Jump to content

Rating caches - a new way?


martlakes

Recommended Posts

Every time 'rating caches' comes up I think about this idea, and it's been percolating slowly round and maybe it's enough formed to try it out in public.

 

The problem with most rating proposals is that it's very subjective and based on 'enjoyment' and whatever you consider to be a 'good' cache. See Keehotee's post Link which neatly sums up the problem, which results in most caches being 'good enough'.

 

What I think is needed is a more factual basis rather than an unspecified definition of a 'good cache'. Unless everyone has a broadly similar idea about what a 'good' cache is, generating ratings is fairly pointless.

 

So, the idea is rather than try and define what a 'good' cache is - an impossible task as different folk like different things, perhaps we could focus on 'purpose'. Why was the cache placed? Does it accomplish its purpose?

 

How would this work? Well, as well as the physical Attributes shown on the cache page, there is a list of 'Purposes' and when submitting a cache, and the owner has to tick the ones that apply.

Purposes could include:

Location - attractive/interesting/historic (the purpose of the cache is to show you this location)

Cunning hide - tricky *****! (the purpose of the cache is to entertain those who like a challenge)

Checkpoint - one of a series around a walk (the purpose of the cache is to act as a checkpoint to keep you on the right route and to encourage you to do the walk)

Evil puzzle - box is almost incidental to the challenge of the brain ache (the purpose of the cache is to entertain those who are clever!)

Simply caching - just a straight forward average cache (the purpose of the cache is just to be a simple cache, nothing too grand or fancy)

Totally caching - add one to my total (the purpose of the cache is to be a easy addition to your finds)

Cache & Dashing - as the name suggests (the purpose of the cache is to provide a quick and easy caching fix)

Other - any other purpose

 

These categories will not be totally right, but rather than agree what a good cache is, hopefully it's a simpler discussion to agree a set of different purposes of why a cache is set.

(Not sure how to politely include "just being a crappy micro in a hedge"!!)

 

Owners can tick more than one box. These then form another set of 'Attributes' shown on the cache page and thus can be searched for. If you like great locations - search for those listed with this purpose. Hopefully, this would bring some clarity to all the myriad caches available when you go somewhere new.

 

The rating bit: The idea could end here. The owner 'rates' their cache by expressing its purpose. "I've hidden this cos it's a great spot" Allows finders to search for great spots.

However, to provide feedback: if there was a tick box for each 'Purpose Attribute' which showed up on the Found It log page, then finders could simply tick the Location box if they agreed with the owner that it was a great spot. The cache page would then display something like the percentage of finders who thought it was a 'Location' purpose cache.

 

Finders are not being asked "whether this is a good cache" but "whether this a good Location Cache" as the owner intended? Hopefully it's less subjective as the cache owner is defining what they would like their cache to be 'judged' by.

Finders can decide whether it was a 'good' C&D as the owner intended, "Yep, that was a great cache & dash cache, thanks". Finders aren't comparing apples and pears ie, great scenic locations with a supermarket car park, when each cache has a different purpose and fulfills a different need. "Yep, as supermarket cache and dashes go, that was a good one". Yep, as scenic views go this Grand Canyon cache is great!" "No, as cache and dashes go, the five mile hike to the Grand Canyon was rubbish" "No, as scenic views go this car park was awful"

 

Hopefully, suddenly everyone is comparing 'like with like'. The owner says what they think the cache is trying to do (its purpose) and finders get to agree or disagree, and they are judging it against the intention. When deciding which caches to try for, you know what the purpose of the cache is and can decide whether that's what you want. The cache page gives you an idea of what previous finders have thought about whether the cache meets its purpose.

 

Another benefit might be to encourage owners to consider why they are hiding a cache here! What's its purpose? If it doesn't fit any of the listed purposes one might ask, does it have a purpose?

 

Anyway, thanks for reading, that's my idea, wot do you think? :)

Link to comment

I think it would be easy to get used to. Once you've got the different 'purpose' options sorted, the cache owner only has to add them like the current attributes. When logging, a finder gets a prompt and clicks the box if they agree it was a good Location, or a good Cunning Hide, or whatever the owner has suggested.

 

That's pretty simple isn't it? :laughing:

 

Thinking some more about the categories. It doesn't need the evil puzzle one cos that's covered by the Puzzle caches anyway. I'd probably drop the numbers one as that's similar to the C&D. So at the moment I'd suggest:

 

Location

Cunning hide

C&D

Plain & Simple

Checkpoint

Other

 

I could easily allocate all my caches into these categories.

 

Other ones might be:

Powertrail (or maybe it's the same as Checkpoint}

Fun and Weird Madness (those odd and wacky caches out there)

 

The 'complicated' bit is agreeing the categories, internationally, and then getting Groundspeak to adopt the idea (assuming folk think it has some merit).

Link to comment

The biggest problem with this idea, as I see it, is that there are already nearly 53,000 caches already placed in the UK. Unless you could persuade all the cache setters to go back and retrospectively grade all their caches (and that ain't gonna happen) any search using the new attributes will be pretty much meaningless.

It's a nice idea, though :laughing:

Link to comment

So at the moment I'd suggest:

 

Cunning hide

 

But what about all those cache owners who apprently believe that a micro in a hedge or ICT is a cunning hide? :laughing:

 

I see what you mean :lol: but that's where the actually rating bit comes in. If the cache page showed only 15% of finders agreed that it was a cunning hide, it would let you know that the owner was a bit out of step with most folks views.

 

(Or maybe all the forum dwellers are out of step and in fact a micro in a hedge IS a cunning hide!) :laughing:

Link to comment

Anyway, thanks for reading, that's my idea, wot do you think? :laughing:

 

Part of the joy of caching is getting your head down over the maps and researching which cahces to visit. Rating is just dumbing down IMHO.

