. Recommend this cache.
  
• When viewing a cache that has not been done,
  • X number of cachers in your list have found it.
    
  • X% recommend it.
    

This way, if you hate P&Gs then you don't have to have P&G lovers telling you it is good.

Hate 10 stage multies, you wouldn't have the lovers thumping the rating with 5.

You like swamp stomping? Then the other swamp stompers can let you know it is good at a glance.

You also wouldn't have nemesi downgrading a rating because it could only be recommended, and even if hated it was an option only people that have said nemesis in their list could see it.

 

I can think of about 5 local cachers that I would add, maybe 15 more statewide and another 10 cachers nationwide, then you have my best bud who I wouldn't add.

No offense J man, I'll do your caches in a heart beat and try just about any cache (better than no cache at all) but it doesn't make me a fan of the P&G.

[+fizzymagic]

I thought this was a subject for Tuesdays? Has the schedule changed and the rating threads are Friday now?

Yes, they are now on Friday and only on Friday.

I'm sorry, but comments for posters making self-congratulatory lame posts about "this thread is only for xxxdays" are now restricted to the 15th of each month.

 

Thanks for your cooperation.

[+finsteraarhorn]

I'm for. At least, give it a try and look at what happens, instead of arguing and counterarguing forever.