Grading caches vs. rating them.

[+42at42]

If your are visiting say Kallamazoo, MI, go to the Michigan section of the forums and request the can't miss caches. You will probably get a dozen to choose from.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

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?

GSAK only has the data you load into it, so if your PQ contains the last five logs that's all you have to work with.

 

I was suggesting that Groundspeak could do this.

 

They track numbers of found, DNF, notes, etc. it seems an easy modification to track total logged words as well.

 

I personally don't believe that log length and quality of the cache or cache hunting experience are related, I just wanted to see what others thought of the idea.

[+sbell111]

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?

As TAR pointed out, GSAK only has what you give it. Greater numbers of logs are available as you accumulate PQs in GSAK.

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.

I realize that this was just one of your typical drive by character assassinations, but where have I worked to deny anyone anything?

 

My posts to this thread have been limited to replying to the discussion about how to get what we want using the current tools. I have taken no position on any requested changes to the website, since this isn't the area of the forums to propose such changes.

[+The Trekbuddies]

so with the log theory a log of "cache wet and smelly hard to find with all the litter we were also shot at by the local hoodies" would be much more worth doing that one logged "simply FANTASTIC". we are all for a rating system, its a shame GC.com is stuck some where in the last decade.

the method we use is to look in local forums about good caches in the area but a rating system would make things much easyer

[+Vater_Araignee]

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?

As TAR pointed out, GSAK only has what you give it. Greater numbers of logs are available as you accumulate PQs in GSAK.

That's it, graters number of logs. As in, as the overall number caches in GSAK increase with PQs so does the the number of logs.

Not, getting more logs per individual cache.

 

This information isn't me regurgitating what somebody else said.

I opened the different gpx files and read them in a text editor.

In a PQ, you only get the five most recent logs.

In a my finds PQ, you only get the logs you you made. The amount may stop at 5, I do not know because I never made more than 5 logs on any cache I found.

Cache page gpx, you get the 23 most recent logs.

 

So, even if you are including identical criteria with your PQs and getting more recent logs on caches you already have to append to your database, if your first acquisition was on a cache that had more than 23 logs at the time you will never have all of the logs for it.

Let me rephrase that last part, you will never have all the logs for it by simply downloading files, unless your a platinum member, in which case you probably get all the logs plus a prediction of what the next 23 logs are going to say.

[+sbell111]

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?

As TAR pointed out, GSAK only has what you give it. Greater numbers of logs are available as you accumulate PQs in GSAK.

That's it, graters number of logs. As in, as the overall number caches in GSAK increase with PQs so does the the number of logs.

Not, getting more logs per individual cache.

 

This information isn't me regurgitating what somebody else said.

I opened the different gpx files and read them in a text editor.

In a PQ, you only get the five most recent logs.

In a my finds PQ, you only get the logs you you made. The amount may stop at 5, I do not know because I never made more than 5 logs on any cache I found.

Cache page gpx, you get the 23 most recent logs.

 

So, even if you are including identical criteria with your PQs and getting more recent logs on caches you already have to append to your database, if your first acquisition was on a cache that had more than 23 logs at the time you will never have all of the logs for it.

Let me rephrase that last part, you will never have all the logs for it by simply downloading files, unless your a platinum member, in which case you probably get all the logs plus a prediction of what the next 23 logs are going to say.

Correct, you will never get logs older than the first five that were reported in your PQs. You will accumulate additional logs as newer PQs are received, however.

 

(I'm sorry that I ever brought up 'log length' in this thread. I brought it up in response to a specific question. 'Log length' has never been part of the easy-peasey method.

[+L0ne.R]

.... happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

 

You know, I've never seen an example that confirmed the above theory, that great caches get long logs. Could someone point to a few examples of great caches so we can have a look at the logs.

[+KoosKoos]

.... happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

 

You know, I've never seen an example that confirmed the above theory, that great caches get long logs. Could someone point to a few examples of great caches so we can have a look at the logs.

 

I haven't run any analysis, but I'll do a shameless plug:

 

GC1EEN3

 

It won a lot of local awards and is on quite a few "favorite" bookmarks.

 

However, if you were just coming into town and staying in a hotel downtown, how would you know this might be a cache worth a little drive to go hunt?