 

I agree and that's how I sort out which caches I might want to try. However, we're off to Cornwall this weekend (for a wedding) and faced with the veritable sea of caches down there, it's a daunting task knowing where to start. Being able to lighten the choice by excluding the type of caches I don't enjoy would help.

 

Of course, if you don't think it's useful, you don't have to use it! :laughing:

Link to comment

The biggest problem with this idea, as I see it, is that there are already nearly 53,000 caches already placed in the UK. Unless you could persuade all the cache setters to go back and retrospectively grade all their caches (and that ain't gonna happen) any search using the new attributes will be pretty much meaningless.

It's a nice idea, though :laughing:

 

Well, it seems to be working with the 'new' regions doesn't it? Slowly caches are being updated and all new ones have to be.

 

Over a couple of years surely the proportion would be quite high? :laughing:

Link to comment

The biggest problem with this idea, as I see it, is that there are already nearly 53,000 caches already placed in the UK. Unless you could persuade all the cache setters to go back and retrospectively grade all their caches (and that ain't gonna happen) any search using the new attributes will be pretty much meaningless.

It's a nice idea, though :laughing:

 

Well, it seems to be working with the 'new' regions doesn't it? Slowly caches are being updated and all new ones have to be.

 

Over a couple of years surely the proportion would be quite high? :laughing:

Yeeessss.... Regions are being added, slowly but I seem to remember that our reviewers (or one of them, anyway) said that they were slowly working their way through the list and adding the data. They wouldn't be able to do that for your attributes as they wouldn't know the cache setter's intentions.

 

Of course, they could just globally add a 'Rubbish' attribute to all micros..... :lol::P Just joking, before anyone takes me seriously.

Link to comment

I have a radical idea. The cache owner could write something in the description like "This cache takes you to an interesting spot", and the finders could write something like "Wow, that was really interesting". If the finder doesn't find it interesting, depending on their personality, they might write "I've already seen 10 like this", or if they want to be more polite, "Yes, I guess a lot of people have never seen one of those". Or if the cache is truly terrible, "Thanks for placing this cache" is nice, and communicates quite a bit of information. :unsure:

 

Here's the really clever bit. When someone wants to select which caches to find, they would have the option of reading the description and the logs, and deciding on that basis if the cache sounds like something for them.

 

Then perhaps, in some far distant future where a high percentage of cache owners can be bothered to write good descriptions, and a high percentage of cache finders can be bothered to write good logs, and a high percentage of cache seekers actually want to select certain caches and deliberately ignore others even though they're right next door and will only require a 3 minute stop to find - then, perhaps, a box-checking system might add some value.

Link to comment

I have a radical idea. The cache owner could write something in the description like "This cache takes you to an interesting spot", and the finders could write something like "Wow, that was really interesting". If the finder doesn't find it interesting, depending on their personality, they might write "I've already seen 10 like this", or if they want to be more polite, "Yes, I guess a lot of people have never seen one of those". Or if the cache is truly terrible, "Thanks for placing this cache" is nice, and communicates quite a bit of information. :unsure:

 

Here's the really clever bit. When someone wants to select which caches to find, they would have the option of reading the description and the logs, and deciding on that basis if the cache sounds like something for them.

 

Then perhaps, in some far distant future where a high percentage of cache owners can be bothered to write good descriptions, and a high percentage of cache finders can be bothered to write good logs, and a high percentage of cache seekers actually want to select certain caches and deliberately ignore others even though they're right next door and will only require a 3 minute stop to find - then, perhaps, a box-checking system might add some value.

 

Trying to separate out the irony from the rest ...

 

Well, yes, .... IF people wrote useful logs, giving specific feedback rather than stock phrases, perhaps there would be no need. However, going back to the original post, see Keehotees linked post that explains why even this doesn't work. Half the logs will be from people who LOVE micros in hedges and will say: "Great cache, Thanks". Unfortunate if you happen to be one of those rare cachers who doesn't like micros in hedges. Equally, the cache description will also be positive sounding because the owner presumably thinks micros in hedges are fun. Does anyone ever set out to hide a crummy cache?

 

However, if they had ticked the box when submitting it to say that the cache's 'purpose' was to be a Cunning Hide in a Great Location, and the cache page shows only 15% of finders agreed with this, then you have a more informed view of what the cache might be like. If you want big numbers and a quick C&D then you may well go straight for it.

 

All I'm really suggesting is 'inventing' a system to identify more sub-types within the Traditional cache group (or multi for that matter).

If you like puzzles - they have their own cat. If you like virtuals, you know where to go, etc. However 75% of caches are Trads so people are now left to filter their search solely on box size, even though many micros are excellent hides providing good sport, sometimes in great locations.

 

We already know how to search for caches that involve wading/have parking/covered in thorns etc, why not expand the scenic view idea into a few other categories (cunning hide etc) and then ask finders to 'rate' the cache as to whether it meets the hider's intention.

 

Sounds pretty straight forward to me. :P

Link to comment
Well, yes, .... IF people wrote useful logs, giving specific feedback rather than stock phrases, perhaps there would be no need.

My point is that if people aren't prepared to think about their logs, they probably aren't prepared to put much diligence into checking rating system boxes either.

 

Or, in my case, although I try to write a couple of dozen words of original text for every cache I find, these days that tends to be based on the 3 or 4 words I wrote as a field note, which allows me to start logging directly at the log page - a substantial time saver, especially on Sunday evenings when every cache page load can be slow. When logging, I probably only open the cache page of 10% of the caches which I find, and most of those are to click on whatever trackable I've found.

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment

Ok, I follow that. :unsure:

 

It does mean then that no rating system would interest you. The assumption behind my idea is that people want a rating system and would be prepared to invest a small amount of time to 'rate' the cache. If someone isn't, then no system will work. Lots of people keep saying they want a system and there's a regular thread about them isn't there? Obviously not everyone would.

Link to comment

Any rating system is still going to come down to subjectivity, and user preference.

