User Rating System

[+Vater_Araignee]

TPTB ARE already working on a rating system.

I have seen no evidence of this. TPTB have claimed to be "working on" a variety of things over the years. Just based on past experience, that is pretty weak evidence.

 

Do you have some inside knowledge the rest of us don't that this is actually being worked on?

 

I didn't think so.

Fizzy! Isn't a link to Nate's placation post proof enough?

Markwell's link to Jeremy's post shows it has been in the works for years!

Isn't that inside knowledge?

[+terratin]

Caches from 95% of the population will rate their top 10% caches in alignment with the other people. Sure there will be 5% of the oddities that like caches that are on fire or sitting in the bottom of the dumpster, but in aggregate those can be disregarded. Good caches should rise to the top.

I'm not for a cache rating system, which means i'd not bother and therefore automatically rate each cache the default rating (if it's not optional). As i'm pretty sure i'm not unique in that respect, others will behave similar. Allthough i'm not a statician, i guess this would make whatever avarage comes out meaningless.

 

Moreover, giving things a bit more tought, allthough general good caches probably get a higher avarage, i don't think it'll work for poor caches as quite some people would be reluctant to 0 (or 1) star a cache. Anonymous rating would help here, but then again you'd rate when you log...

 

If a rating system were to be implemented, please let it be optional.

 

Mr. Terratin

[CoyoteRed]

TPTB ARE already working on a rating system.

I have seen no evidence of this. TPTB have claimed to be "working on" a variety of things over the years. Just based on past experience, that is pretty weak evidence.

 

Do you have some inside knowledge the rest of us don't that this is actually being worked on?

 

I didn't think so.

Fizzy! Isn't a link to Nate's placation post proof enough?

Markwell's link to Jeremy's post shows it has been in the works for years!

Isn't that inside knowledge?

I've got to agree with FM. The new Rock and Roll, brand-new Geocaching.com II site was due out May, '03. Also, consider hat almost every single project that Groundspeak has started is half finished. Unless you own an iPhone, that is, as it's already in v3. Wherigo is spotty at best and requires a PPC for stability. Waymarking is user unfriendly no likes to use it. Geocaching.com has a constant battle to keep up with demand yet new gee-whiz gadgets are being added to mix. It's more important to chase solutions to shut out "unauthorized devices" from the cache pages that it is put up a simple member-based API for direct, on-the-fly access.

 

No, I don't expect to see a rating system any time soon. No one that is worth using, anyway.

 

Besides, there's 1 million caches found by how many finders over the last 10 years? That's a lot of work on all of our parts in order to get a rating system that is remotely worth a hoot. Who here is willing to go back and rate every single cache they've found? Most rating systems are doomed before they start.

[+IceG8r]

when i read the title of this thread, i thought you wanted to rate the users

 

That's already in place... Found / Did Not Find

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

It was actually GC.com that said it was a good idea and suggested I float it out here.

 

I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far.

 

Someone at GC.com has a cruel sense of humor, if that's what they told you.

 

I don't see any hostile replies. You asked what people thought of your idea, and they are telling you. No one has called you names or attacked you personally.

 

I'm sure you think the idea of a rating system is a good one. You probably also think it's an original idea, and some Lackey has led you on by suggesting that you "float it out here." You have no way of knowing that the idea has been discussed here ad nauseum. You aren't the first to "float it out here," and many of the regulars are pretty tired of hearing about it.

 

I don't blame you, I blame the person who sent you here... but for future reference, in ANY forum, it's a good idea to lurk for a while before posting. Read what has been posted before you got there. Get a sense of the place. Or, in a case like this one, use the search feature. Five minutes of research would have shown you that this is not an original idea. If you had then gone ahead and posted it, at least you would have been prepared for the response.

[+sbell111]

If Blockbuster & Amazon can figure it out why is it so difficult for cachers?

A few thoughts:

• If I see a movie today and rewatch the movie in five years, it's still the same movie. The same goes with a book. Caches, however, change over time. A cache that is great today might turn into a doot in just a blink. A cache rated as 'good' today might not be good tomorrow, even if one uses exactly the same criteria.
  
• Cachers like different things on different days. Today, I might be running errands with the family and find that park and grab at the local Kwikie Mart to be just the ticket. Tomorrow, I might only be interested in a cache that takes me on a hike. Caches that meet my needs at that moment in time would be rated higher than those that didn't. Also, since my desires differ from day-to-day, teh rating system would not be useful to me.
  