 

edit: quick typo fix and the wrong URL

Edited March 31, 2010 by KoosKoos

[+L0ne.R]

.... happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

 

You know, I've never seen an example that confirmed the above theory, that great caches get long logs. Could someone point to a few examples of great caches so we can have a look at the logs.

 

I haven't run any analysis, but I'll do a shameless plug:

 

GC1EEN3

 

It won a lot of local awards and is on quite a few "favorite" bookmarks.

 

However, if you were just coming into town and staying in a hotel downtown, how would you know this might be a cache worth a little drive to go hunt?

 

I would be really really disappointed if I missed that cache while on a vacation in Austin. It's definitely worth the drive.

 

Looking at the last 5 logs, 3 were short, 2 were medium length.

 

If anything, a feature that allowed us to search for keywords in the logs might be more useful then log length. Using your cache logs as an example, phrases/words to search for would be: genius, wow, awesome, favorite, good job, creative, fun, laughed out loud, 5 stars, incredible, clever, excellent.

 

P.S. Those of you who have stock in GSAK, please don't tell me to buy GSAK to do a word search. I tried a demo version and found it to be confusing.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Lone R

[+gururyan]

 

I haven't run any analysis, but I'll do a shameless plug:

 

GC1EEN3

 

It won a lot of local awards and is on quite a few "favorite" bookmarks.

 

However, if you were just coming into town and staying in a hotel downtown, how would you know this might be a cache worth a little drive to go hunt?

 

edit: quick typo fix and the wrong URL

 

So glad you posted this, I'm going to be in Austin this summer and now I have a cache to find!!!

[+ReadyOrNot]

The powers that be are already working on a ratings system. While it's fun discussing this topic OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, how bout discussing what they are actually considering implementing?

 

Here the link to Nate's post

[+StarBrand]

The powers that be are already working on a ratings system. While it's fun discussing this topic OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, how bout discussing what they are actually considering implementing?

 

Here the link to Nate's post

Thats no fun - pointless debates are much more interesting.

[+gururyan]

The powers that be are already working on a ratings system. While it's fun discussing this topic OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, how bout discussing what they are actually considering implementing?

 

Here the link to Nate's post

 

That post is 6 months old, if they were serious about this they should post a devoted thread and sticky it so many could find/see it and offer suggestions and comments. At least there is acknowledgement of the issue though.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

.... happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

 

You know, I've never seen an example that confirmed the above theory, that great caches get long logs. Could someone point to a few examples of great caches so we can have a look at the logs.

Me either, but post TFTC and see how many folks howl tat a 'quality' cache deserves a longer log!

[+gururyan]

Me either, but post TFTC and see how many folks howl tat a 'quality' cache deserves a longer log!

 

When I see a long list of "TFTC" log comments, I quickly surmise it's lackluster.

[+Vater_Araignee]

The powers that be are already working on a ratings system. While it's fun discussing this topic OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, how bout discussing what they are actually considering implementing?

 

Here the link to Nate's post

I remeber that, I also remember it left me with the distinct impression of "We are showing you somebodies sales concept to in an attempt to shut you up. stay tuned for a repeat of this post."

 

Sorry, but if it had been a link to an outline on the Groundspeak website, rather than a yahoo sales pitch it would have had more creditability.

[+L0ne.R]

The powers that be are already working on a ratings system. While it's fun discussing this topic OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, how bout discussing what they are actually considering implementing?

 

Here the link to Nate's post

I remeber that, I also remember it left me with the distinct impression of "We are showing you somebodies sales concept to in an attempt to shut you up. stay tuned for a repeat of this post."

 

Sorry, but if it had been a link to an outline on the Groundspeak website, rather than a yahoo sales pitch it would have had more creditability.

 

It was a ray of hope at the time, but the longer it takes for Groundspeak to show further progress with the idea, the more it feels like placating with no serious intentions of following through.

[adam_658]

"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."