The only way to get around this would be to create multiple rating systems - one for people who like micros in hedges, one for people who like long walks, one for people who like power trails, ..... ad infinitum.

These already exist to some degree - as watchlists, and ignore lists - and they're personal to the person that found the cache. I don't see any other way that any rating system is going to be truly impartial.

 

As steamtraen says - if people were honest in their logs, the problem would be half way solved (if it is a problem) - and even then, an honest log will only be of any use if you already know the kind of caching preferred by the person that wrote the log...

Link to comment

I think it's a great idea, and have been suggesting exactly the same thing for years (so I suppose it's not "rated" by many). I'd be happy to add such attributes to my caches, and I'm sure it wouldn't take long. The categories would be up for debate, of course.

 

The point is that you can get an instant shortlist, and if you're disappointed by a cache then it's because it's a poorly-devised cache (rather than a good cache but not of the type you like). It makes ratings more objective, as it's really multiple rating systems (one for people who like micros in hedges, one for people who like long walks, one for people who like power trails etc).

 

The objection a lot of people have to the present system is that they can't or won't trawl through thousands of cache descriptions and logs to create a short list.

Link to comment

Any rating system is still going to come down to subjectivity, and user preference.

The only way to get around this would be to create multiple rating systems - one for people who like micros in hedges, one for people who like long walks, one for people who like power trails, ..... ad infinitum.

These already exist to some degree - as watchlists, and ignore lists - and they're personal to the person that found the cache. I don't see any other way that any rating system is going to be truly impartial.

 

As steamtraen says - if people were honest in their logs, the problem would be half way solved (if it is a problem) - and even then, an honest log will only be of any use if you already know the kind of caching preferred by the person that wrote the log...

 

Of course it's always going to be subjective but it helps to have some agreement about what one is being subjective about. A "good cache" is pretty meaningless as you can't compare a car park to the Grand Canyon. However, "is it a good cache of THIS TYPE" has much more meaning.

 

Being explicit about 'purpose' is indeed trying to create multiple systems isn't it?

It would also let you know the kind of caching preferred by the cache owner (well, their intention in hiding the cache) and lots of folks' reaction - yes, most folk agreed it was a Good Location or yes most folk agreed it was a Good C&D. I like this idea cos it has input from both hiders and seekers, and over time hiders will respond to the feedback. (Wow, you mean a dumpster isn't a great location - I never knew!)

 

A simple way of categorising what a cache is trying to offer the finders, and whether the finders thought it worked. Seems to answer some of the issues I think.

Link to comment

I would just like to add my support to Martin's suggested rating system,now there's a novelty,a cacher from the same area in agreement about something ;) and this thread shows Martin's enthusiasm for the matter by the way he responds to the comments so quickly,the same kind of way he responds to logs placed on his caches.

The only slight problem I can think of is in rating felltop caches is that they would only be visited by like minded cachers as the setter, in other words "they would know what they are letting themselves in for" there being no such thing as a bad cache in any form in such a location :lol:

Link to comment

I can see how it could be a useful way of filtering out caches you're unlikely to enjoy - almost an extension of the cache type. Some micros are great, other are very dubious. The same can be said of regulars & puzzles. This might help improve the general quality of caches.

 

But as Steam-Traen says, reading the cache page should give some indication of the purpose. If a cache is rubbish, I'll tend to try & give some constructive criticism in my log.

 

Fun and Weird Madness (those odd and wacky caches out there)

Can't think of any caches that could fit THAT category.

 

Micros in hedges are a pain, particularly Hawthorn hedges. I think people who hide micros in trees should be shot though. :lol: And what sort of wally would put a full-size cache in one of the busiest spots in a town centre? ;)

Link to comment

I'm still uncertain how any of this would prevent the subjectivity aspect from rendering the whole idea pointless.

 

In another thread (somewhere in the UK section, forget which one) someone mentioned the idea that some people like micros in hedges, film pots attached to park benches and so on. Others would rather hike 15 miles each way to find an ammo can in the middle of nowhere, and everybody is going to rate the caches they liked.

 

Personally I like the church micro series, and have enjoyed most (not all) of the Sidetracked I've attempted. At the same time I've enjoyed hiking for miles across Dartmoor to find a sandwich box, but then I'd have enjoyed the cycling past the church micros even without the cache, and I'd have enjoyed hiking across Dartmoor even if there wasn't a sandwich box at one of the waypoints.

 

We already have a difficulty and terrain rating, we've got size guidelines, and we've got Google Maps, so you can already get an idea of what kind of cache you're going to be up against.

 

Speaking of Cornwall, if you've got a cache like Don't Look Down II (GCGNNE) it's immediately obvious from the page that it's not a trivial undertaking to find it. But for caches that don't have much text associated with them it seems that instead of looking on the map to see where it is, what the surrounding area is like, where nearby roads might be, or whatever, schemes like this still end up relying on other people to decide what caches you're going to attempt.

 

There's one cache in West Cornwall that I truly hated. I batted through chest-high nettles and brambles, then across a field, then had to skirt another field because it had cows in it, and was then thwarted by a barbed wire fence I couldn't see any way to cross. So I'd have given it a minimum rating. Which would have been a shame, because had I approached from the other direction (as I later discovered the setter intended) I'd probably have had a much better time of it.

Link to comment

I'm still uncertain how any of this would prevent the subjectivity aspect from rendering the whole idea pointless.

Your examples answer your own question nicely. There has been a tendency to categorise caches anyway, so that you know the point of the cache (e.g. Church Micros, Curiosities Of Derbyshire). If you find a Church Micro and realise that it's not the type of thing you like, you can simply avoid the rest.

Obviously, with a bit of research you can check all the caches in an area and make a shortlist. But many are not keen to wade through a few hundred cache listings in search of suitable ones and having classifications and ratings helps cut down the toil. The objectivity comes from the cache owner defining clearly what he sets out to achieve, making it much easier to judge whether the experience matched the claims.

