Cache rating system

[sebflippers]

How about every time you log a cache you rate it thumbs up or thumbs down. That would be cool.

[hoyshnin]

This has been brought up over and over again. Supposedly Groundspeak is working on a rating system.

 

In the meantime, one exists if you use firefox/chrome - gcvote.com

Edited May 28, 2010 by hoyshnin

[+ADTCacheur]

I'm not very good at subtlety, so I'll show you:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=126378

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=107342

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=76293

 

This was just a 5 minute google of "rating system". If you have anything to add, please add it to an already existing thread instead of making a new one.

[+Walts Hunting]

I can never find my stick when the dead horse is found. You have to love newbies that think they have a new idea. Filling the forums with the equivalent of micros.

[sebflippers]

But I mean thumbs up or down. Not stars.

[+L0ne.R]

But I mean thumbs up or down. Not stars.

 

http://gcvote.com

 

It's pretty darn good. Consider a one or two stars a thumbs down, and 3-5 a thumbs up.

[+narcissa]

I give this idea a thumbs down.

[+t4e]

what purpose would a rating system serve?

 

everyone has different tastes

 

"One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure"

[+Markwell]

The topic has been discussed many times before.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Markwell

[AZcachemeister]

what purpose would a rating system serve?

 

everyone has different tastes

 

"One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure"

 

Yes.

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

Conversely, if 'everyone' rated another certain cache at 1.5 stars, you might prefer to spend your time elsewhere.

 

In my local area, I'll find them all.

When I'm on vacation, I would like to know what the locals (in general) think about a particular cache.

Since my time is limited, I want the cream of the crop.

[ashnikes]

and if the cache repeatedly gets a low score its removed from the system? that would be a good way of cleaning up crappy caches.

[drewmm]

and if the cache repeatedly gets a low score its removed from the system? that would be a good way of cleaning up crappy caches.

 

There's no way that could end badly.

[+tozainamboku]

what purpose would a rating system serve?

 

everyone has different tastes

 

"One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure"

 

Yes.

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

Conversely, if 'everyone' rated another certain cache at 1.5 stars, you might prefer to spend your time elsewhere.

Perhaps but I suspect that caches that get a very high average rating or a very low average ratings will be get getting these rating just by chance as to who visits the cache an who votes on it. Unlike a rating system on Netflix, most caches don't get many visitors and even fewer that will bother to vote. Look at the number of people who rate caches using GCVOTE. Given the small numbers, a group of friends could get together and rate each others caches high (and rate the caches of anyone they don't like low). But even if you didn't game the system you will some caches with high rating that you will not find that great and you will have some caches with low ratings you might like.

 

The people who want a system like this believe that most geocachers prefer the same kinds of thing - or a least that the is some significant number of cachers who are average and the rating will work for them. The people who oppose a system believe there is no such thing as an average cacher and that taste in caches varies widely.

 

and if the cache repeatedly gets a low score its removed from the system? that would be a good way of cleaning up crappy caches.

terracaching does this.

 

Many people prefer geocaching.com because caches aren't judged by some popularity contest. People are able to hide the kinds of cache they enjoy finding and not have to worry that the need to appeal the lowest common denominator or that they have to change something to get more thumbs up votes.

[+L0ne.R]

terracaching does this.

 

Many people prefer geocaching.com because caches aren't judged by some popularity contest.

 

I think most people prefer geocaching.com to the terracaching database because it's a better database. I still don't understand the layout of terracaching and I don't like that you have to have sponsors. Plus it visually looks bad. I didn't even notice the rating stuff. And finally, there are very few terracaches in my area and they are usually at the higher end of difficulty and terrain - I prefer my caches 3 or under in D/T.

Edited May 29, 2010 by Lone R

[+BAMBOOZLE]

what purpose would a rating system serve?

 

everyone has different tastes

 

"One Man's Trash Is Another Man's Treasure"

 

Yes.

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

Conversely, if 'everyone' rated another certain cache at 1.5 stars, you might prefer to spend your time elsewhere.

 

In my local area, I'll find them all.

When I'm on vacation, I would like to know what the locals (in general) think about a particular cache.

Since my time is limited, I want the cream of the crop.

 

My sentiments EXACTLY.

[+Ian1959]

'Thumbs down' is open to real abuse, thumbs up or decline rating would be better.

[+ADTCacheur]

Yes.

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

Conversely, if 'everyone' rated another certain cache at 1.5 stars, you might prefer to spend your time elsewhere.

 

In my local area, I'll find them all.