 

It seems to me the obvious question is why does this argument work only for geocaches? I guess this guy has never used consumer report, listened to a friend who recommended a good restaurant, or to take it a step further how do kids know that playing in the street is bad (only in their parents opinion)

 

Some philosophers have this epistemology, but I've never met anyone who doesn't think we can learn from others in practice. But, I guess some people can only learn through experience, some folks have to drive 1000 miles to figure out that it's just another cache hidden in a box at the bottom of a light pole. I hope geocaching has a better reason than this for not having a rating system.

[+Crafty Turtle]

When I see a long list of "TFTC" log comments, I quickly surmise it's lackluster.

 

Amen.

By the same token, "Fantastic Cache, beautiful location" means nothing when you know that cacher always says the same thing in their logs. ...said by she who writes a novel in every log.

 

Look, you can over-analyse these attributes, cache-hider, logs, loggers, length of log, number of caches that logger has found, etc, etc, to work out your own "quality" of cache worthiness. If that's your thing, write yourself an algorithm, weighting the value you put on each variable. Good luck to you.

 

But for me, that takes away the adventure, and the reason why I cache. I don't have a lot of numbers/finds under my belt, but I do have a lot of fun experiences with my family and my dog. The *quality* is in the hike, in the climb, in the scramble, in the laughter, in the time spent together in the great outdoors exploring some place we've never been before. The *find* is a bonus.

[+niraD]

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.

It seems to me the obvious question is why does this argument work only for geocaches?

It isn't only for geocaches. Some of us find simple 5-star rating systems useless for movies, restaurants, books, household appliances, and so on as well.

 

Reviews can be very useful. I pay attention to them when I'm shopping. I just don't pay attention to how many stars the review gives the item.

Edited April 1, 2010 by niraD

[+Crafty Turtle]

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.

It seems to me the obvious question is why does this argument work only for geocaches?

It isn't only for geocaches. Some of us find simple 5-star rating systems useless for movies, restaurants, books, household appliances, and so on as well.

 

Reviews can be very useful. I pay attention to them when I'm shopping. I just don't pay attention to how many stars the review gives the item.

 

I hope you aren't a sci-fi fan. Sci-fi movies always get a mediocre review because the journalist the newspaper gets to review it has no idea about sci-fi.

 

There is no one system of qualitative analysis method that suits everybody.

[+fizzymagic]

<personal attack on me snipped>...

but where have I worked to deny anyone anything?

You have consistently, over the past few years, posted your opinion that no further tools are needed to allow people to choose caches they will like every time the subject is raised. One or two posts might be just an opinion, but in every single thread on the topic? I'd say that was an effort to prevent such tools from being implemented.

[+sbell111]

.... happy logs tend to be longer logs and simply let GSAK churn him out his list of caches.

 

You know, I've never seen an example that confirmed the above theory, that great caches get long logs. Could someone point to a few examples of great caches so we can have a look at the logs.

You snipped away a very important part of that sentence. While it's perfectly fine to parse posts, (I do it all the time in order to address a posters multiple issues) when you just rip out part of a sentence to alter the posters point, it's inappropriate.

Edited April 1, 2010 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

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.

I realize that this was just one of your typical drive by character assassinations, but where have I worked to deny anyone anything?

 

My posts to this thread have been limited to replying to the discussion about how to get what we want using the current tools. I have taken no position on any requested changes to the website, since this isn't the area of the forums to propose such changes.

You have consistently, over the past few years, posted your opinion that no further tools are needed to allow people to choose caches they will like every time the subject is raised. One or two posts might be just an opinion, but in every single thread on the topic? I'd say that was an effort to prevent such tools from being implemented.

In other words, you searched and couldn't find anything to back up your previous accusation.

[+eigengott]

I would love to be able to sort cache listings by grade.

 

For the most part you can do this by restricting your searches to regular and large containers, as with those the owners usually invest a bit of thought where to hide it. At least that's how I do it (OK, I throw in a bit of terrain and difficulty as well, searching for things >= D2/T2.5)

 

You could also go by bookmarks with "awesome" caches. Or if you find an awesome cache, go an find its owners other caches - often they are awesome or at least good too. Be sure to create your own public bookmark lists with awesome caches, so to help others finding them.

Edited April 1, 2010 by eigengott

[+Team Cotati]

The Team solved this 'problem' years ago.

We simply filter out all micro caches and go geocaching.

