Grading caches vs. rating them.

[+gururyan]

I've only been doing this for a very short time, but my sister has been 'caching for awhile now so I have been doing it vicariously through her until recently. I have noticed that although there are ratings for the caches for difficulty, terrain, and size, why is there not an overall experience/creativity/enjoyment grade? I understand it is a subjective grade, but some of us are here for nano/micro caches, some for larger ones in order to trade/bug, just as some are here for quantity, some are for the quality. Personally, when I see a country road with a cache every 528 ft. for miles and miles, I dismiss them immediately. That does not interest me in the least. I would love to be able to sort cache listings by grade. I want to find the ones that everybody is talking about, the ones that create stories that people share over and over again about "that one cache" they enjoyed so much. I believe you all call it saturation when it comes to quantity, but what about quality?

 

Again, I understand it is subjective and each one of us enjoys different caches for different reasons. That's where I'm going with this. If we can't grade them, can we at least categorize them some how to differentiate the types? Well thought-out caches in custom boxes and/or pulley systems etc., vs. "how many can I find as quickly as possible with the least amount of effort" types?

 

 

[+StarBrand]

The suggestion I have always liked the best was to alloow each user to add up to (say) 10% of thier finds onto a favorites list.

 

Then we could search 1 of 2 ways. We could search for caches that a like minded cacher had on thier list or we search for caches that a large percentage of finders had added to a favorite list.

[GOF and Bacall]

Ok, whose turn is it to bring the popcorn?

[+t4e]

Ok, whose turn is it to bring the popcorn?

 

here you go , want some music too?

 

 

Edited March 29, 2010 by t4e

[+gururyan]

Ok, whose turn is it to bring the popcorn?

 

Yeah, although I am very new here I had a feeling this was a touchy subject likely brought up before.

[+t4e]

use the google maps to show caches, pick an area you like and read the description/logs of the caches

 

some people have bookmarks, for various reasons, but can also check them too

[GOF and Bacall]

Ok, whose turn is it to bring the popcorn?

 

Yeah, although I am very new here I had a feeling this was a touchy subject likely brought up before.

 

Only once or twice.OK, once or twice a month for years. The problem is that what you think is a good cache I may think sticks like a flat skunk on a blacktop road in August.

[+StarBrand]

Ok, whose turn is it to bring the popcorn?

 

Yeah, although I am very new here I had a feeling this was a touchy subject likely brought up before.

 

Only once or twice.OK, once or twice a month for years. The problem is that what you think is a good cache I may think sticks like a flat skunk on a blacktop road in August.

...and the OP acknowledged that up front. What he/she was looking for was an alternative way to categorize them.

[GOF and Bacall]

And a fine job you did.

 

I find it to be basically useless but there is the GCVOTE thing.

[+tozainamboku]

Again, I understand it is subjective and each one of us enjoys different caches for different reasons.

 

So you understand already why a rating system wouldn't work or at least why when it gets brought up in the forum it gets a negative reaction.

 

I think everyone realizes that there are many more caches being placed than anyone has time to find. It makes sense that people want to have tools to help select the caches they enjoy finding. Kit Fox started a thread for people to give their recipe for having fun. There are several good ideas for how to use existing tools to sort the caches and increase the probability of finding the ones you are more likely to enjoy.

 

There is certainly room for ideas that can be added to the web site to help people find caches they might enjoy more. One idea is to use the existing bookmark feature. Premium members can create and share (with everyone including basic members) lists of caches. Some have created lists of favorite or recommended caches. There have been several suggestion to provide ways to find these lists and perhaps even to query for caches that appear on some threshold number of these lists. Expanded further, bookmark lists can be for "cool containers", "unique hides", "great locations", "for the numbers", "night caches", or any other attibutes the member wants. Allowing geoacachers to search for bookmark lists like these could go a long way to helping people find particular kinds of caches they might enjoy. TPTB have also hinted that they are working on some kind of rewards/recommendation system that might be useful in this way as well.