• Some things unrelated to the cache itself affect enjoyment of the cache. That cache that I would enjoy hiking to in mild-temperatured March kind of pisses me off in massively hot August.
  

[+Vater_Araignee]

If Blockbuster & Amazon can figure it out why is it so difficult for cachers?

A few thoughts:

• If I see a movie today and rewatch the movie in five years, it's still the same movie. The same goes with a book. Caches, however, change over time. A cache that is great today might turn into a doot in just a blink. A cache rated as 'good' today might not be good tomorrow, even if one uses exactly the same criteria.
  
• Cachers like different things on different days. Today, I might be running errands with the family and find that park and grab at the local Kwikie Mart to be just the ticket. Tomorrow, I might only be interested in a cache that takes me on a hike. Caches that meet my needs at that moment in time would be rated higher than those that didn't. Also, since my desires differ from day-to-day, teh rating system would not be useful to me.
  
• Some things unrelated to the cache itself affect enjoyment of the cache. That cache that I would enjoy hiking to in mild-temperatured March kind of pisses me off in massively hot August.
  

I didn't finish reading your bullet points before I started this reply.

If I see a movie today and rewatch the movie in five years, it's still the same movie. Yes, and caches do change over time. But your opinion of a movie may well change with life experience.

Now if you go on todays opinion of a cache may not be tomorrows, then it is liken to books and movies.

But if the cache it's self has changed over time to warrant a new opinion, well you can always go back and change your opinion, I would also think that if it was enough of a change that maybe a archival and relisting would be in order making all ratings moot.

 

But now I have just convinced myself that there shouldn't be any rating system without a safeguard to prevent a CO from rehashing a listing for a new cache just to keep the ratings.

Including I have been flow charting that would help to account for some of your points.

 

How much change has to happen to a cache before it should be archived because it is not the same cache?

Size change?

How much of a distance change?

Without those taken into consideration a CO has the potential to abuse the system with little effort.

Maybe a system that punishes the rating for CO changes rather than saying archive it?

I don't know, that's a bit to messy.

[Rhialto]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system?

www.gcvote.com

 

Works for Firefox, IE7+ and Chrome but installation instructions for the last 2 need to be added to the site. I need to work on that but time is missing lately.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Rhialto

[+Davensocal]

I would be up for a rating system as I have limited time to spend searching, and some are more fun for me than others..

 

In an effort to minimize wasted time, I utilize the existing systems to identify caches I am more likely to enjoy (size, difficulty, etc..)

 

I believe a simple "recommendation" on a cache would help to augment the existing structure. Basically, when I log my find, I can check a box that says "I would highly recommend this cache". Then GC.com could simply provide a percentage of visitors to that cache that highly recommended it. If 10 people visit, and 7 check to highly recommend it, then GC can tell me that 70% of finders thought this was a highly recommended cache.

 

This, in addition to the existing ways to filter would add significantly to my enjoyment of Geocaching. I could then look for large traditional caches with terrain difficulty less than 3 with ratings higher than 50%. After I have burned through my favorites I imagine I would start looking at lower rated caches.

 

Also, new caches would benefit as the FTF would probably recommend it, and thereby give it a 100% recommendation rate.

 

Anyway, just my humble newbe opinion..

 

--Dave--

[+Davensocal]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system?

www.gcvote.com

 

Works for Firefox, IE7+ and Chrome but installation instructions for the last 2 need to be added to the site. I need to work on that but time is missing lately.

 

Rhialto-

Wow, it seems you have already addressed most of the concerns, that is just wonderful!

 

I only spent a minute investigating, I need to spend more time. Can I ask a question? Does GCvote work with PocketQueries? Or do you normally do a PQ and then run through GSAK to filter by rating?

 

Thanks!

 

Dave..

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system?

www.gcvote.com

 

Works for Firefox, IE7+ and Chrome but installation instructions for the last 2 need to be added to the site. I need to work on that but time is missing lately.

 

Rhialto-

Wow, it seems you have already addressed most of the concerns, that is just wonderful!

 

I only spent a minute investigating, I need to spend more time. Can I ask a question? Does GCvote work with PocketQueries? Or do you normally do a PQ and then run through GSAK to filter by rating?

 

Thanks!

 

Dave..

It doesnt work with PQs and I haven't found a way to sort or filter once you get it working with GSAK.