 

It works really swell.

[+Vater_Araignee]

You have a 2x4 with a nail in it.

You want to remove the nail, but you only have a drill.

Do you need a claw head hammer to remove it?

No.

 

You have a 2x4 with a nail in it.

You want to remove the nail, you have a drill and a claw head hammer.

Are you required to use the a claw head hammer to remove it?

No.

 

I'm trying to look at this from the other side. So I started a list.

 

Why do we not need a rating system?

1. Because we don't need one.
   

This is the only answer that honestly belongs here. It can't be debated, argued till the end of time but not debated.

I had more answers but they didn't quite fit the question when thought about honestly. It did lead me to a question.

 

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

I pose it to everyone.

Those who are straight up against, those who are for.

Be honest, give a clean logical answer.

No verbal flim flam, no masking your true motivations.

I have my list started, it is growing. I wonder if people will come up with the same reasons.

Once again.

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

[+L0ne.R]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

The underlying reason that I think COs don't want a rating system is because they plant mediocre (or maybe even lame) caches and are afraid people will stay away from them.

[+eigengott]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

[+L0ne.R]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

 

Please address the question - why should others be denied a rating option just because you prefer the logs/bookmarks option?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Lone R

[+sbell111]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

 

Please address the question - why should others be denied a rating option just because you prefer the logs/bookmarks option?

I don't think that anyone is actually against ratings systems. Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

 

Please address the question - why should others be denied a rating option just because you prefer the logs/bookmarks option?

I don't think that anyone is actually against ratings systems. Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system.

allow me to append "Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system, that they can choose to ignore."

[+sbell111]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

 

Please address the question - why should others be denied a rating option just because you prefer the logs/bookmarks option?

I don't think that anyone is actually against ratings systems. Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system.

allow me to append "Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system, that they can choose to ignore."

???

[+L0ne.R]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

 

Please address the question - why should others be denied a rating option just because you prefer the logs/bookmarks option?

I don't think that anyone is actually against ratings systems. Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system.

 

You see no flaws in the log/bookmark system? There are many major flaws, as has been pointed out over and over again in the forums.

[+tozainamboku]

You have a 2x4 with a nail in it.

You want to remove the nail, but you only have a drill.

Do you need a claw head hammer to remove it?

No.

 

You have a 2x4 with a nail in it.

You want to remove the nail, you have a drill and a claw head hammer.

Are you required to use the a claw head hammer to remove it?

No.

 

I'm trying to look at this from the other side. So I started a list.

 

Why do we not need a rating system?

1. Because we don't need one.
   

This is the only answer that honestly belongs here. It can't be debated, argued till the end of time but not debated.

I had more answers but they didn't quite fit the question when thought about honestly. It did lead me to a question.

 

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

I pose it to everyone.

Those who are straight up against, those who are for.

Be honest, give a clean logical answer.

No verbal flim flam, no masking your true motivations.

I have my list started, it is growing. I wonder if people will come up with the same reasons.

Once again.

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

We have the claw head hammer. It is called GCVOTE.

 

The Signal Nail and Drill Company (SN&D) sells nails and provides people with drills to remove nails. Some people believe a claw hammer would be a better tool and ask SN&D to provide claw hammers too. SN&D says they have limited resources and would prefer using these to provide a better drill. So they go off and work on ways to make better drills. Of course, the people who think the claw hammer is a better tool are not satistified with this. One of them goes the Greasemonkey build-your-own-tool company and creates his own claw hammer.

 

Of course your analogy has another problem. There is no proof that a rating system provides a better way to determine which caches you would enjoy and skip the ones you think are lame. Some caches you would find lame could get high ratings and others that you might like to find will rate low. This might be OK, if you figure that most of the time the ratings will be in line with your opinions. You will still find some lame caches and will miss out on some good caches but your mix of good to lame might improve by using a rating system. What is being argued is that the current system of reading logs to decide if you want to look for a cache or skip it works better than a simple 5 star rating system would. You can supplement this with bookmark lists of favorites caches to find the highly recommended caches that you do not want to miss. So it is more like you have a claw hammer and you are asking for a power drill because a power tool would be less work even if it is not the best tool for the job.

