coolness rating system?

[+lachupa]

Cruising through the forums I ran across two things that made me wonder if there has ever been any sort of rating system for favorite caches.

 

One was this one in the forum on micros: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...11-d2edd6a82f6e

 

and this one on putting a cache in a cave: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1JBP7

 

One of them looks seven shades of awesome and the other one has to be some kind of sick joke.

 

My point is that I'd like to have some way of running a query on the top rated caches - like a "I've you're ever in ___ you have GOT to see this one" kind of query.

 

Is there anything like that out there?

 

I also like the idea of the oldest ones - sort of in tribute to those who came before.

[knowschad]

I asked that question once.

 

Seriously... that is a very hotly debated topic. Not long ago, a Facebook "I like it" link was added to all cache pages. People in general did not like it, so it was removed in the last release. Groundspeak has stated that they intend to institute something like that at some point in the future, but exactly how it is implimented, if at all, remains to be seen.

[+L0ne.R]

See the feedback forums: 5 Star Cache Rating for Finders where you can add your vote and comment. Over 2000 cachers like the idea.

[+BlueDeuce]

How long has it been since we've had a ratings debate? Seems like it's been a while.

 

Edited August 6, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+BlueDeuce]

See the feedback forums: 5 Star Cache Rating for Finders where you can add your vote and comment. Over 2000 cachers like the idea.

 

I used to be dead set against them but now I'm ready to see one implemented.

[knowschad]

How long has it been since we've had a ratings debate? Seems like it's been a while.

 

 

 

[+roziecakes]

Please note that the folks here are not attacking you. This topic does come up a lot. There is a geocaching rating script for greasemonkey, I just can't remember the URL offhand, but I think if you search rating you might be able to come up with a thread that mentions it.

 

Also, even if the search function doesn't work here on the forum, you can punch your search term into google plus "Groundspeak forum" and it works much better.

 

Please again, not attacking you; offering help.

[+Walts Hunting]

You also have to realize that ratings would be based on the particular person. I might rate a cache as not worth doing and the next guy/gal goes best experience of my life.

[+roziecakes]

You also have to realize that ratings would be based on the particular person. I might rate a cache as not worth doing and the next guy/gal goes best experience of my life.

 

That's true, and someone may solicit their buddies to give all their caches the best ratings.

[+Zander87]

It seem like pretty good idea to me ... but someone else may have diffrent say about it ...

Edited August 6, 2010 by Zander87

[GOF and Bacall]

See the feedback forums: 5 Star Cache Rating for Finders where you can add your vote and comment. Over 2000 cachers like the idea.

 

And how many don't like the idea? That is the problem with the feedback system as it is now.

[GOF and Bacall]

Please note that the folks here are not attacking you. This topic does come up a lot. There is a geocaching rating script for greasemonkey, I just can't remember the URL offhand, but I think if you search rating you might be able to come up with a thread that mentions it.

 

Also, even if the search function doesn't work here on the forum, you can punch your search term into google plus "Groundspeak forum" and it works much better.

 

Please again, not attacking you; offering help.

 

It's sad that you feel the need to stress so strongly that you aren't attacking someone. There was nothing in your post that should have made you feel such a need. Oh well. That's the new "kinder, gentler" forum we have now.

[GOF and Bacall]

You also have to realize that ratings would be based on the particular person. I might rate a cache as not worth doing and the next guy/gal goes best experience of my life.

 

That's true, and someone may solicit their buddies to give all their caches the best ratings.

 

Or rate every cache by someone they don't like as a one star disaster when they aren't.

[+roziecakes]

Please note that the folks here are not attacking you. This topic does come up a lot. There is a geocaching rating script for greasemonkey, I just can't remember the URL offhand, but I think if you search rating you might be able to come up with a thread that mentions it.

 

Also, even if the search function doesn't work here on the forum, you can punch your search term into google plus "Groundspeak forum" and it works much better.

 

Please again, not attacking you; offering help.

 

It's sad that you feel the need to stress so strongly that you aren't attacking someone. There was nothing in your post that should have made you feel such a need. Oh well. That's the new "kinder, gentler" forum we have now.