Not saying there isnt a way, just I haven't found it, because the only way I have been able to see the ratings at all is in dual screen.

Not in split view and no columns.

[+Knight2000]

Maybe just a radio button that says you would recommend this cache. If not that then [optional] multiple ratings that would fit multiple styles.

 

Few use GC Vote.

[+dfx]

Maybe just a radio button that says you would recommend this cache. If not that then [optional] multiple ratings that would fit multiple styles.

the usual thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting comes to mind as well. but i'm not sure if that would be a very good idea in the context of rating caches...

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system?

www.gcvote.com

 

Works for Firefox, IE7+ and Chrome but installation instructions for the last 2 need to be added to the site. I need to work on that but time is missing lately.

Rhialto, that totally rocks!

 

 

Edited April 9, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about having a rating system?

www.gcvote.com

 

Works for Firefox, IE7+ and Chrome but installation instructions for the last 2 need to be added to the site. I need to work on that but time is missing lately.

Rhialto, that totally rocks!

 

May I have a link to a bigger screen shot please? It is just a bluer to me at that size.

Maybe if I can see it better I can figure out where I went wrong.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

May I have a link to a bigger screen shot please? It is just a bluer to me at that size.

Maybe if I can see it better I can figure out where I went wrong.

Rhialto hasn't approved my password request yet (I just sent it in) so I can't show you the final product of a cache I have voted on, but here's what my screen looks like for a cache that has not been voted on... note the 1/2-step ratings that can be applied.

 

Maybe he can post a larger more detailed image.

 

Also, check out the list of cool stuff you can do with GSAK Macros at http://gsak.net/board/MacroIndex.php

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I am a little surprised to see some of the downright hostile replies I've seen so far.

 

Just suggesting an IMPROVEMENT to the system.

 

Thank you for illustrating the most probable reason why a ratings system has not been implemented.

 

This idea was rated at a 1 star and you considered the replies hostile. I can imagine how a few cache owners would overreact to a 1 star rating on their hides.

[+Vater_Araignee]

May I have a link to a bigger screen shot please? It is just a bluer to me at that size.

Maybe if I can see it better I can figure out where I went wrong.

Rhialto hasn't approved my password request yet (I just sent it in) so I can't show you the final product of a cache I have voted on, but here's what my screen looks like for a cache that has not been voted on... note the 1/2-step ratings that can be applied.

 

Maybe he can post a larger more detailed image.

 

Also, check out the list of cool stuff you can do with GSAK Macros at http://gsak.net/board/MacroIndex.php

AINT THEY GREAT!

I use a GoogleEarth.gsk with my data base to get a good idea where I want to go.

One day just for Ss&Gs I dropped the kml file into the POI folder on my Mio.

WADAYAKNA! It worked and gave bigger and better names than the chunk of crap poi loader.

Now if only I could figure out how to get T/D, type and size into the names.

 

What I think I see in you pic is the Dual Screen mode being displayed in the Split Screen and that is something I want to do because I like the formatting better.

 

I'll let ya in on a secret, when I was installing GCVote into GSAK I messed up with my password and cant figure out how to change it to the correct one.

No big deal I just do all my ratings from gc.com, but once I figure out how to correct my problem it will be a bonus.

[+wimseyguy]

I agree that there should be some sort of rating system too. But only for traditional and multi caches, not virts, webcams, or puzzles.

 

I really like markwells 10% solution, and even named my personal favorites bookmark list the 2% solution. I hope that cachers who see that label on a listing decide to add it to their plan for the day. I know seeing caches on bookmark fave lists influences my plans, especially when caching out of town.

 

The reason that ratings work well on amazon or blockbuster is that the voters are not the same people who created the items being rated, and probably don't know them personally. Unless you have a bacon number of one, you won't need to tell Kevin that his movie sucks, or meet him at an event after rating it a pig.

Professional (and some amateur) performers create the movies/books/products that are anonymously rated.

Geocachers make the caches; asking us to impartially rate and rank them isn't the same clean break.

[Rhialto]

Hi,

 

Vater_Araignee, someone made a GSAK macro that grab votes and you can do a sort. I'm a bit rushed now so I cannot point you to the thread in the GSAK forum.

 

Also, I should update that screenshot to reflect half-star voting and Attributes added too but if you click on it you'll get a bigger version.

 

TheAlabamaRambler, it's not me who will add you in the database, it's Guido. He is the conceptor. My work was to rework completly the website presentation and add french. Of course I suggested a few ideas.