Edited March 29, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+humboldt flier]

I've only been doing this for a very short time, but my sister has been 'caching for awhile now so I have been doing it vicariously through her until recently. I have noticed that although there are ratings for the caches for difficulty, terrain, and size, why is there not an overall experience/creativity/enjoyment grade? I understand it is a subjective grade, but some of us are here for nano/micro caches, some for larger ones in order to trade/bug, just as some are here for quantity, some are for the quality. Personally, when I see a country road with a cache every 528 ft. for miles and miles, I dismiss them immediately. That does not interest me in the least. I would love to be able to sort cache listings by grade. I want to find the ones that everybody is talking about, the ones that create stories that people share over and over again about "that one cache" they enjoyed so much. I believe you all call it saturation when it comes to quantity, but what about quality?

 

Again, I understand it is subjective and each one of us enjoys different caches for different reasons. That's where I'm going with this. If we can't grade them, can we at least categorize them some how to differentiate the types? Well thought-out caches in custom boxes and/or pulley systems etc., vs. "how many can I find as quickly as possible with the least amount of effort" types?

Hmmmmmmmm, i used to be dismissive of " Goober Caches " until I tried a couple and was led to some absolute drop dead gorgeous views. I walked away from those experiences realizing that not all Goobers are Goobers. Kind of like something from Forest Gump when he was commenting on life being like a box of chocolates.

 

[+Walts Hunting]

Darn, I had put the special stick for ratings requesters away but the dead horse is still out back. if I can find the stick I can whack at the long dead body again.

 

I wonder if newcomers are aware of the search box up top.

[+bittsen]

Shhhh. Don't tell anyone but last night I decided I was going to add a number in all my cache logs that identifies my caching experience on that cache.

 

Nothing official but the scale is going to be 1-10 and will just add the number with no explanation...

 

This is after a series of 3's..

[+edscott]

Shhhh. Don't tell anyone but last night I decided I was going to add a number in all my cache logs that identifies my caching experience on that cache.

 

Nothing official but the scale is going to be 1-10 and will just add the number with no explanation...

 

This is after a series of 3's..

 

You know you are on to something here... if we all took the time to write meaningful logs, the cream would rise to the top and the crud would settle to the bottom.

[+simpjkee]

Though there is in Waymarking, there is no rating/grade system in geocaching. However, some really smart people have developed a Greasemonkey script that you can add on to Firefox that allows you to rate/grade caches. It may not be perfect, but it's a safe bet that if you only go after caches that are 3.5 or more stars, you're probably going to end up at more quality caches. Check it out:

 

Greasemonkey

GCVote

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Define 'quality'.

 

You can define it only as it applies to you.

 

You have no clue what I or others think is a quality cache hunt experience.

 

Ergo any cache rating will always be YOUR definition of quality, and therefore likely of little use to me.

[+fizzymagic]

The problem is that what you think is a good cache I may think sticks like a flat skunk on a blacktop road in August.

No, the problem is that the regular denizens of these forums love to pounce on people who make completely reasonable suggestions like this one and pretend that the issue has been settled. They frequently use fallacious arguments like the one you employ above to shout down any mention of a rating system.

[GOF and Bacall]

Though there is in Waymarking, there is no rating/grade system in geocaching. However, some really smart people have developed a Greasemonkey script that you can add on to Firefox that allows you to rate/grade caches. It may not be perfect, but it's a safe bet that if you only go after caches that are 3.5 or more stars, you're probably going to end up at more quality caches. Check it out:

 

Greasemonkey

GCVote

 

Depends entirely on who it was that rated the cache 3.5. Are there any caches that have a statistically significant number of finds? Not that that is all that important. Just one small part of the picture.Last I looked there were few caches within a days drive of me that had even one vote. None of those were particularly noteworthy. Sure, it's one more tool for sorting out the chaff, just not one of the better ones.

[GOF and Bacall]

The problem is that what you think is a good cache I may think sticks like a flat skunk on a blacktop road in August.

No, the problem is that the regular denizens of these forums love to pounce on people who make completely reasonable suggestions like this one and pretend that the issue has been settled. They frequently use fallacious arguments like the one you employ above to shout down any mention of a rating system.

 

Do you want to post a counter to my opinion? Then have at it.

 

My concerns about how we each define a quality cache are valid. I think it would be a mistake to implement a simple rating system and miss the chance to roll out something better. If they release a simple system it is unlikely they will be willing to spend much effort on a better one. Some of the awards systems that have been discussed would be much more productive.