When I'm on vacation, I would like to know what the locals (in general) think about a particular cache.

Since my time is limited, I want the cream of the crop.

[rant]If 'everyone' voted one way, you're likely the TTF! The problem: 3 people thought it was a nice hide and gave it ***** (or thumb up) but 20 people don't like LPCs or ***** difficulty or graveyard caches or something like that and gave it *(or thumb down). You're on the side of the 3 people, but you overlook it as a bad cache because others don't like that kind of find. At the same time, you see a cache with 4 1/2* and excitedly go off to find that nano in the parking meter. When you're out on vacation, a rating system won't be as useful as what we have now. If you don't like micros, don't hunt them, if you love night caches, hunt them. The locals may love their night caches, but you hate them or vice versa. You would be getting what the general population likes, not necessarily what you like, and changing that would require so much extra time and effort that could have been used to make multiple features we'd like instead of one feature 10% of us love, 15% of us hate, and the rest tolerate. Finally, I can easily see this scenario; some newb puts out a nice cache, but most of the people who hunt it don't like that kind of cache, or are elitists who rate it lower because the CO doesn't have 100 finds yet, and so the good cache gets a low rating. Now this newb either quits because (s)he feels like a failure, or goes out with a bang by swiping caches from people who gave him a bad rating. If you really want a rating system, the best way of doing it is to use a third party one, that way nobody gets hurt.[/rant]

[+ADTCacheur]

'Thumbs down' is open to real abuse, thumbs up or decline rating would be better.

+1

[drewmm]

'Thumbs down' is open to real abuse, thumbs up or decline rating would be better.

+1

 

This is already somewhat possible with bookmark lists.

[GOF and Bacall]

Yes.

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

Conversely, if 'everyone' rated another certain cache at 1.5 stars, you might prefer to spend your time elsewhere.

 

In my local area, I'll find them all.

When I'm on vacation, I would like to know what the locals (in general) think about a particular cache.

Since my time is limited, I want the cream of the crop.

[rant]If 'everyone' voted one way, you're likely the TTF! The problem: 3 people thought it was a nice hide and gave it ***** (or thumb up) but 20 people don't like LPCs or ***** difficulty or graveyard caches or something like that and gave it *(or thumb down). You're on the side of the 3 people, but you overlook it as a bad cache because others don't like that kind of find. At the same time, you see a cache with 4 1/2* and excitedly go off to find that nano in the parking meter. When you're out on vacation, a rating system won't be as useful as what we have now. If you don't like micros, don't hunt them, if you love night caches, hunt them. The locals may love their night caches, but you hate them or vice versa. You would be getting what the general population likes, not necessarily what you like, and changing that would require so much extra time and effort that could have been used to make multiple features we'd like instead of one feature 10% of us love, 15% of us hate, and the rest tolerate. Finally, I can easily see this scenario; some newb puts out a nice cache, but most of the people who hunt it don't like that kind of cache, or are elitists who rate it lower because the CO doesn't have 100 finds yet, and so the good cache gets a low rating. Now this newb either quits because (s)he feels like a failure, or goes out with a bang by swiping caches from people who gave him a bad rating. If you really want a rating system, the best way of doing it is to use a third party one, that way nobody gets hurt.[/rant]

 

Not that I see a rating system as a good thing, I don't, but I often see arguments that contain the statement "If you don't like micros, don't hunt them". The problem with that is that, as far as I can tell, few people hate micros. What we hate(yes, me included) is the scenic dumpster vistas, parking lot skirt lifters, and all the other assorted hides that can be listed as uninspired at best. It just so happens that nearly all of those are micros.

[+L0ne.R]

At the same time, you see a cache with 4 1/2* and excitedly go off to find that nano in the parking meter.

 

I highly doubt that a nano in a parking meter would get 4.5 stars unless there's more to it. Perhaps the parking meter is highly unusual, the location is really scenic, the nano is disguised in some unusual way....not just a blinkie attached to the meter. If there's something out of the ordinary, then I too would like to go find this nano that most people think is great. If it turns out to be a dud, I'm going to give it a 1 star and write a log that reflects the disappointment.

[+L0ne.R]

Yes.

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

Conversely, if 'everyone' rated another certain cache at 1.5 stars, you might prefer to spend your time elsewhere.

 

In my local area, I'll find them all.

When I'm on vacation, I would like to know what the locals (in general) think about a particular cache.

Since my time is limited, I want the cream of the crop.