 

If the argument is to provide a rating system for the people who want it because those that don't like the idea can ignore it, then I want a personal cache picker. This would accept an input from me giving a location where I want to find caches. Optionally I could specify that I am only interested in caches of certain types, sizes, terrain, or difficulty. I could also specify cache attributes I want to include or exclude, and I could provide the system with a list of caches to ignore. The system would use a proprietary heuristic to review the caches I've already found and provide me with a personalized list of caches to find that I might enjoy. I also want a pony.

[CoyoteRed]

While I use it, I think I'd be a little opposed to TPTB to officially sanction a log word count. It works quite well, but as soon as it because main stream folks will be copying over a large cookie log simply to up the word count. Then we'd be complaining about that and TPTB would take 12 years to implement a unique-log function to counter act that. No thank you. I think this is an example of what sbell may be thinking about--a system that can easily be gamed and, thusly, defeated if not made outright useless.

 

I'm in favor of grading caches in the spirit of a sliding scale from "1/1 park-n-grab in an uninteresting location" to "5/5 Epic adventure all stages in fantastic locations and challenging obstacles." There are objective differences in these caches. We make a distinction between two different types of events: regular event and CITO. It's not really about enjoyment, but potential enjoyment. Both events are enjoyable to me because of the sense of accomplishment, but there is a distinct difference in the feel of the two.

 

Also, the D/T rating does not align with the "grade" of cache as T360 likes to show that picture of his Corvette at a nice pulloff showing a really nice vista of a lake. It a really nice place to stop and take in the sights, but it's also a guardrail cache--go figure.

 

It would be hard to put figures on each "level" and each could mean multiple things much like how difficulty rating is now. Is the puzzle hard, the camo perfect, or knowing the location within the GPS circle of error difficult to grasp? Different things all in a single star rating.

 

1 star - maybe your type Bigbox parking lot lamp post micro.

 

1.5 star - your typical road-side historical marker. At least there is something to look at and read.

 

2 star - full-sized trading cache in an urban park.

 

3 - decent cache at a really nice location and hidden well.

 

5 stars - Tube Torcher / Athena Trilogy level caches. Caches with a theme, multiple stages each that can stand on their own as a mini adventure, puzzles that are "just challenging enough," etc.

[+GeoGeeBee]

If the argument is to provide a rating system for the people who want it because those that don't like the idea can ignore it, then I want a personal cache picker. This would accept an input from me giving a location where I want to find caches. Optionally I could specify that I am only interested in caches of certain types, sizes, terrain, or difficulty. I could also specify cache attributes I want to include or exclude, and I could provide the system with a list of caches to ignore. The system would use a proprietary heuristic to review the caches I've already found and provide me with a personalized list of caches to find that I might enjoy. I also want a pony.

 

Except for the pony part, what you are seeking is very much possible.

 

Do you ever buy books on Amazon.com? Their "book rating system" seems to have a really good handle on what I like, and I'm sure that what I like is quite different from what you (or almost anyone else) likes. How about a system where, when you log a "found it" online, you are asked "Did you like this cache?" If you click yes, you could be shown a list: "People who liked this cache also liked these other caches."

 

There wouldn't be "highly rated" or "low rated" caches for owners to brag or complain about. Just "here are some caches you might like, based on some that you told us you liked." You could seek caches that people whose taste is similar to yours found enjoyable. Everybody's happy, except possibly for the programmers who are tasked with implementing the system.

 

I'm not saying that such a system is necessary, but it seems it would satisfy those who crave a rating system without offending those who seem to hate the idea of a rating system.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm in Seattle for a week and decided to look around for some caches. I don't have a lot of time, so I wanted to find some "Notable" caches in the area.

 

* Sifting through pages and pages of logs is not an acceptable way to find good caches. Anyone who claims that method is acceptable must have tons of time to waste. Personally, I'd rather be out geocaching versus sitting at my computer for an hour reading through logs.

 

* Most bookmark lists are not very helpful and only contain the cache name without very much useful information. As with above, sifting through a bunch of bookmark lists is also *NOT* on my list of fun ways to spend an evening.