[+gururyan]

Well instead of all the bickering over subjective grading, maybe at least a categorizing like "view oriented" or "creative cache" or "quantity builder" or "destination focused" and so on. I'm not saying one cache is better than another, I can't use the term "subjective" enough, but grading systems do exist out there for everything else and you can choose to ignore them or heed them. Movie ratings, book ratings, GPS ratings, etc...it's not that difficult. Why are so many so quick to get defensive? If this is how the forums are, I'll just stick to 'caching and leave this part of the experience behind.

[+fizzymagic]

Do you want to post a counter to my opinion?

Not really. It's such a fallacious argument that it doesn't really require one, and besides, as others have said, we've been over this before.

 

My concerns about how we each define a quality cache are valid. I think it would be a mistake to implement a simple rating system and miss the chance to roll out something better.

Gee, from your response here (and previously) it seems that you (and many others) are against any rating system.

 

Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

[+KoosKoos]

Reading logs is a great way to find out if a cache might be the type I'd like. However, if I'm traveling and doing a search for 3 miles around my hotel, how would I know that if I expanded my search just 2 more miles, I'd find a cache that 60% of the locals think is a "don't miss"?

 

Categorizations have a lot of the same limitations as a basic rating scale. What makes a creative cache? that lamp post skirt was pretty creative the first time I saw it, etc., etc.

 

If you're in a new area and want to find a "good" restaurant, is it useful to see the 50 restaurants that are rated 4 stars out of 5? or would it be more helpful if you heard from 20 people that here are their 5 favorite restaurants? You still may not agree with all of those people that those 5 restaurants would match your taste, but isn't it more likely that you're going to get a satisfying meal if people say "this is a place I recommend".

 

To me, the favorites or recommendations idea goes so much farther than a simple rating scale. If I find 100 caches, odds are that very few will be WAY better or WAY worse than others, so do I rate most of them at a high average rating (they were all pretty good) or a lower average rating (because none of them jumped out at me).

 

While peoples' favorites would still be subjective, you're more likely to find the really special ones instead of finding out that everyone in the area rates every cache a 4 because they had fun. Plus, you avoid the whole cache owner angst because someone dared rate their cache lower than "deserved". Giving a favorites award simply recognized the most positive caches without putting down other ones.

[+Crafty Turtle]

I use the attributes on the right hand side of the cache page - if something says it's dogs allowed, scenic view, and available 24/7, then it's a cache for me. But is it says wheelchair accessible, public transport nearby, and stealth required, it's probably too populated and I'm not going to like it.

Is that the type of qualitative data you're after? Cos I don't see how you can get more useful than that.

[+L0ne.R]

The problem is that what you think is a good cache I may think sticks like a flat skunk on a blacktop road in August.

No, the problem is that the regular denizens of these forums love to pounce on people who make completely reasonable suggestions like this one and pretend that the issue has been settled. They frequently use fallacious arguments like the one you employ above to shout down any mention of a rating system.

Exactly! Thanks for saying this.

[+simpjkee]

Though there is in Waymarking, there is no rating/grade system in geocaching. However, some really smart people have developed a Greasemonkey script that you can add on to Firefox that allows you to rate/grade caches. It may not be perfect, but it's a safe bet that if you only go after caches that are 3.5 or more stars, you're probably going to end up at more quality caches. Check it out:

 

Greasemonkey

GCVote

 

Depends entirely on who it was that rated the cache 3.5. Are there any caches that have a statistically significant number of finds? Not that that is all that important. Just one small part of the picture.Last I looked there were few caches within a days drive of me that had even one vote. None of those were particularly noteworthy. Sure, it's one more tool for sorting out the chaff, just not one of the better ones.

 

The more people that use it, the better it would be. But anyway, I think you pretty much just said what I said in my post:

 

It may not be perfect, but it's a safe bet that if you only go after caches that are 3.5 or more stars, you're probably going to end up at more quality caches.

[+L0ne.R]

I use the attributes on the right hand side of the cache page - if something says it's dogs allowed, scenic view, and available 24/7, then it's a cache for me. But is it says wheelchair accessible, public transport nearby, and stealth required, it's probably too populated and I'm not going to like it.