 

I did so because the person said "coolness rating system?, just a thought - don't attack me" as the title of their post, which made me realize that she is nervous about being attacked, and I wanted her to know that I had the best intentions with what I posted.

Edited August 6, 2010 by nymphnsatyr

[+DragonsWest]

[+roziecakes]

Wow! What is that machine used for?!

[+BlueDeuce]

...nevermind, being silly.

Edited August 6, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[GOF and Bacall]

Please note that the folks here are not attacking you. This topic does come up a lot. There is a geocaching rating script for greasemonkey, I just can't remember the URL offhand, but I think if you search rating you might be able to come up with a thread that mentions it.

 

Also, even if the search function doesn't work here on the forum, you can punch your search term into google plus "Groundspeak forum" and it works much better.

 

Please again, not attacking you; offering help.

 

It's sad that you feel the need to stress so strongly that you aren't attacking someone. There was nothing in your post that should have made you feel such a need. Oh well. That's the new "kinder, gentler" forum we have now.

 

I did so because the person said "coolness rating system?, just a thought - don't attack me" as the title of their post, which made me realize that she is nervous about being attacked, and I wanted her to know that I had the best intentions with what I posted.

 

I got that. I just think it is sad that we have been brought to the point where we have to worry that someone will automatically assume we are being nasty if we don't bend over backwards to pat their hand and apologize for offenses we haven't committed.

[GOF and Bacall]

Wow! What is that machine used for?!

 

Proctology exams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK. So it is actually a mining machine.

[+roziecakes]

I got that. I just think it is sad that we have been brought to the point where we have to worry that someone will automatically assume we are being nasty if we don't bend over backwards to pat their hand and apologize for offenses we haven't committed.

 

Yeah, you do make a good point... I admit that I do feel cautious in regards to hurting others' feelings on the board right now.

[GOF and Bacall]

I got that. I just think it is sad that we have been brought to the point where we have to worry that someone will automatically assume we are being nasty if we don't bend over backwards to pat their hand and apologize for offenses we haven't committed.

 

Yeah, you do make a good point... I admit that I do feel cautious in regards to hurting others' feelings on the board right now.

 

Yeah, me too. It still is a sad state of affairs.

 

I guess we better get back to the topic though. Don't want to tempt the mods to be less than kind to us.

[+tozainamboku]

Wow! What is that machine used for?!

Obviously not for hiding or finding geocaches

If a shovel, trowel or other "pointy" object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

 

OT

 

Not sure how you could define coolness that everyone agrees on. As far as two caches given in the OP. Is there really all that much difference between bat guano and ....?

Edited August 6, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+Ike 13]

I'm iffy on the 5 star system. I like the rating system Groundspeak is considering. The only issue I see is that some (maybe a lot of) people will never go back and rank caches they have previously found. I am trying to get a Best of series that would highlight all the great local caches, and I have asked local cachers to send me their top 12 geocaches. Out of at least 20 real active cachers I have 4 responses.

 

GC vote is another option, but it too relies on others in your region to actively use it.

[+debaere]

Personally for a rating system I would like to see a series of questions the log form Something like:

 

Cache difficulty rating is correct: [cache was easier than rated, cache was perfectly rated, cache was harder than rated]

Cache terrain rating is correct: [same as above]

 

Given the chance I would do this cache again: [yes, no, maybe]

 

etc.

 

Exact questions and wording would need to be perfected, but it would give future cachers a better idea of what to expect when attempting the cache.

 

Having the ratings on the log page make them more likely to be completed by cachers, and at a time when the cache details are foremost in their brain.

[GOF and Bacall]

Wow! What is that machine used for?!

Obviously not for hiding or finding geocaches

 

 

What business is it of yours what I drive to a geocache? And yes, it is a bitch to parallel park.

[+lachupa]

When I said don't attack me its because I have no idea what past history there might be on this. I didn't want to wade into another "hey I know, let's bring back virtual caches" can of worms.

 

I'm sure that there might be some personal bias mixed into any ratings system you come up with. You'd get that with any ratings though. If you've ever look at hotel reviews you'll be shocked how one person can think a place was great and someone else acts like they wandered into Dante's inferno.

 

Everyone is looking for different things. If you're out on a monster number hunt you're fine with hide-a-key micros in guard rails.