 

It's nice to know that GCVote currently counts 1695460 individual quality ratings for 324582 individual caches in the world and 7798 registered users, and it's growing every day! Try refresh the main page and you'll see number change. Some still whine about such a system for different reasons but overall Guido could tell you nobody who currently use it complained about it. If I'm still there it's because I still believe in such a system.

[Rhialto]

I can imagine how a few cache owners would overreact to a 1 star rating on their hides.

That could probably happen on very rare occasion but as a hider I would like myself know people don't really like a cache. In fact I already replaced a '2' for a much better and appreciated one. But receiving 5 x '1' in a row I would be really surprised about what's going on! I don't think that could really happen.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Rhialto

[+Vater_Araignee]

I can imagine how a few cache owners would overreact to a 1 star rating on their hides.

That could probably happen on very rare occasion but as a hider I would like myself know people don't really like a cache. In fact I already replaced a '2' for a much better and appreciated one. But receiving 5 x '1' in a row I would be really surprised about what's going on! I don't think that could really happen.

I have rated some caches as ones, then there are the caches I rated as ones that I wish I could have rated as 1/2. read the last part as I refused to log the cache.

I wont go handing out a 1 willy nilly. I come on LPC#1 I might give it a 2.5, LPC#2 = 2 LPC#3-6 probably 1.5 and any more in the series get a 1.

If I come on an LPC that ignores hiding spots within 20' then it is a 1.

Sevear lack of creativity deserves nothing more and I would honestly hope that the CO would take it as a learning tool and not as the insult I intend it to be.

 

Oh yeah, I found GCVoteGrabber.gsk about 5 minutes after I broke GCVote_HTML_Include.gsk (some time after my last post ) because I updated all my macros. If I remember correctly that means I have to edit HTML_WideView.gsk.

[+ADTCacheur]

If Blockbuster & Amazon can figure it out why is it so difficult for cachers?

 

First off, are you more likely to go for a short walk without making sure it's something you like, or spend 40$ on a book or movie that will take a few weeks to get here? It's hard to buy something spur-the-moment when you won't have it for a veeeeeery long moment.

 

 

Also, if you are rating a cache, can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't rate your first puzzle cache lower because you found out you don't like puzzle caches? Or if it's an amazing cache but you couldn't find it, it doesn't matter whether that's because you aren't very good at finding caches, it was too hard to find, or it was missing, can you honestly say you wouldn't rate it lower than if you found it? And think of the people who made the cache. They make this nice cache, but then somebody decides they hate night caching, and so they get a 1star rating...

 

Wouldn't the programming time needed for this, once you include trying to get everybody to re-rate all their previously found caches, be much better used on improving Wherigo for use on more GPSs, or being faster or something like that. Why not improve the efficiency of Waymarking.com so that you could see your waymarks along with your geocaches on your paperless GPS. You could use this time to create a poll system so that they could know what we want, and how many of us want it.

 

We should instead have something where it doesn't mean anyone thinks you have a horrible cache if you don't get anything (I liked that idea of the awards system) after all, geocaching is about the fun of finding the cache, not about trying to get as high of ratings as you can.

 

I will now sit back to see how this argument continues (if I can resist the urge to butt in)

[sdarken]

GCVote isn't used by enough people in my area (in the U.S) to be very useful yet but if do a search in Berlin, Germany and take a look at the GCVote ratings on the Google map of the area, you can quickly see how it does become useful even though it's a simple 1-5 star voting system.

 

What happens is that the good caches appear (as 4 or 5 stars) and the stinkers get 2 stars. Everything else ends up as average.

 

Even that small amount of information allows an out-of-towners to narrow down the hundreds to manageable handful of caches.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Dug up an old database around the first time I became a pm. like august 08.

This means that the database is not all in michigan and contains now archived caches, but it does give an idea of the current state of GCVote in the state.

All In Michigan.

10792 caches

928 caches have votes

1236 total votes

 

Once I have the new All in Michigan database, I'll start a thread dedicated to tracking GCVotes usage.

 

And yes I still have not fixed my HTML_WideView, off to do that now that the kids are tied up, dried up, and dead to the world.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Ok, I have a snreeny of GSAK using GCVote_HTML_Include.gsk, GCVoteGrabber.gsk and a slightly modified version of HTML_WideView.gsk set to display in split screen mode.

Woot!