Is that the type of qualitative data you're after? Cos I don't see how you can get more useful than that.

 

I like scenic and/or pleasant locations, dogs allowed, wheelchair accessible to 3 terrain conditions, stealth required caches are fine too. My favs are creative caches in interesting locations. I set up my PQ for a new city and still get 1000 caches within 25 miles. How do I figure out which caches most cachers really enjoyed doing? I could read 5 of the most current logs for 1000 caches. That's 5000 logs to read. Probably going to take me a couple of minutes of reading per cache. That means I better set aside 30 hours of research time before I make the trip out to the new city.

[+Vater_Araignee]

It has been said, GCVote. See my sig line.

But remember, it is not infallible.

 

I would like to see a simple system in place.

Bad, OK, Great.

after you select one of those, GC.com would display a little box that said...

Users who rated this cache the same as you also rated these caches the same.

 

No body gets to see an overall rating.

Or

A five star with 0.5 increments tied into the friend system.

It would only show the average of a cache based on how the people in your friends list voted it.

Once again, not an overall rating being displayed.

 

And both systems, would only allow a vote on a found it.

 

I keep asking myself when an avid micro and or power trail hater with GCVote is going to go rate TOG all 1s.

[+sbell111]

I use the attributes on the right hand side of the cache page - if something says it's dogs allowed, scenic view, and available 24/7, then it's a cache for me. But is it says wheelchair accessible, public transport nearby, and stealth required, it's probably too populated and I'm not going to like it.

Is that the type of qualitative data you're after? Cos I don't see how you can get more useful than that.

 

I like scenic and/or pleasant locations, dogs allowed, wheelchair accessible to 3 terrain conditions, stealth required caches are fine too. My favs are creative caches in interesting locations. I set up my PQ for a new city and still get 1000 caches within 25 miles. How do I figure out which caches most cachers really enjoyed doing? I could read 5 of the most current logs for 1000 caches. That's 5000 logs to read. Probably going to take me a couple of minutes of reading per cache. That means I better set aside 30 hours of research time before I make the trip out to the new city.

You don't have to read the logs for all 1000 caches. You only have to glance at the logs for the next cache that you are interested in looking for. If that one's a stinker, you skip it and read the logs for the next cache. If you find that you are skipping a number of caches in that area, you need to move on to a better area.

[+L0ne.R]

It has been said, GCVote. See my sig line.

But remember, it is not infallible.

 

I like GCVote. I just wish Groundspeak would implement something, that way more people would likely use it. As far as I know, no one in my area is using GCVote - it becomes statistically more significant the more people who use a rating system. Also GCVote is a greasemonkey script that has to be downloaded to every computer you use (my personal computer, my laptop, my work computer, the computer at the library, my sister's computer, etc. )

Edited March 30, 2010 by Lone R

[+L0ne.R]

I use the attributes on the right hand side of the cache page - if something says it's dogs allowed, scenic view, and available 24/7, then it's a cache for me. But is it says wheelchair accessible, public transport nearby, and stealth required, it's probably too populated and I'm not going to like it.

Is that the type of qualitative data you're after? Cos I don't see how you can get more useful than that.

 

I like scenic and/or pleasant locations, dogs allowed, wheelchair accessible to 3 terrain conditions, stealth required caches are fine too. My favs are creative caches in interesting locations. I set up my PQ for a new city and still get 1000 caches within 25 miles. How do I figure out which caches most cachers really enjoyed doing? I could read 5 of the most current logs for 1000 caches. That's 5000 logs to read. Probably going to take me a couple of minutes of reading per cache. That means I better set aside 30 hours of research time before I make the trip out to the new city.

You don't have to read the logs for all 1000 caches. You only have to glance at the logs for the next cache that you are interested in looking for. If that one's a stinker, you skip it and read the logs for the next cache. If you find that you are skipping a number of caches in that area, you need to move on to a better area.

 

I find driving around aimlessly rather frustrating and a waste of expensive gas.

[+42at42]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

[+L0ne.R]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

[+sbell111]

I use the attributes on the right hand side of the cache page - if something says it's dogs allowed, scenic view, and available 24/7, then it's a cache for me. But is it says wheelchair accessible, public transport nearby, and stealth required, it's probably too populated and I'm not going to like it.

