Rate This Cache!

[+Dacostina]

On the website! For each cache.

 

On the 5-star system, or something. People are very polite in their comments, but I'd love to know how a group of people rates a cache. You could do a single overall rating or several ratings based on criteria such as - Enjoy the location? Clever hide? etc.

 

We've all been to so many micros placed for the sake of placing a cache. I'd love to see something like "Cacher rating - 2.13/5 (123 votes)" to warn me off of boring caches. Oh terrific. I've driven 20 miles to find an intersection between two grid-gravel roads between soybean and corn fields and someone has nailed a coffee can to a fence post on which is a No Trespassing sign. Hurrah.

 

On the other hand, caching has dropped me off at some of the most amazing little places I'd never know about if some local wasn't kind enough to share their favorite spot with me. "4.32/5 (73 votes)" my friend.

[hoyshnin]

Try this - http://gcvote.com/index.php

[+L0ne.R]

Try this - http://gcvote.com/index.php

 

I agree. It does a nice job. More people need to use it until (and if) Groundspeak comes up with something.

[+StarBrand]

....

We've all been to so many micros placed for the sake of placing a cache. I'd love to see something like "Cacher rating - 2.13/5 (123 votes)" to warn me off of boring caches. Oh terrific. I've driven 20 miles to find an intersection between two grid-gravel roads between soybean and corn fields and someone has nailed a coffee can to a fence post on which is a No Trespassing sign. Hurrah.....

 

 

But what if that is exactly the type of cache I like to find???

 

The 5 star idea is just too simplistic.

 

I'd like to see something like allowing users to list as much as 10% of thier finds on a "favorites" list. Then we could search for caches that appear on a high percentage of the finder's fav lists. Or we could search for caches that like mided caches placed on a fav list.

 

Moot point either way - It has been stated by TPTB that some kind of rating system is (in slow motion) in the the works.

[+kunarion]

we could search for caches that like mided caches placed on a fav list.

Yes, I'd like that. However, some cache pages have lots of logs from finders stating that a cache is particularly great, and I've clicked them by blind luck. I'd at least like to see a list of those.

 

After spending 20 minutes struggling with the above linked "vote plugin" site, and then encountering more hurdles, I won't use it -- I'm not in the mood for this frustration this morning, OKAY? . Lots of people will quit long before I did (it's kind of a process). There must be a better way.

[Mr.Yuck]

....

We've all been to so many micros placed for the sake of placing a cache. I'd love to see something like "Cacher rating - 2.13/5 (123 votes)" to warn me off of boring caches. Oh terrific. I've driven 20 miles to find an intersection between two grid-gravel roads between soybean and corn fields and someone has nailed a coffee can to a fence post on which is a No Trespassing sign. Hurrah.....

 

 

But what if that is exactly the type of cache I like to find???

 

The 5 star idea is just too simplistic.

 

I'd like to see something like allowing users to list as much as 10% of thier finds on a "favorites" list. Then we could search for caches that appear on a high percentage of the finder's fav lists. Or we could search for caches that like mided caches placed on a fav list.

 

Moot point either way - It has been stated by TPTB that some kind of rating system is (in slow motion) in the the works.

 

Well, I've read enough of his 13,000 posts to know that it's not the type of cache he likes to find (or place). Believe me, me neither!!!!

 

But no matter what myself, you, and Starbrand think is a crappy cache, there are many people who like "micros placed for the sake of placing a cache", and you'll notice these are the types of caches that get found the most, statistically.

 

I also have always said the 5 star system is too simplistic, and would result in the masses giving even the lamest Wally World parking lot lamp post cache an "average" rating at worst.

[+BonnerGuido]

But no matter what myself, you, and Starbrand think is a crappy cache, there are many people who like "micros placed for the sake of placing a cache", and you'll notice these are the types of caches that get found the most, statistically.

 

I also have always said the 5 star system is too simplistic, and would result in the masses giving even the lamest Wally World parking lot lamp post cache an "average" rating at worst.

Well, neither of that is true, as far as I can tell. Pleople DO find the ugly caches, but they do not rate them very high. I guess that they are like me and like any cache more than no cache at all, so they grab the easy cache along the way no matter how ugly it may be. The number of found-logs is a bad indicator of the quality of a cache.

 

If you look at Caches in Germany, where GCVote is well used, you will find that the ratings make sense most of the time. I read a lot about the good reasons why a simple rating system cannot work and actually wrote GCVote to prove them wrong. I'm sure that there are geocachers with very specific tastes and caches that get dubious ratings, but for most users most of the ratings seem to be very helpful.

[+L0ne.R]

But no matter what myself, you, and Starbrand think is a crappy cache, there are many people who like "micros placed for the sake of placing a cache", and you'll notice these are the types of caches that get found the most, statistically.

 

I also have always said the 5 star system is too simplistic, and would result in the masses giving even the lamest Wally World parking lot lamp post cache an "average" rating at worst.

Well, neither of that is true, as far as I can tell. Pleople DO find the ugly caches, but they do not rate them very high. I guess that they are like me and like any cache more than no cache at all, so they grab the easy cache along the way no matter how ugly it may be. The number of found-logs is a bad indicator of the quality of a cache.

 

If you look at Caches in Germany, where GCVote is well used, you will find that the ratings make sense most of the time. I read a lot about the good reasons why a simple rating system cannot work and actually wrote GCVote to prove them wrong. I'm sure that there are geocachers with very specific tastes and caches that get dubious ratings, but for most users most of the ratings seem to be very helpful.

 

I agree that GCVote shows that this is not the case. Those who like micros aren't going to rate every micro a 5 just because it's a micro. Same thing with traditional regular size caches - their my favorites but I'm not giving every one I find a 5, most get a 3 because they are good average cache experiences. There's got to be something more that pushes them above average - a scenic location, a good container (water tight ammo can, lock n lock), CO takes care of the stock on a regular basis so cache isn't full of debris, creative cache, funny cache, etc.