Link to comment

I'm still uncertain how any of this would prevent the subjectivity aspect from rendering the whole idea pointless.

Your examples answer your own question nicely. There has been a tendency to categorise caches anyway, so that you know the point of the cache (e.g. Church Micros, Curiosities Of Derbyshire). If you find a Church Micro and realise that it's not the type of thing you like, you can simply avoid the rest.

 

If only it were that easy.

Being an open series, the differences between interpretations of Church Micro are as many as there are cache types.

I've done wonderful CM caches - with good write ups, cunning hides, and relevance to the subject.

And I've done CM's that are nothing more than a film pot thrown behind a BT pole, with the barest glimpse of a church tower half a mile distant.......

Link to comment

 

Fun and Weird Madness (those odd and wacky caches out there)

Can't think of any caches that could fit THAT category.

 

Micros in hedges are a pain, particularly Hawthorn hedges. I think people who hide micros in trees should be shot though. :angry: And what sort of wally would put a full-size cache in one of the busiest spots in a town centre? :unsure:

 

None of the above were anything to do with me! :lol:

 

Down in Falmouth at the moment for a wedding so tricky to keep up with the thread.

 

Happy Humphrey has got the hang of the idea, but perhaps others haven't quite grasped it. The whole point is to remove much of the subjectiveness by not compaing different types of caches with others, but to compare them with similar types.

 

But it's just a suggestion and I doubt much will come of it. I do, however, think it would resolve many issues that are frequently ranted about on here.

 

Hope it's drier where you are than here in Falmouth! Just been for a quick pre-wedding cache in the downpour.

 

Ps. I agree with Fellsmanhiker!!

Link to comment

I'm still uncertain how any of this would prevent the subjectivity aspect from rendering the whole idea pointless.

Your examples answer your own question nicely. There has been a tendency to categorise caches anyway, so that you know the point of the cache (e.g. Church Micros, Curiosities Of Derbyshire). If you find a Church Micro and realise that it's not the type of thing you like, you can simply avoid the rest.

Obviously, with a bit of research you can check all the caches in an area and make a shortlist. But many are not keen to wade through a few hundred cache listings in search of suitable ones and having classifications and ratings helps cut down the toil. The objectivity comes from the cache owner defining clearly what he sets out to achieve, making it much easier to judge whether the experience matched the claims.

 

The problem still remains trying to put in objective terms something which is by its very nature subjective. Effectively what you're doing is trying to ask a group of strangers for their inputs into whether or not you will enjoy a cache. It might save you from spending hours on a cache you won't enjoy but seems to me that it's just as likely to guide you away from something you would enjoy.

 

If you hate film pots on park benches, you see a cache is a micro, you see it's in a park near the path, you can take a guess it's probably going to be the kind of cache you won't enjoy doing.

 

Ultimately I can't help thinking that we could engineer ever-more complex systems to try and avoid doing the caches we might not get much out of, or we could just forget complex systems and do what's local, or what's along a route, and make decisions for ourselves whether each one is worthwhile.

 

After all, you could have something that ticks every single box, gives you a cast-iron guarantee that it's the kind of cache you'll enjoy, but then when you get to GZ find it's been muggled.

Link to comment

The problem still remains trying to put in objective terms something which is by its very nature subjective. Effectively what you're doing is trying to ask a group of strangers for their inputs into whether or not you will enjoy a cache. It might save you from spending hours on a cache you won't enjoy but seems to me that it's just as likely to guide you away from something you would enjoy.

That's the point: you're not "trying to ask a group of strangers for their inputs into whether or not you will enjoy a cache". The cache owner is giving a pointer as to what kind of cache it is, and only he/she knows this.

If you hate film pots on park benches, you see a cache is a micro, you see it's in a park near the path, you can take a guess it's probably going to be the kind of cache you won't enjoy doing.

If you're prepared to look in detail at every cache then yes, you can make your own judgement on what the cache will be like (based on the description, logs and hint). Even then, it depends on how much you can glean from this. People are finding more and more that there are too many caches for this approach, and don't have time to spend so many hours on making a shortlist. Martlakes's suggestion is to give an instant shortlist.

Ultimately I can't help thinking that we could engineer ever-more complex systems to try and avoid doing the caches we might not get much out of, or we could just forget complex systems and do what's local, or what's along a route, and make decisions for ourselves whether each one is worthwhile.

Again, the point is that this is a very simple system. It's hardly rocket science; think of it as similar to finding suitable books in a library. Obviously, if you skim through books you can find out whether they're of interest; you might be able to decide just by looking at the cover. But would you like to look through hundreds of books when they're all classified only by "Fiction" or "Non-fiction"? No, it's nice that someone has split them into categories so that all similar books can be kept together.

Link to comment

The problem still remains trying to put in objective terms something which is by its very nature subjective. Effectively what you're doing is trying to ask a group of strangers for their inputs into whether or not you will enjoy a cache. It might save you from spending hours on a cache you won't enjoy but seems to me that it's just as likely to guide you away from something you would enjoy.

That's the point: you're not "trying to ask a group of strangers for their inputs into whether or not you will enjoy a cache". The cache owner is giving a pointer as to what kind of cache it is, and only he/she knows this.

If you hate film pots on park benches, you see a cache is a micro, you see it's in a park near the path, you can take a guess it's probably going to be the kind of cache you won't enjoy doing.

If you're prepared to look in detail at every cache then yes, you can make your own judgement on what the cache will be like (based on the description, logs and hint). Even then, it depends on how much you can glean from this. People are finding more and more that there are too many caches for this approach, and don't have time to spend so many hours on making a shortlist. Martlakes's suggestion is to give an instant shortlist.

Ultimately I can't help thinking that we could engineer ever-more complex systems to try and avoid doing the caches we might not get much out of, or we could just forget complex systems and do what's local, or what's along a route, and make decisions for ourselves whether each one is worthwhile.