Is that the type of qualitative data you're after? Cos I don't see how you can get more useful than that.

 

I like scenic and/or pleasant locations, dogs allowed, wheelchair accessible to 3 terrain conditions, stealth required caches are fine too. My favs are creative caches in interesting locations. I set up my PQ for a new city and still get 1000 caches within 25 miles. How do I figure out which caches most cachers really enjoyed doing? I could read 5 of the most current logs for 1000 caches. That's 5000 logs to read. Probably going to take me a couple of minutes of reading per cache. That means I better set aside 30 hours of research time before I make the trip out to the new city.

You don't have to read the logs for all 1000 caches. You only have to glance at the logs for the next cache that you are interested in looking for. If that one's a stinker, you skip it and read the logs for the next cache. If you find that you are skipping a number of caches in that area, you need to move on to a better area.

 

I find driving around aimlessly rather frustrating and a waste of expensive gas.

So do I. That's why I never would advise someone to do so.

 

With the method that I suggested, you wouldn't drive anywhere until you had a viable target.

[+sbell111]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

That's a lame challenge. YOu are basically saying that given that you like every cache in existence, and have time to look for every single one, give me a list of the ones that I will like. The answer, based on your criteria is 'all of them'.

[GOF and Bacall]

Do you want to post a counter to my opinion?

Not really. It's such a fallacious argument that it doesn't really require one, and besides, as others have said, we've been over this before.

 

My concerns about how we each define a quality cache are valid. I think it would be a mistake to implement a simple rating system and miss the chance to roll out something better.

Gee, from your response here (and previously) it seems that you (and many others) are against any rating system.

 

Remember, the perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

No system would be perfect. I never claimed any of them would. But to accept the least perfect of the solutions at hand at the expense of developing one of the less flawed options is just silly.

[+42at42]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

 

I am sorry, I was keeping my answer too simple.

 

If someone likes 3/3, traditional, regular caches, you can run a PQ for 3/3, traditional, regular caches in a certain area. With those results, look at the map. If you like urban caches or rural hiking caches, you can then look at the logs that fit the criteria. I hope that clarifies.

[+Castle Mischief]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

That's a lame challenge. YOu are basically saying that given that you like every cache in existence, and have time to look for every single one, give me a list of the ones that I will like. The answer, based on your criteria is 'all of them'.

 

He did not ask for list of all the caches he would like. He asked for this:

 

give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs

[+sbell111]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

That's a lame challenge. YOu are basically saying that given that you like every cache in existence, and have time to look for every single one, give me a list of the ones that I will like. The answer, based on your criteria is 'all of them'.

 

He did not ask for list of all the caches he would like. He asked for this:

 

give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs

That would skew the results based on how long the cache has been in place and how accessible (and easy) the cache is. If he really wanted that, I would embrace the theory that happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

[+Castle Mischief]

He did not ask for list of all the caches he would like. He asked for this:

 

give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs

That would skew the results based on how long the cache has been in place and how accessible (and easy) the cache is. If he really wanted that, I would embrace the theory that happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

 

I'm not embracing any theories either, I'm just pointing out that was what he asked for. Coincidentally, he wasn't asking for "longer logs" either but the "most raves". I don't think he was working with a correlation between length of log and quantity of rave.

 

I'll let you two work it out, I'm got my own method and it's working pretty well lately- for me.

[+L0ne.R]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

 

I am sorry, I was keeping my answer too simple.

 

If someone likes 3/3, traditional, regular caches, you can run a PQ for 3/3, traditional, regular caches in a certain area. With those results, look at the map. If you like urban caches or rural hiking caches, you can then look at the logs that fit the criteria. I hope that clarifies.

 

It does clarify and shows that it's not so simple to find a creative laugh-out-loud not-to-be-missed micro in a ordinary location but one that really works for what the CO is trying to achieve. If I have to filter out micros because for the most part I don't like them (they are generally lame) then I'm going to miss this one-of-a-kind not-to-be-missed experience. A rating system will likely separate it from the chaff.

[+L0ne.R]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

That's a lame challenge. YOu are basically saying that given that you like every cache in existence, and have time to look for every single one, give me a list of the ones that I will like. The answer, based on your criteria is 'all of them'.