 

CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE.

In the columns you will notice towards the end "Vote count, Average, My vote" these are user data columns that have been renamed by me and I think the names are self explanatory.

These counts where generated by GCVoteGrabber.gsk.

 

On the split screen under the coords you will see.

"Quality: (with stars after it)" and under that "your vote: ?1½2½3½4½5"

This is generated by GCVote_HTML_Include.gsk two lines where added to HTML_WideView.gsk to get them to display.

 

Any one needs help I will be happy to walk ya though it.

 

Now if only I could get GSAK to use firefox instead of IE.

[+BonnerGuido]

This has been done to death a thousand times in here. My take: any rating system has to be very, very simple. Like, you either say "I liked this cache", or you don't say anything. There's no way that any individual will apply the categories listed in the OP as 2 through 5 stars consistently from one weekend to the next, so expecting the community to do it collectively is just illusory. So if we're going to have anything at all (and I vote "no"), let's just have "5 out of the 7 finders said that this cache was cool", because over time, any other system will only show averages from 3.6 (lousy) to 3.8 (outstanding) anyway.

That's a very good argument that bugged me a few years ago. To prove that a cache rating system can work, I simply wrote one: GCVote. It is a very basic 5 star rating system without detailed definition of the categories. But it integrates seamlessly with GC.com and has thousands of happy users.

If you look at caches in Germany, where GCVote is heavily used, you will see that even this simple system seems to work. To me, GCVote proves most arguments against a rating system wrong.

[GOF and Bacall]

Even in Berlin there are few caches with enough votes to make a meaningful difference.

[Rhialto]

Ok, I have a snreeny of GSAK using GCVote_HTML_Include.gsk, GCVoteGrabber.gsk and a slightly modified version of HTML_WideView.gsk set to display in split screen mode.

Woot!

Great! I don't know what happened on my side yesterday but I get an error message now in GSAK about votes.. All seems fine though so I'm clueless. I remember having applied the very last patch to GSAK, 7.7.1.21 so I don't know if that's the problem.

 

Ok I took 2 minutes to downgrade and problem fixed, I'll fill a bug report.

 

Now if only I could get GSAK to use firefox instead of IE.

Forget it, it's not possible.

[sdarken]

Even in Berlin there are few caches with enough votes to make a meaningful difference.

 

I don't agree with that. Take a look at this screenshot from Berlin from about 6 months ago. Even with a relatively small number of votes, this simplistic rating system helps to identify some above average caches.

 

On this screen shot, the multi called "Jolle Sein Milljöh (Spandauer Vorstadt Berlin)" has a 5 star rating after 19 votes. That's all the information that I need to take a closer look. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a cache I'll visit. I would still need to read the description and logs to understand why it gets a high ranking but it's a quick way to identify a good cache from lots of average caches.

 

[+Vater_Araignee]

Ok, I have a snreeny of GSAK using GCVote_HTML_Include.gsk, GCVoteGrabber.gsk and a slightly modified version of HTML_WideView.gsk set to display in split screen mode.

Woot!

Great! I don't know what happened on my side yesterday but I get an error message now in GSAK about votes.. All seems fine though so I'm clueless. I remember having applied the very last patch to GSAK, 7.7.1.21 so I don't know if that's the problem.

 

Ok I took 2 minutes to downgrade and problem fixed, I'll fill a bug report.

when everything broke on me was after I upgraded GSAK to 7.7.0.109 then ran the version check for macros.

I wish there was a way for me to flag a macro to not be included in a mass update because by the time I do it again I'll have forgotten that I need to do it one at a time to protect my customizations.

Now if only I could get GSAK to use firefox instead of IE.

Forget it, it's not possible.

yeah it sux, the fox is just more stable.

[GOF and Bacall]

Even in Berlin there are few caches with enough votes to make a meaningful difference.

 

I don't agree with that. Take a look at this screenshot from Berlin from about 6 months ago. Even with a relatively small number of votes, this simplistic rating system helps to identify some above average caches.

 

On this screen shot, the multi called "Jolle Sein Milljöh (Spandauer Vorstadt Berlin)" has a 5 star rating after 19 votes. That's all the information that I need to take a closer look. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a cache I'll visit. I would still need to read the description and logs to understand why it gets a high ranking but it's a quick way to identify a good cache from lots of average caches.

 

A handful of those caches appear to have enough votes to be meaningful. And even those that do may have been found by the local lamp post huggers club.