Again, the point is that this is a very simple system. It's hardly rocket science; think of it as similar to finding suitable books in a library. Obviously, if you skim through books you can find out whether they're of interest; you might be able to decide just by looking at the cover. But would you like to look through hundreds of books when they're all classified only by "Fiction" or "Non-fiction"? No, it's nice that someone has split them into categories so that all similar books can be kept together.

 

In theory it's simple but we already have categories for cache sizes and a cursory glance over Google Maps will give an idea of roughly where it is. So you can tell roughly how big it is, what sort of location it is, how far it's likely to be from a road/car park or whatever.

 

You can do all these things without imposing any requirements on a cache setter to conform to a standard that might help you decide but might not help anyone else decide.

 

If someone says that they placed a cache because of the spectacular views from nearby does that say you should go for it, or is that information useless without reading the text to see that it's a 5 mile walk from the car park followed by a strenuous climb? How does it differentiate between a magnetic film pot on a railing by an overlook where you can potentially retrieve the cache without even getting out of the car? How can you objectively quantify whether the view was actually a good one, given that weather conditions vary so widely (for example when I was on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina recently the view was nothing, because I was above the cloud line, but any caches placed in overlooks would boast of the breathtaking views available)

 

It still seems to me that it's a relatively small task to look over Google Maps and make your own decisions. You might make a good one and you might make a bad one but ultimately the information that there is, is what there is. If we add more and more requirements to list a cache, and more and more ratings so people can decide how well the cache meets its stated objectives, just how many options are you proposing? How would you propose to enable filtering by stated objective and by rating of how well objectives were achieved? When you think that a micro with a 1/1 rating in an urban area is probably a film pot on a drainpipe or a bench, how much more needs to be said?

 

And, given the number of caches where the attributes are either not used or ticked because the option is there (e.g. the event caches in central London pubs that say things like "no snowmobiles, no campfires, no quad bikes") or the caches in woodland that don't say whether 4x4s or bikes are allowed, I'd suggest that adding more and more options will result in either more options being ignored, or questionable data being entered because people clicked the wrong box or couldn't be bothered to read them all.

 

In theory it would be great to automatically filter out the caches we're less likely to enjoy. But at the same time a pocket query can already do things like filter out anything that requires climbing, where snakes might be present, or whatever. I just don't see that a new system is going to add any value over and above what's already there, or how endless tickboxes and dropdown lists can take the place of just reading some cache listings.

Edited by team tisri
Link to comment

A few months back I stayed in a hotel run by a major UK cheap and nasty hotel chain, and because I'd booked on the Web, I got a "customer satisfaction survey" e-mail.

 

These surveys usually annoy me intensely, because they ask hundreds of questions and you have to rate everything about the place down to the colour of the wallpaper in the loo, with no "don't care" option and sometimes even "your answer is mandatory" (well excuse me - my overall reply to the survey isn't mandatory, so I'll just cancel the whole thing).

 

However, in this case, I was pleasantly surprised. The survey consisted of exactly one question: "Did this visit make it more or less likely that you would consider <chain> for your next hotel stay?". Brilliant. In fact my answer was wavering between to "No" than "Yes", but I voted "Yes" to reward them for designing such an excellent questionnaire. :angry:

 

So, about the most complex system which I can envisage really working in practice, is a single checkbox on the log page which is available only if you choose "Found It", and which says "Was this cache particularly good?", or some such. Perhaps each account would be limited to how many of these they can give out, say one per 20/50/etc caches found. The cachers in the Netherlands have a similar system which runs outside Groundspeak's site and it seems to work well.

 

It still has lots of problems (for example, that a cache which is rarely visited because it's in a spectacular remote site wouldn't get many visits and so also not many votes, although it might be a cache which everyone who visits it puts as their all-time number one), but at least such a system would have a half-decent chance of people actually using it. Plus, you either vote for the cache or you don't; as others have pointed out, asking for a 1-5 rating more or less guarantees an overall average between 3.8 and 4.2.

Link to comment

A few months back I stayed in a hotel run by a major UK cheap and nasty hotel chain, and because I'd booked on the Web, I got a "customer satisfaction survey" e-mail.

 

These surveys usually annoy me intensely, because they ask hundreds of questions and you have to rate everything about the place down to the colour of the wallpaper in the loo, with no "don't care" option and sometimes even "your answer is mandatory" (well excuse me - my overall reply to the survey isn't mandatory, so I'll just cancel the whole thing).

 

However, in this case, I was pleasantly surprised. The survey consisted of exactly one question: "Did this visit make it more or less likely that you would consider <chain> for your next hotel stay?". Brilliant. In fact my answer was wavering between to "No" than "Yes", but I voted "Yes" to reward them for designing such an excellent questionnaire. :angry:

 

So, about the most complex system which I can envisage really working in practice, is a single checkbox on the log page which is available only if you choose "Found It", and which says "Was this cache particularly good?", or some such. Perhaps each account would be limited to how many of these they can give out, say one per 20/50/etc caches found. The cachers in the Netherlands have a similar system which runs outside Groundspeak's site and it seems to work well.

 

It still has lots of problems (for example, that a cache which is rarely visited because it's in a spectacular remote site wouldn't get many visits and so also not many votes, although it might be a cache which everyone who visits it puts as their all-time number one), but at least such a system would have a half-decent chance of people actually using it. Plus, you either vote for the cache or you don't; as others have pointed out, asking for a 1-5 rating more or less guarantees an overall average between 3.8 and 4.2.

 

This is an interesting idea and could add some value. Likewise if a DNF log had an option to say "will I look for this one again?" it could be useful.

 

It gives an option for people to say that the film pot under the garbage in the corner really isn't a cache they'd recommend (or return to, having given up) and without overcomplicating things. Of course, if a load of cachers sign up who like looking for film pots under piles of festering garbage it ceases to have much value...

Link to comment

...a cursory glance over Google Maps will give an idea of roughly where it is. So you can tell roughly how big it is, what sort of location it is, how far it's likely to be from a road/car park or whatever.