 

* I did find the information I wanted. Eventually, I posted a message on the forums asking for input from those in the Seattle area as to what caches they would recommend. This method works great, but takes too long and I wasn't able to use the information until the next day...

 

Those that are opposed to a rating system, can you give me a reasonable way to get the information I want that does not involve some kind of rating system?

[+sbell111]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

 

Please address the question - why should others be denied a rating option just because you prefer the logs/bookmarks option?

I don't think that anyone is actually against ratings systems. Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system.

 

You see no flaws in the log/bookmark system? There are many major flaws, as has been pointed out over and over again in the forums.

Are you arguing that we should do away with logs and bookmarks?

[+Vater_Araignee]

bwaaa haaaa haaa! I have tried to drill out nails, way easier to use a hammer. Anyone who has tried will tell you that's a backfired analogy.

 

Tozainamboku, you fail to see where my analogy related to not having the hammer and that GS is the nail and board that comes with the drill.

Yeah, I agree that GCVote is a hammer, but does everyone have it? Nope.

Is everyone allowed to have it? Nope.

Some of those people are not allowed to install greasemonkey scripts.

Some of those people are not allowed to install greasemonkey.

Some of those people are not allowed to install firefox.

Some people can even look at GCVote's main page because internet filters are blocking it due to the word macro. That's from personal experience and I'll bet that there are other words there too.

What about travel?

Hey buddy, can I go to geocaching.com to find some local caches?

Sure.

Can I install firefox, greasemonkey, and and gcvote so I can get an idea about the better caches in the area?

No installing!

 

Funny how when I pose a feasible concept that gives a person more control for how a system could display, nobody has a thing to say about it.

Yet as soon as I say why deny somebody something you don't have to use, somebody is going to start speaking inside the box by assuming that all rating systems are the time honored "mean average" variety so they don't work. (Heck even I'll admit that a median average isn't much better.)

 

You have a rating system on the found it log.

don't like it - indifferent - like it (heck I would be ok with 5 stars as long as it was clear that 3 = indifferent)

You rated caches but for some reason, only the caches you rated display ratings.

Oh yeah, you didn't add people to your "Trusted rater list"

You go back to the caches you liked and start adding people that voiced the same opinion.

You go back to caches you didn't like and start adding people that voiced the same opinion.

Now the system is showing you ratings for caches based on those opinions.

If you click the "Trusted rater list" it shows you how each one rated the cache.

One day you notice that you really like a lot of indifferent caches, so you do a bit of investigation and you find that some of the people that you added only rate a small portion of the caches the same as you.

You eliminated them from your "Trusted rater list" and all the sudden those ratings change, you even notice that some that where "don't like it" become "like it".

Then you can use the mean average for areas you are going to that don't have caches visited by your "Trusted raters" and start building a list of people there after doing some caches.

 

With a system like that, it becomes the users fault if it is consistently failing them and they can choose to ignore it.

 

The netflix system is better than the standard 5 star system, it shows you two ratings one is mean and one is "best guess" based on your ratings in combination with others that have rated like you.

I use to think that it sucked, wildly inaccurate. I rated over 400 movies and shows and it was still way off base. I had a problem tho, I rated movies and shows I haven't seen in years, more than 50% hadn't been seen in over a decade. I didn't realize how drasticly my tastes had changed till I watched some stuff again and they sucked (raise your hand if you liked Greatest American Hero when it aired but cant stand it now), so I rerated them and unrated most of the older movies. Suddenly the best guess got closer to home.

It now says that the best guess on the Wonka movies are.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory would be a 4.2, I'd give it 4.5 if it allowed half star ratings, I originally gave it a 2.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 1.2, I'd burn every copy in existence. So the system is still flawed because it doesn't have a kill Tim Burton before he can remake Planet of the Apes option, but 1 star = hated it is a good second.

 

Your last paragraph, wouldn't that be a netflix style rating system combined with pocket quires?

[+Vater_Araignee]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

 

Because we already have two: Logs and Bookmarks.

 

Please address the question - why should others be denied a rating option just because you prefer the logs/bookmarks option?

I don't think that anyone is actually against ratings systems. Many are against the implementation of a majorly flawed ratings system.

 

You see no flaws in the log/bookmark system? There are many major flaws, as has been pointed out over and over again in the forums.