 

Don't get me wrong here. I am not against a rating system. I just think that a basic 5 star system is not the way to go. And to be honest GCVote has only served to take the pressure off TPTB to implement the awards system that they had been talking about. Or possibly a system that returns a list of caches that others who rated a cache the way you did liked.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." Voltaire.

 

Let's not ignore a good system because it isn't perfect. Let's start using the GC_Vote Script as a common start... we can always help improve it as its usage grows.

 

http://gcvote.com/index_en.php

[sdarken]

A handful of those caches appear to have enough votes to be meaningful. And even those that do may have been found by the local lamp post huggers club.

 

I've seen this mentioned a lot in the discussion about ratings. Some people believe that the lamp post huggers are automatically going to rate a drive-up cache highly. While I can't provide any statistical proof, I'd willing to wager that if the number-oriented cachers used a rating system then they would no more likely to rate a lamp post highly than anybody else. At best, lamp post hides would still end up as average on the rating system.

 

Don't get me wrong here. I am not against a rating system. I just think that a basic 5 star system is not the way to go. And to be honest GCVote has only served to take the pressure off TPTB to implement the awards system that they had been talking about. Or possibly a system that returns a list of caches that others who rated a cache the way you did liked.

 

I agree with you that there could be better implementations of a rating system than a 1-5 star model, but the GCVote implementation proves that even this kind of simplistic rating model would help to make interesting caches appear out of the overwhelming number that now exist in most metropolitan areas. I think that's really all that most people who ask for a rating system want:- Just help me find caches that are more interesting than the typical basic hide so that when I'm in a new area (or if I'm a newbie cacher) I can focus on a smaller number of caches.

Edited April 10, 2010 by sdarken

[Rhialto]

GCVote update coming soon. Not to the script itelf but the website.

 

I just finished updating french then english welcome and installation pages.

 

Guido is not in the same timezone as me and he told me he will update tomorrow morning.

 

I should have another news tomorrow.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I did some snooping on the caches in the screeny.

(GC1M159) BMJ based off of a cursory satellite look appears to be a parking lot micro.

It has

54 votes

Mean average of 2.4

Median of 2.0

Vote distro

1s) 5

2s) 25

3s) 22

4s) 1

5s) 1

 

That is about what I expect for a parking lot micro, average on the mean and below average on the median.

It is also something I wont look past (the rating) if I'm on vacation, unless I'm on a numbers run and I despise rushing on vacation unless it is 1 day out of 5 or more.

 

I had a look at (GC1TF3K) Städtebauliches - Gendarmenmarkt has 114 votes, mean 3.9 and median 4.0. Yeah that would be one I want to do.

 

I PQed Berlin I'll give a kinda layperson analysis of it when the kids aren't distracting me.