...but "it" could easily be 1000 caches if you're visiting a popular area...! How long does that take? Surely it's better to limit them to the 10 that are likely to be of interest, and THEN you can check them on the map (etc).

And often only the cache owner knows what type of cache it's really supposed to be. So under this system (or my ideal version of it), to rate the cache, all you'd need then is a simple check box - did the cache meet expectations or not?

 

So as an example, you're interested in "Caches like the old days" (assuming that's a category) and you eliminate all those without that attribute from the map, pick one and find it. When you find it, in your opinion it's not a "Cache like the old days" at all, in that it doesn't meet the criteria for that type of cache. So when you log it, you set the "did the cache meet expectations" to "No". Perhaps there could be an option to add a bit of text for the cache owner to explain, but that would be optional.

 

IMO, most of the discussions about "cache quality" involve a mixture of people who think that there are too many poor caches (when what they mean is it's difficult to avoid caches they don't like), and those that think that the old-style caching was better (when there were only a few to choose from so they seemed more valuable). This seems to address both those issues.

Link to comment

 

So, about the most complex system which I can envisage really working in practice, is a single checkbox on the log page which is available only if you choose "Found It", and which says "Was this cache particularly good?", or some such. Perhaps each account would be limited to how many of these they can give out, say one per 20/50/etc caches found.

 

So, if you've found a good set, you can only 'recommend' one cache?? That seems a bit daft. Why limit it? Either a cache good or it isn't (ignoring personal preference), either you trust votes or you don't.

Link to comment

...a cursory glance over Google Maps will give an idea of roughly where it is. So you can tell roughly how big it is, what sort of location it is, how far it's likely to be from a road/car park or whatever.

...but "it" could easily be 1000 caches if you're visiting a popular area...! How long does that take? Surely it's better to limit them to the 10 that are likely to be of interest, and THEN you can check them on the map (etc).

And often only the cache owner knows what type of cache it's really supposed to be. So under this system (or my ideal version of it), to rate the cache, all you'd need then is a simple check box - did the cache meet expectations or not?

 

So as an example, you're interested in "Caches like the old days" (assuming that's a category) and you eliminate all those without that attribute from the map, pick one and find it. When you find it, in your opinion it's not a "Cache like the old days" at all, in that it doesn't meet the criteria for that type of cache. So when you log it, you set the "did the cache meet expectations" to "No". Perhaps there could be an option to add a bit of text for the cache owner to explain, but that would be optional.

 

IMO, most of the discussions about "cache quality" involve a mixture of people who think that there are too many poor caches (when what they mean is it's difficult to avoid caches they don't like), and those that think that the old-style caching was better (when there were only a few to choose from so they seemed more valuable). This seems to address both those issues.

 

And how many data points would it take to destroy any value the others might have added?

 

In the case I quoted of the cache that led me through chest-high nettles and brambles, through muddy fields only to be thwarted by barbed wire I'd have give a hearty "no" to any measure of how much I liked the cache. I couldn't find it, I battled through all sorts of things only to be thwarted 100 yards or so from GZ. All because I'd approached from the wrong direction. So a cache that I gather is a good hide would have got a negative point against it.

 

Of course anyone taking the time to read my log and the other logs would soon realise (as I did, but not until later) that my experience was simply down to approaching from the wrong direction. But if all you'd done is automated a "was it as described?" search you won't need many people doing what I did to omit great caches from the list.

 

And as I already mentioned, if your search is "nice and easy cache-n-dash" there's always the odd person who doesn't find the cache that's practically under their nose, and there's always the chance that the "nice easy find after a short walk" has been muggled after the brambles grew across the path.

Link to comment

Personally there is a perfectly good Cache rating option using grease monkey script on Fire Fox. There is agood set of instructions in the forums of how to set it up...

 

Once installed its so easy to rate caches you have done 1 to 5, no frills quick easy thats all it needs for me after that I read the logs......

 

Why do more people not use it?

 

Well thats my 2 pence worth...

 

Gerrit

Link to comment

Personally there is a perfectly good Cache rating option using grease monkey script on Fire Fox. There is agood set of instructions in the forums of how to set it up...

 

Once installed its so easy to rate caches you have done 1 to 5, no frills quick easy thats all it needs for me after that I read the logs......

 

Why do more people not use it?

 

Well thats my 2 pence worth...

 

Gerrit

 

If it worked, it would be great.

But it doesn't :angry:

Link to comment

And how many data points would it take to destroy any value the others might have added?

 

In the case I quoted of the cache that led me through chest-high nettles and brambles, through muddy fields only to be thwarted by barbed wire I'd have give a hearty "no" to any measure of how much I liked the cache. I couldn't find it, I battled through all sorts of things only to be thwarted 100 yards or so from GZ. All because I'd approached from the wrong direction. So a cache that I gather is a good hide would have got a negative point against it.

 

Of course anyone taking the time to read my log and the other logs would soon realise (as I did, but not until later) that my experience was simply down to approaching from the wrong direction. But if all you'd done is automated a "was it as described?" search you won't need many people doing what I did to omit great caches from the list.

 

And as I already mentioned, if your search is "nice and easy cache-n-dash" there's always the odd person who doesn't find the cache that's practically under their nose, and there's always the chance that the "nice easy find after a short walk" has been muggled after the brambles grew across the path.

I'd expect the cache "rating" to be along the lines of Ebay feedback, e.g. "10 positive, 1 negative, 1 neutral in the last three months" (perhaps if you don't leave feedback it counts as Neutral). If several people had taken the wrong route (or been unable to find) a supposedly "easy" cache, then it's a poor cache because the description hasn't been improved to reduce the chances of this happening. So it would deserve the negative feedback. After the cache has been improved, the negative ratings would start to fade into history. If the cache is supposed to be easy but one cacher was having an off-day then it wouldn't impact the cache rating too much.

