Jump to content

5-Star Cache rating system


finsteraarhorn

Recommended Posts

Hi! What do you think about my suggestion to introduce this new feature?

 

I'm thinking of a Cache rating system, where the Cache finders can put their "liking" of the found Cache on a 5-Star rating system. Analog to the terrain and the difficulty rating systems, it could indicate how much the geocachers like a Cache. The current average could be shown on the listing with terrain and difficulty in the same manner.

 

***** Loved it!

**** Liked it

*** It's OK

** Nice, but could be better

* Didn't like it

 

Moreover, it could give rankings of the most beautiful caches, motivation and pride to the owners (to to more and their best), signal "problematic" caches and, by statistic analysis, give insights about the Cachers preferences (they like more Regular than Micro, or Mystery than Multi, etc).

 

Then you could extent it showing for each "fount it" Log if one liked it or not, and do stats about what every cacher likes (I like my founded caches on avg. with 3.8 stars, but my preferee are Mystery Regular with an avg of 4.5 stars and so on).

 

Tell us your opinion on that and let's share it with the Groundspeak guys!

Edited by finsteraarhorn
Link to comment

I know, the issue is not new. Putting on a new thread puts a bit more "demographic" pressure for a rating system. And it was suggested to me from Groudspeak customer service...

 

Two little thoughts about that:

- I think there are people out there that are scared by the possibility of bad judgement of their caches

- The issue is since so long discussed that maybe it deserves a try: if it doesn't work, Groundspeak could simply shut it down after a review time.

 

Have nice cache hunting!

Link to comment

Haven't been around long have you?

 

Didn't you ever heard of "releases", "upgrades", "new/beta versions" and so on? Did websites last unchanged forever?

 

Don't worry, dude, if it will work, you will appreciate it, if not, I will have the same fun gecaching: life is wonderful.

 

A rating system should hopefully increase your (and my) fun and have no effect on anyone who doesn't want to use a rating system. They can continue to cache as they have, and ignore the ratings.

Link to comment

i vote "no" on this every week.

 

is it thursday already? or is this a special bonus round?

 

i'm not against it because i'm afraid of ratings; i'm against it because i'm afraid of the facebook "rate me! rate me!" culture.

 

i see it every time someone starts a new thread ostensibly to ask if anyone has a facebook/twitter/blah blah id, when what they really mean is "i have a facebook/twitter/blah blah id and i want people to sign up as my friend/fan/watcher/".

 

it'll all devolve into a statistically flat landscape populated by media whores.

Link to comment

The majority of my backcountry caches are in the 8 to 10 range, so your system wouldn't due them justice. I'll just read the logs for they will tell me what the truth is.

 

And the majority of my back country caches are in the 15 to 21 range! :)

 

This isn't about those caches that are OBVIOUSLY high quality, it's about those where you can't really tell...without some input from previous finders.

I am using GCVote, and if I help just one cacher decide to either go after a particular cache, or avoid the other one then it's worth the (minimal) effort.

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