Are you arguing that we should do away with logs and bookmarks?

Just because I make a bookmark of 40 caches doesn't mean I like those caches or dislike them, it only means that in some way I found them notable.

Found it logs are just indicators that you where there with the option to say what you want within reason.

[+bittsen]

I rate this thread a 4 (scale of 1-10)

[+niraD]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

All else being equal, I don't care whether geocaching.com has a simple 5-star rating system or not. I'll ignore it the way I ignore other simple 5-star rating systems.

 

But Groundspeak has limited resources, so all else isn't equal. If GS invests resources in developing a simple 5-star rating system, then they won't be able to invest those resources in developing something else, something that might actually be useful. A "you may also enjoy" system could be useful. For that matter, a system that allows seekers to save puzzle solutions and have the solutions appear in PQs would be very useful. I'd rather GS invest in something like that.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

All else being equal, I don't care whether geocaching.com has a simple 5-star rating system or not. I'll ignore it the way I ignore other simple 5-star rating systems.

 

But Groundspeak has limited resources, so all else isn't equal. If GS invests resources in developing a simple 5-star rating system, then they won't be able to invest those resources in developing something else, something that might actually be useful. A "you may also enjoy" system could be useful. For that matter, a system that allows seekers to save puzzle solutions and have the solutions appear in PQs would be very useful. I'd rather GS invest in something like that.

watch out, that last statement is inviting some form of GSAK reply. I wont say what, so I cant be accused of doing it

I will say that you can extrapolate the data and save it on a piece of paper.

 

Credit for posing a logical reason, expense, but then we don't have access to the books to prove or disprove it and it doesn't answer my question.

I'm also willing to bet that there is one cacher out there, who would be willing to buy GS a "simple five star system" if it where not for the fact that not only are the ratings opponents to rating constantly saying anti "simple five star system" but so are a significant portion of ratings proponents.

 

This doesn't answer my question either but I believe there is something to it.

The most obvious reason why we don't have one, not "Why should we not want..."

Groundspeak doesn't want to be involved with the simple five star rating of caches.

Please note that I can not say "Groundspeak doesn't want to be involved with the rating of caches period."

Now I'll give you my reasoning behind the statement.

Helpfull links

under the heading "Geocaching.com – User Generated Tools"

can't find a link to the GCVote website

I would also point out that it isn't located under "Geocaching Software" but that isn't needed because it is suppose to be "Software applications that serve as a companion to your GPS device."

 

So we do have a "simple five star system" that "is not" available to everybody (by no fault of GS or GCVote) but is also not mentioned by GS.

A mere mentioning in the links section would stop this topic from popping up (as often) by newer users.

Then we might be able to keep 1 topic for the discussion of a more advanced rating system without all the bickering that can cause headaches to the people who may want to glean what we would and wouldn't like in one.

SO

Q: Why isn't it there?

A: ...doesn't want to be involved with the simple five star rating of caches.

 

Then again, could it simply be that GS doesn't like it because it is not completely autonomous?

You have to wait to be added to the system before you can start rating.

Yes I just shot a chunk of logic based on making an assumption, by posing another possible assumption.

 

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

and don't use assumptions to answer it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Why should we not want a rating system where we would have the option to use or not?

and don't use assumptions to answer it.

 

I'm not 'against' a rating system, in fact I would love for Groundspeak to have one.

 

What I do speak out on every time this topic arises and am against, even as a voluntary opt-in rating system, is a broken meaningless one.

 

Look at the two most widely-know rating systems... the MPAA for movies and the Nielsen rating for TV.

 

They use very different methodologies to derive a rating that is supposed to be fair and meaningful, and therefore of value to their audience. Despite years of development and tweaking and millions of dollars invested they are both broken... their products are so subjective that it's a coin toss as to wether any individual agrees with them.

 

I find the MPAA ratings to be a joke. By my standards (old, white, Christian, fairly liberal male) they rarely get movie ratings right.

 

Nielsen, same thing. Supposedly the state of television today is built largely upon what Nielsen research ratings say that Americans of certain demographics want to watch on certain days and at certain times. I cringe at the thought that this may be true. If it is then the educational state of our society is far worse than anyone wants to admit to.