[rant]If 'everyone' voted one way, you're likely the TTF! The problem: 3 people thought it was a nice hide and gave it ***** (or thumb up) but 20 people don't like LPCs or ***** difficulty or graveyard caches or something like that and gave it *(or thumb down). You're on the side of the 3 people, but you overlook it as a bad cache because others don't like that kind of find. At the same time, you see a cache with 4 1/2* and excitedly go off to find that nano in the parking meter. When you're out on vacation, a rating system won't be as useful as what we have now. If you don't like micros, don't hunt them, if you love night caches, hunt them. The locals may love their night caches, but you hate them or vice versa. You would be getting what the general population likes, not necessarily what you like, and changing that would require so much extra time and effort that could have been used to make multiple features we'd like instead of one feature 10% of us love, 15% of us hate, and the rest tolerate. Finally, I can easily see this scenario; some newb puts out a nice cache, but most of the people who hunt it don't like that kind of cache, or are elitists who rate it lower because the CO doesn't have 100 finds yet, and so the good cache gets a low rating. Now this newb either quits because (s)he feels like a failure, or goes out with a bang by swiping caches from people who gave him a bad rating. If you really want a rating system, the best way of doing it is to use a third party one, that way nobody gets hurt.[/rant]

 

Not that I see a rating system as a good thing, I don't, but I often see arguments that contain the statement "If you don't like micros, don't hunt them". The problem with that is that, as far as I can tell, few people hate micros. What we hate(yes, me included) is the scenic dumpster vistas, parking lot skirt lifters, and all the other assorted hides that can be listed as uninspired at best. It just so happens that nearly all of those are micros.

 

Exactly. +1

[+narcissa]

 

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

 

 

According to what logic? If "everyone" likes a movie, I can pretty much bet that I won't be all that impressed. If "everyone" likes a restaurant, I can pretty much bet that it won't satisfy my hankering for something spicy and exotic.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

But if 'everyone' rates a certain cache as five stars, you can pretty much bet it's one you would enjoy.

 

 

According to what logic? If "everyone" likes a movie, I can pretty much bet that I won't be all that impressed. If "everyone" likes a restaurant, I can pretty much bet that it won't satisfy my hankering for something spicy and exotic.

Yeah!

James Cameron only makes eye candy not movies.

Sam Raimi the greatest director of all time, ruined Spider-Man and destroyed Venom.

Coppola let me down when he dared call his version Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Critically Acclaimed = mass market bull.

 

However, I have come up with a method of using mean ratings on movies that only fails about 1 out of 30.

The same would eventually work for caches. Tho I would rather add cachers to a preferred raters list so that I get a ratings based on opinions I actually respect.

[+Markwell]

Well I did post something about this back on May 21...

 

This type of rating system would work only if it were linked to an affinity system AND all cache raters were to keep up with constantly reprioritizing their found caches. I don't imagine that the latter would happen. I think that many people would mark a cache as a 'favorite' and not think about it again. This would result in future 'better' caches not getting their share of 'favorites' and result in some caches being noted as faves even though they had long since lost their luster do to lack of maintenance, changing conditions, or changes in the 'fancy' of the rater and community.

A comparison: Ask people who the best president of the U.S. was. I googled and found this wiki article

• A 1948 Schlesinger poll had the top three as Lincoln, Washington and FDR.
  
• A 1982 Chicago Tribune poll had the top three as Lincoln, FDR, Washington.
  
• A 2000 Wall-Street Journal poll had the top three as Washington, Lincoln, FDR.
  
• A 2002 Siena poll had the top three as FDR, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt (Washington was 4).
  

These polls were from different sources and different time periods. And yet those polled came up with three presidents that are well-respected in history, and marked as some of the best presidents in many sources. Individual people may think that Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson should have been in the top list, but most people would at least agree that FDR, Lincoln and Washington were pretty good presidents. If I only had time to read about 3 presidents' histories, I'd most likely choose FDR, Lincoln and Washington.

[Northwoods Tom]

Interesting discussion. Not a true veteran at this sport, but have encountered many caches that would rank at both ends of the spectrum. Some may consider it a cheat, but often the logs give you the information on the quality of the hide, view, site, etc. I have often gone out of my way to find certain caches after reading these and have not been disappointed yet. I think if more people wrote more then TFTC in a log, we could personally learn more.

[+Markwell]

On my last Pocket Query of the GONIL Region (counties surrounding the Chicago metropolitan area) there were 7,837 non-archived caches. My recreational time is limited. If I were someone "just passing through" Chicago, I'm NOT going to spend recreational time reading over 7800 cache pages just to find ones that I really like. Also, at least in Chicago, writing an unfavorable log on the page will most likely result in your log being deleted.