 

He did not ask for list of all the caches he would like. He asked for this:

 

give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs

That would skew the results based on how long the cache has been in place and how accessible (and easy) the cache is. If he really wanted that, I would embrace the theory that happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

 

Maybe in general they are lengthier, probably not going to have many TFTCs. But often when I find a cool cache I don't write much because I don't want to give away the surprise, so I'll write - "Wow" or "Really well done. Kudos." or "Loved it"

[+L0ne.R]

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

 

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

That's a lame challenge. YOu are basically saying that given that you like every cache in existence, and have time to look for every single one, give me a list of the ones that I will like. The answer, based on your criteria is 'all of them'.

But I don't have time for every single one. I want to find the not-to-be-missed, most-cachers-really-liked-this-cache-experience geocache. Then I'll look at those and decide which one's I'll go for - based on how much time I have and my physical abilities. First I want to know what are the best caches in the area. Then I'll filter from that list.

[+L0ne.R]

I use the attributes on the right hand side of the cache page - if something says it's dogs allowed, scenic view, and available 24/7, then it's a cache for me. But is it says wheelchair accessible, public transport nearby, and stealth required, it's probably too populated and I'm not going to like it.

Is that the type of qualitative data you're after? Cos I don't see how you can get more useful than that.

 

I like scenic and/or pleasant locations, dogs allowed, wheelchair accessible to 3 terrain conditions, stealth required caches are fine too. My favs are creative caches in interesting locations. I set up my PQ for a new city and still get 1000 caches within 25 miles. How do I figure out which caches most cachers really enjoyed doing? I could read 5 of the most current logs for 1000 caches. That's 5000 logs to read. Probably going to take me a couple of minutes of reading per cache. That means I better set aside 30 hours of research time before I make the trip out to the new city.

You don't have to read the logs for all 1000 caches. You only have to glance at the logs for the next cache that you are interested in looking for. If that one's a stinker, you skip it and read the logs for the next cache. If you find that you are skipping a number of caches in that area, you need to move on to a better area.

 

I find driving around aimlessly rather frustrating and a waste of expensive gas.

So do I. That's why I never would advise someone to do so.

 

With the method that I suggested, you wouldn't drive anywhere until you had a viable target.

 

This is the method I use most often when going to nearby towns/cities for a day of caching, but it's not the method I would want to use while vacationing. The problem I see with this method is, instead of doing the 30 hours of research at home, I'd be doing it in the car. In Fort Worth I probably wouldn't get past a 5 mile circumference of my hotel (or I'd go off in a tangent) using the drive to one cache then read all the recent logs for caches near that log until I find another cache that fits my caching style, then rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. If there's a shouldn't-be-missed cache at the 20 mile mark in the east end of Forth Worth and I was using the above driving method and going west, I may never get anywhere near it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Some have postulated that 'quality' caches get better (longer) logs, so what about this as a cache rating system... Groundspeak keeps a running total of the words in all of the logs for a cache.

 

A cache that's been found 10 times and has had 300 words logged is probably a 'better' cache than one which has been logged 10 times and has accumulated only 40 words.

 

?

[+sbell111]

He did not ask for list of all the caches he would like. He asked for this:

give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs

That would skew the results based on how long the cache has been in place and how accessible (and easy) the cache is. If he really wanted that, I would embrace the theory that happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

I'm not embracing any theories either, I'm just pointing out that was what he asked for. Coincidentally, he wasn't asking for "longer logs" either but the "most raves". I don't think he was working with a correlation between length of log and quantity of rave.

 

I'll let you two work it out, I'm got my own method and it's working pretty well lately- for me.

I use a well-documented method that works very well. Truthfully, I don't care what method he uses.

 

Read the logs, if they all rave about a cache, it is probably a good cache. If they are all negative, it probably is not so good.

 

If it is mixed positive and negative, then you are the deciding vote.

 

The KISS method of a rating system.

Conference: Forth Worth, Texas

Days in Fort Worth: 3

Time to cache: 3pm to sundown each of the 3 days (approx. 15 hours total)

Caches within 25 miles: 3792

 

Using the KISS method and without limiting for terrain/difficulty/size/attributes, give us a list of the caches with the most raves in the online logs. How long do you expect that you'll need to accomplish the task?