 

Users of Tripadvisor know that the occasional negative review will be given for even the best hotels, so they don't get put off if the feedback isn't 100% positive.

Link to comment

Personally there is a perfectly good Cache rating option using grease monkey script on Fire Fox. There is agood set of instructions in the forums of how to set it up...

 

Once installed its so easy to rate caches you have done 1 to 5, no frills quick easy thats all it needs for me after that I read the logs......

 

Why do more people not use it?

 

Gerrit

1) I used to, but it gave major problems on my machine after an update. And after I got rid of it I was quite relieved. I don't like to run anything more than necessary, and as it was the only thing I had to run Grease Monkey for, I was able to get rid of GM too.

 

2) It was a waste of time when I was running it, for exactly the reasons stated here - it doesn't discriminate between different types of cache, e.g. a micro in ivy or a cache and dash beside a busy trunk road were rated as well as an ammo can after a great hike over the moors. It didn't reflect how good a cache was for me because not everyone likes the same type of cache as me.

 

Martlakes solution specifically tries to address that. I think it's not at all a bad idea, but as evidenced by the discussion here it is clearly too difficult for some people to understand, and even if they understood it I think it's sufficiently complicated for most people not to bother with. And any rating system has to be implemented by Groundspeak to make it really viable, and I can't see them doing it.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited by Amberel
Link to comment

And how many data points would it take to destroy any value the others might have added?

 

In the case I quoted of the cache that led me through chest-high nettles and brambles, through muddy fields only to be thwarted by barbed wire I'd have give a hearty "no" to any measure of how much I liked the cache. I couldn't find it, I battled through all sorts of things only to be thwarted 100 yards or so from GZ. All because I'd approached from the wrong direction. So a cache that I gather is a good hide would have got a negative point against it.

 

Of course anyone taking the time to read my log and the other logs would soon realise (as I did, but not until later) that my experience was simply down to approaching from the wrong direction. But if all you'd done is automated a "was it as described?" search you won't need many people doing what I did to omit great caches from the list.

 

And as I already mentioned, if your search is "nice and easy cache-n-dash" there's always the odd person who doesn't find the cache that's practically under their nose, and there's always the chance that the "nice easy find after a short walk" has been muggled after the brambles grew across the path.

I'd expect the cache "rating" to be along the lines of Ebay feedback, e.g. "10 positive, 1 negative, 1 neutral in the last three months" (perhaps if you don't leave feedback it counts as Neutral). If several people had taken the wrong route (or been unable to find) a supposedly "easy" cache, then it's a poor cache because the description hasn't been improved to reduce the chances of this happening. So it would deserve the negative feedback. After the cache has been improved, the negative ratings would start to fade into history. If the cache is supposed to be easy but one cacher was having an off-day then it wouldn't impact the cache rating too much.

 

Users of Tripadvisor know that the occasional negative review will be given for even the best hotels, so they don't get put off if the feedback isn't 100% positive.

 

So how many positive and negative reviews balance something out? Look at reviews on Amazon where people give a product 5 stars and even say in the review they never read the book, or the people who give a product 1 or 2 stars because they bought the wrong thing, or the people who ordered something that was dead on arrival and sent it back, but at the same time rated the product as shoddy.

 

Unless you're going to take the time to read the reviews they can be polluted by useless data points, and if you don't have the time to read the cache descriptions or look on Google maps how will you have time to read the reviews in context of the cache descriptions?

Link to comment

Personally there is a perfectly good Cache rating option using grease monkey script on Fire Fox. There is agood set of instructions in the forums of how to set it up...

 

Once installed its so easy to rate caches you have done 1 to 5, no frills quick easy thats all it needs for me after that I read the logs......

 

Why do more people not use it?

 

Gerrit

1) I used to, but it gave major problems on my machine after an update. And after I got rid of it I was quite relieved. I don't like to run anything more than necessary, and as it was the only thing I had to run Grease Monkey for, I was able to get rid of GM too.

 

2) It was a waste of time when I was running it, for exactly the reasons stated here - it doesn't discriminate between different types of cache, e.g. a micro in ivy or a cache and dash beside a busy trunk road were rated as well as an ammo can after a great hike over the moors. It didn't reflect how good a cache was for me because not everyone likes the same type of cache as me.

 

Martlakes solution specifically tries to address that. I think it's not at all a bad idea, but as evidenced by the discussion here it is clearly too difficult for some people to understand, and even if they understood it I think it's sufficiently complicated for most people not to bother with. And any rating system has to be implemented by Groundspeak to make it really viable, and I can't see them doing it.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Andy,

 

Point taken but I for one will not be bothered filling in a star rating system for several points each cache I do...

 

Seems like what you are looking for is already implimented by Groundspeak, as mentioned in my last message Cache Logs.

 

Its not perfect but cachers have got by with it for a long time...

 

Best

 

Gerrit

Link to comment

.

 

'Speaking of Cornwall, if you've got a cache like Don't Look Down II (GCGNNE) it's immediately obvious from the page that it's not a trivial undertaking to find it. But for caches that don't have much text associated with them it seems that instead of looking on the map to see where it is, what the surrounding area is like, where nearby roads might be, or whatever, schemes like this still end up relying on other people to decide what caches you're going to attempt.'

 

This is where the rating system falls down.

This cache is completely overated at 4.5/4.5 as no actual climbing is required to find the cache.

The steep drop down to the sea is 50 ft away but there is some steepwalking in the area whilst searching.

The rating should really be reduced BUT for the fact that other cachers have indicated in their 'Logs' that poo is predominant around the area as the climbers use the area as a toilet !!

Link to comment
... I for one will not be bothered filling in a star rating system for several points each cache I do ...
That was exactly my point to Martlakes - too many people would find it too complicated or too much bother.
Seems like what you are looking for is already implimented by Groundspeak, as mentioned in my last message Cache Logs.

 

Its not perfect but cachers have got by with it for a long time ...