 

Violence is condoned, nay promoted, by the MPAA in even the very lowest-rated movies, but anything approaching true depictions of human relationships gets an R or MA slapped on it. I've raised six kids, now 19 through 35, and rarely felt that MPAA ratings were any kind of accurate indication of what a parent can expect from a movie.

 

And the Nielsen Rating? Get real. I refuse to believe that the majority of TV watchers in the US want to watch Tyra Banks or Jerry Springer, and do not believe that the majority of us want our news producers to become misinformation-spewing biased entertainers as the Nielsen ratings would have the networks believe we want.

 

So, with that in mind, how would we objectively classify (rate) such a subjective experience as a cache hunt?

 

Democratic vote? No. Even if every cacher was required to vote (rate) each find a simple majority does not represent anything useful. (Which is why democratic vote is rarely used).

 

A profile? Have a checklist of cacher attributes such as age, race, sex, location, stated preference for certain cache types, sizes and locations, number of hides and finds, and use those weighted attributes to classify each cacher so that we could better know if we would be likely to agree with that person's cache rating. That's basically what Nielsen does. They not only track what participants are watching but they track each participant's carefully surveyed personal attributes so that they can evaluate each 'vote' (shows watched) and aggregate those demographics for meticulous dissection and statistical analysis.

 

So, what are we to do that would be objective and representative if all we have is subjective input by person's unknown?

 

As I said, I'm not at all against a rating system, I just think that a broken inaccurate one would do more harm than good.

[CoyoteRed]

As I said, I'm not at all against a rating system, I just think that a broken inaccurate one would do more harm than good.

So, what do you suggest?

[+L0ne.R]

I like what tindling's proposed regarding a rating system:

 

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4116852

 

- Implement a native rating system on GS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Example Questions:

Traditionals (also Mystery Tradi):

- Did you like the location of the cache?

- How was the interieur of the cache?

- Do you agree with the description of the cache?

 

Multis (also Mystery Multi):

- Did you like the location of the final?

- Did you like the stages of the cache?

- How was the interieur of the cache?

- Do you agree with the description of the cache?

[CoyoteRed]

I like what tindling's proposed regarding a rating system:

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

A major point with which I've long disagreed. There have been plenty of times while on a hunt that I've recognized that it was pure junk and had stopped the hunt. A 1 star for sure. However, because I refuse to waste any more time on a worthless cache I wouldn't have the opportunity to present my opinion on the cache.

 

First a visit is not a find. Folks visit caches all the time and not produce a find. Sometimes it's because it's up a tree. Sometimes it's because they have to hold their nose as they drive off. I've DNFed caches that are great caches--very worthy of 5 stars and a return visit. Sometimes I don't get the chance to return.

 

One should be able to rate a cache they visit, not find. Proof of a visit could be required much like virts.

 

Allow ratings on visits and I might start logging visits on crappy caches simply to rate them the low rating they deserve.

 

Heck, TC.com allows ratings simply because you visited the cache page. A find will add weight to your vote, but you still have a say simply from looking at the cache page.

 

Yeah, I know, "how can you have an opinion if you've never visited the cache?" Well, probably with the same argument that you can look at a map or read the description in order to know it's an LPC and put it on your ignore list.

[+gururyan]

I like what tindling's proposed regarding a rating system:

 

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4116852

 

- Implement a native rating system on GS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Example Questions:

Traditionals (also Mystery Tradi):

- Did you like the location of the cache?

- How was the interieur of the cache?

- Do you agree with the description of the cache?

 

Multis (also Mystery Multi):

- Did you like the location of the final?

- Did you like the stages of the cache?

- How was the interieur of the cache?

- Do you agree with the description of the cache?

 

And the big question, "Would you recommend this cache to a friend?"

[+niraD]

And the big question, "Would you recommend this cache to a friend?"

Yep. The more complex the feedback request, the more likely you are to get meaningless data from people who just want to log the next cache. What really matters is whether someone liked or disliked a cache, and whether the system can do anything useful with that information to predict what other caches they might also like or dislike.

 

FWIW, I noticed that YouTube recently switched from a 5-star rating system to a simple like/dislike system.