 

~~~edit for clarification~~~

Edited April 10, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+dfx]

my biggest beef with gcvote is that it slows down loading of certain pages. i don't care much for the map view as that's slow anyway, but several seconds of a frozen browser when loading the profile page is plain annoying.

 

i was close to uninstalling it because of this until i realized that i can just remove the profile url from its list of associated pages. but i guess not everybody does that/knows how to do it/can be bothered, and instead actually uninstall it because of that...

[+L0ne.R]

my biggest beef with gcvote is that it slows down loading of certain pages. i don't care much for the map view as that's slow anyway, but several seconds of a frozen browser when loading the profile page is plain annoying.

 

i was close to uninstalling it because of this until i realized that i can just remove the profile url from its list of associated pages. but i guess not everybody does that/knows how to do it/can be bothered, and instead actually uninstall it because of that...

 

I noticed that too. Can you tell us how to remove the profile url? Maybe Guido/Rhialto can put up the instructions on the GCVote webpage.

 

I had GCVote installed last year. Had the problem with freezing so uninstalled it. Then installed it again and didn't get the freezing. Then the new update required a new password so I haven't been back. Now that I see some interest in our area (Ontario) I'm going to install it again. I'll wait for tomorrow's website update and send Guido a password.

[+dfx]

I noticed that too. Can you tell us how to remove the profile url? Maybe Guido/Rhialto can put up the instructions on the GCVote webpage.

right-click on the monkey head on your status bar and select "manage user scripts" (or access that option from the menu or whereever). select the gc-vote script from the list and look in the list of "included pages" for the link to the profile page (it's the one that ends in "/my/"). click the "remove" button and then OK.

[+L0ne.R]

I noticed that too. Can you tell us how to remove the profile url? Maybe Guido/Rhialto can put up the instructions on the GCVote webpage.

right-click on the monkey head on your status bar and select "manage user scripts" (or access that option from the menu or whereever). select the gc-vote script from the list and look in the list of "included pages" for the link to the profile page (it's the one that ends in "/my/"). click the "remove" button and then OK.

 

Thanks.

[+Knight2000]

I hate for the idea to get too convoluted. I wish the GC Vote system was a little more specific. Average around here is a film can tossed somewhere. Maybe a pill bottle in a bush. Nothing wrong with that but I probably wouldn't recommend that to a friend. But it is average.

 

I still like the idea that would say "xx users would recommend this cache". Keep it on the positive and ignore the negative.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I hate for the idea to get too convoluted. I wish the GC Vote system was a little more specific. Average around here is a film can tossed somewhere. Maybe a pill bottle in a bush. Nothing wrong with that but I probably wouldn't recommend that to a friend. But it is average.

 

I still like the idea that would say "xx users would recommend this cache". Keep it on the positive and ignore the negative.

Thats the norm for ya but the norm isn't necessarily going to get average ratings.

Plus with GCVote you can click on the stars on the Cache page and get a break down of how many voted at on a specific rating.

If you use GCVoteGrabber, you can have it automatically display vote distribution in a user data column.

[+Knight2000]

I use GCVote. I am just saying I wish the ratings were labeled a little more specifically.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I use GCVote. I am just saying I wish the ratings were labeled a little more specifically.

I don't understand.

What do you mean by more specifically?

Each rating has a label if you hover over it.

1=poor

1.5=worthless

2=not good

2.5=ok

3=average

3.5=better

4=good

4.5=near perfect

5=great

Of course you can only see these if you hover over the actual voting numbers not the stars.

[Rhialto]

Updated to :

 

? - neutral / not rated yet

1 - poor

1½ - worthless

2 - below average

2½ - not so bad

3 - average

3½ - not bad at all

4 - better than average

4½ - very good

5 - awesome

[Rhialto]

my biggest beef with gcvote is that it slows down loading of certain pages. i don't care much for the map view as that's slow anyway, but several seconds of a frozen browser when loading the profile page is plain annoying.

Haven't noticed that myslef but only Guido could maybe tell what's going on. Thanks for reporting.

[+BonnerGuido]

i don't care much for the map view as that's slow anyway, but several seconds of a frozen browser when loading the profile page is plain annoying.

I heard reports like that before, but I'm not really about the cause. I guess that you have a very large number of caches on your list of recently found caches? Since the browser should not freeze while waiting for the GCVote server to reply, I expect that the Javascript engine is too slow. The good news is that all browsers are improving their Javascript performance.

I may add an option to GCVote, so nobody has to edit the configuration by hand. But for that I need to know which pages are the slowest.

[+dfx]

i don't care much for the map view as that's slow anyway, but several seconds of a frozen browser when loading the profile page is plain annoying.

I heard reports like that before, but I'm not really about the cause. I guess that you have a very large number of caches on your list of recently found caches? Since the browser should not freeze while waiting for the GCVote server to reply, I expect that the Javascript engine is too slow. The good news is that all browsers are improving their Javascript performance.

I may add an option to GCVote, so nobody has to edit the configuration by hand. But for that I need to know which pages are the slowest.

yeah the list is quite long, currently around 150 or so i'm guessing

 

and yeah it's coming from the javascript engine. i'm using firefox and i've seen this type of behavior before (browser freezing because some script is running slow). i've tried various gc-vote options (compact view for example), but none seem to make any difference.

 

like i said it's most annoying on the profile page because i use that one quite a lot, and without gc-vote it loads very fast (unless the GS servers happen to be crawling of course). the map view also has a noticeable delay, but nowhere near as bad as the profile page (maybe a second or so at most) and there it doesn't matter because loading the caches onto the map is slow anyway (slower than loading the gc-vote part).

 

thanks for looking into this!

[+Vater_Araignee]

I just attempted an IE installation, it all seemed to work well until gcvote.ieuser.js which results in an Error 404.

[Rhialto]

I just attempted an IE installation, it all seemed to work well until gcvote.ieuser.js which results in an Error 404.

oops, link wasn't updated, try http://gcvote.com/gcvote.ieuser.js until Guido update it.