Of course we get by with it - it's all we have. It would be a bit depressing though if nothing ever improved just because we already "get by".

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment
So, about the most complex system which I can envisage really working in practice, is a single checkbox on the log page which is available only if you choose "Found It", and which says "Was this cache particularly good?", or some such. Perhaps each account would be limited to how many of these they can give out, say one per 20/50/etc caches found.
So, if you've found a good set, you can only 'recommend' one cache?? That seems a bit daft. Why limit it?

The requirement to have found, say, 20 or 50 caches before giving out your first "star", partly reduces the use of sock puppets. After that, I think you still have to have some kind of limit. Don't forget that these are positive points only, to be allocated to pretty special caches. Anyway, ask the Dutch cachers what they think - it seems to work, which is always a reasonable argument. :D

 

Either a cache good or it isn't (ignoring personal preference), either you trust votes or you don't.

I don't think that votes which are available "free" (ie, for no effort) and in unlimited quantities, are worth trusting.

Link to comment
...Anyway, ask the Dutch cachers what they think - it seems to work, which is always a reasonable argument. :unsure:

 

Do you have a link or a summary of the Dutch system?

 

I think what Martin is proposing would be simple to explain if it was implemented. As I understand it, the cache owner identifies one of a few options for the main intent of the cache. Finders then give their opinion on whether the cache meets that intent.

 

So, if the intent is to take you to a secret corner slightly off the beaten tourist trail and it takes you to Ashness Bridge, then its not really met the intent. But if it takes you to somewhere half a mile up the fellside from there that only sheep visit for a fantastic view over Derwent, then its met its intent. That's not to say a cache at Ashness bridge wouldn't be a good cache (Is there one - I've not checked), but its not exactly taking you somewhere new.

 

Another example - Take a cache 15 feet up a tree (:unsure:) - if the intent is a cache a dash, then it'll fail miserably. But if its a devious one intended to get you doing something you wouldn't normally, then it'd pass.

 

PS - I agree with Fellsmanhiker too! :unsure:

Link to comment
So, about the most complex system which I can envisage really working in practice, is a single checkbox on the log page which is available only if you choose "Found It", and which says "Was this cache particularly good?", or some such. Perhaps each account would be limited to how many of these they can give out, say one per 20/50/etc caches found.
So, if you've found a good set, you can only 'recommend' one cache?? That seems a bit daft. Why limit it?

The requirement to have found, say, 20 or 50 caches before giving out your first "star", partly reduces the use of sock puppets. After that, I think you still have to have some kind of limit. Don't forget that these are positive points only, to be allocated to pretty special caches. Anyway, ask the Dutch cachers what they think - it seems to work, which is always a reasonable argument. :unsure:

 

Either a cache good or it isn't (ignoring personal preference), either you trust votes or you don't.

I don't think that votes which are available "free" (ie, for no effort) and in unlimited quantities, are worth trusting.

 

The implication was that you could only give one out every 20-50 caches found, not that you had to find that many before you could start rating. If you find a good set of 9 caches, why should you only be able to vote for one of them? Either a cache is great or it isn't. It shouldn't be the case that you can't vote for it because unfortunately you'd found another great on shortly before.

Link to comment

Yes, but it's in Dutch...

Thanks.

I like the simplicity! Basically, for every 20 caches found you get to nominate a cache that stands out. It asumes that, to get a good grasp of what constitutes a great cache, you've got to find quite a few first. Which makes a LOT of sense.

 

but there is a problem in that you could find plenty of caches that are excellent, but you can't nominate them all. But if you live where a lot of mediocre caches get put out, then you'll not expect high-quality caches.

 

Up here in the wilds of the Northwest, the forum has a 'cache du jour' thread, where 'stand-out' caches get nominations. It addresses some of the problems because (generally) everyone gives a good reason WHY a cache is included.

 

We're rather spoilt in the lakes - The prolific local hiders always put an awful lot of thought into a cache and the cache page that goes with it. There's not many bad ones around - some are a challenge to actually get to. I think I'm the only one guilty of a micro in a hedge! :unsure: :unsure: Suffice to say, if its by martlakes, Fellsmanhiker or one his four-legged friends, Duncscott, Pirate matt or the Bog Bears (covers about 90% of the cacehs in the South Lakes), you're pretty likely to get a good cache.

Link to comment

.

 

'Speaking of Cornwall, if you've got a cache like Don't Look Down II (GCGNNE) it's immediately obvious from the page that it's not a trivial undertaking to find it. But for caches that don't have much text associated with them it seems that instead of looking on the map to see where it is, what the surrounding area is like, where nearby roads might be, or whatever, schemes like this still end up relying on other people to decide what caches you're going to attempt.'

 

This is where the rating system falls down.

This cache is completely overated at 4.5/4.5 as no actual climbing is required to find the cache.

The steep drop down to the sea is 50 ft away but there is some steepwalking in the area whilst searching.

The rating should really be reduced BUT for the fact that other cachers have indicated in their 'Logs' that poo is predominant around the area as the climbers use the area as a toilet !!

 

It probably is overrated, it seems to be a lot easier to get at than, say, your LOOK OUT! cache. But whether it should be 4.5/4.5 or 4/4, or even 3/3, it's clear that it isn't a gentle stroll along a paved path before finding a film pot at the foot of a path marker.

 

I don't think any system will ever be completely foolproof (and if it were, someone would just invent a better fool), it's just that too many rating systems end up with more and more things to fill in, most of which would end up getting either ignored or guessed at. Back in the days when geocacheuk.com was still live it asked for handicaching ratings, which I'd fill in periodically. But after a few days it's hard to remember all the caches I'd done over the last several days, especially when it wanted to know things that don't generally register in my awareness (unless a hill is positively huge I don't tend to remember it, whereas to a wheelchair user a gradient is much more of an issue). So a lot of boxes got ignored, a lot of caches were left unrated, and so on.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...