I am sorry, I was keeping my answer too simple.

 

If someone likes 3/3, traditional, regular caches, you can run a PQ for 3/3, traditional, regular caches in a certain area. With those results, look at the map. If you like urban caches or rural hiking caches, you can then look at the logs that fit the criteria. I hope that clarifies.

It does clarify and shows that it's not so simple to find a creative laugh-out-loud not-to-be-missed micro in a ordinary location but one that really works for what the CO is trying to achieve. If I have to filter out micros because for the most part I don't like them (they are generally lame) then I'm going to miss this one-of-a-kind not-to-be-missed experience. A rating system will likely separate it from the chaff.

You'll still get to look for tons of caches that you DO like, right?

[+sbell111]

I use the attributes on the right hand side of the cache page - if something says it's dogs allowed, scenic view, and available 24/7, then it's a cache for me. But is it says wheelchair accessible, public transport nearby, and stealth required, it's probably too populated and I'm not going to like it.

Is that the type of qualitative data you're after? Cos I don't see how you can get more useful than that.

 

I like scenic and/or pleasant locations, dogs allowed, wheelchair accessible to 3 terrain conditions, stealth required caches are fine too. My favs are creative caches in interesting locations. I set up my PQ for a new city and still get 1000 caches within 25 miles. How do I figure out which caches most cachers really enjoyed doing? I could read 5 of the most current logs for 1000 caches. That's 5000 logs to read. Probably going to take me a couple of minutes of reading per cache. That means I better set aside 30 hours of research time before I make the trip out to the new city.

You don't have to read the logs for all 1000 caches. You only have to glance at the logs for the next cache that you are interested in looking for. If that one's a stinker, you skip it and read the logs for the next cache. If you find that you are skipping a number of caches in that area, you need to move on to a better area.

 

I find driving around aimlessly rather frustrating and a waste of expensive gas.

So do I. That's why I never would advise someone to do so.

 

With the method that I suggested, you wouldn't drive anywhere until you had a viable target.

 

This is the method I use most often when going to nearby towns/cities for a day of caching, but it's not the method I would want to use while vacationing. The problem I see with this method is, instead of doing the 30 hours of research at home, I'd be doing it in the car. In Fort Worth I probably wouldn't get past a 5 mile circumference of my hotel (or I'd go off in a tangent) using the drive to one cache then read all the recent logs for caches near that log until I find another cache that fits my caching style, then rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. If there's a shouldn't-be-missed cache at the 20 mile mark in the east end of Forth Worth and I was using the above driving method and going west, I may never get anywhere near it.

If that's the case, you are doing a very poor job of initially sorting out the stinkers via PQs and GSAK.

[+sbell111]

Some have postulated that 'quality' caches get better (longer) logs, so what about this as a cache rating system... Groundspeak keeps a running total of the words in all of the logs for a cache.

 

A cache that's been found 10 times and has had 300 words logged is probably a 'better' cache than one which has been logged 10 times and has accumulated only 40 words.

 

?

GSAK can identify the caches that have the longest average log.

[+Vater_Araignee]

GSAK can identify the caches that have the longest average log.

How do I get all the logs into the gpx?

Downloaded GC1CBJ4, only got 23 logs out of 77.

The logs I received include fount its, notes and maintenance logs.

It's total log breakdown:

43 found its

27 DNF

5 notes

1 CO maintenance

1 published

 

Then I downloaded GCC5E, only got 23 logs out of 297

Then GCC5E, only 23 out of 245

 

Gonna look in a PQ now.

 

~~~5:25~~~

looked inside a pq gpx.

So far out of the first 25 caches there is a maximum of 5 logs per cache, the only caches that have less then 5 logs in the gpx have less than 5 logs.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+Castle Mischief]

GSAK can identify the caches that have the longest average log.

 

I'm asking this because I don't know the answer and I don't have the tools in front of me- does GSAK pick up on the average for ALL the logs for that cache or just the last handful that are in the PQ?

[+fizzymagic]

I use a well-documented method that works very well. Truthfully, I don't care what method he uses.

Translation: I have a method that works for me so I am working to deny other people the tools that they need for a method that works for them.

 

Lovely.