 

I ran across this on a road trip a couple of weeks ago: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...0c-96f1a0099038

 

It was in a farm and ranch museum in Oklahoma. I live in a city. My grandparents were ranchers in Texas so walking through this area was a little trip down memory lane. My husband had never seen some of the things there up close. Just down from my log was this, "Coordinates are off. NO TB. Someone took both of them and didn't log them. This cache took a while to find due to coordinate inaccuracy. Kind of annoyed that we wasted our time on our road trip from Illinois to California."

 

ouch

 

Now I don't know for sure if the coordinates were perfect or not. It may have been an issue of bounce from a building. I used the coordinates to get me in the general area then the hint made it so obvious that I didn't really need it.

 

To each his own I suppose, that log almost made me skip this one so I'm glad we decided to give it a shot.

 

Maybe the trick there is the questionnaire or a best cache contest. What about a link showing what other caches a particular personal also reviewed. There are some friends of mine who have such wildly different tastes in movies than I do that there is no way I'll recommend a movie to them.

 

rambling

Friday night - I have a 5k tomorrow morning. I'm only online to check the train schedule so I must away

 

have a good weekend everyone

[+L0ne.R]

The only issue I see is that some (maybe a lot of) people will never go back and rank caches they have previously found.

 

GC vote is another option, but it too relies on others in your region to actively use it.

 

I use GC Vote and have gone back to vote on caches back to about 6 months ago. After that I'm not sure I remember the experience accurately enough unless they were exceptional and it's reflected in my log. I don't think I'd go back more then a year because some caches change. For instance a cache that was initially planted in a stump with a coon skin cap covering it, 2 years later...no more coon skin cap but the cache remains. What was once a clever unique 4.5 star cache becomes an ordinary 3 star cache. If there are enough votes in time the rating will diminish to match the current status but if I go back and rate it 4.5 star because in 2008 when I found it it was a 4 1/2 star experience that would skew the reality of the actual current cache experience - a decent average cache in a stump on a rail trail.

[+BuckeyeClan]

I remember reading a rather long, fairly comprehensive thread about this a couple of years ago. I'm pretty sure it was this one, but I didn't read all 5 pages to be sure. There's been a bunch of different ideas, but people go 'round and 'round on how they could possibly be implemented. Too complicated, people won't use it. How do you account for different tastes, different expectations, etc. How do you keep people from abusing the system. And on and on.

 

Personally, I'm not against a rating system, as long as it isn't mandatory. I'm just not sure how well it would actually work.

[+briansnat]

I'm iffy on the 5 star system. I like the rating system Groundspeak is considering. The only issue I see is that some (maybe a lot of) people will never go back and rank caches they have previously found. I am trying to get a Best of series that would highlight all the great local caches, and I have asked local cachers to send me their top 12 geocaches. Out of at least 20 real active cachers I have 4 responses.

 

GC vote is another option, but it too relies on others in your region to actively use it.

 

I'm not keen on a star system. They tend to work if you get a lot of people rating them. But some people are clueless when it comes to rating systems. I see a product given a poor rating all the time on Amazon and other sites for reasons unrelated to the product. Shipping took too long, package was damaged in transit, it wasn't what they ordered, etc. and these things can skew ratings.

 

I can see people giving a cache a bad rating because it rained that day, or they returned from from the cache to find a flat tire, or they stepped in dog poo on the way.

 

A "liked" system is a bit better. A "15 finders liked this cache" sort of thing. But being implemented at this late stage of the game it could give a poor impression of some older caches. There could be a cache with 250 finds going back to 2001, with only 15 likes. It may appear as if it had a really poor percentage of people liking it even though it may be a excellent cache.

Edited August 7, 2010 by briansnat

[+DragonsWest]

Wow! What is that machine used for?!

 

It's a bucket-wheel excavator. You can learn more about it here. And see several of them in action here.

 

I've been in a few of these rather subjective questions on how do you rate a geocache. The problem is there are so many variables. While we have only Difficult and Terrain for the hide, we could evaluative the cache experience by many more:

 

Choice of location: Poor - Excellent

Container condition: Poor - Excellent

Personal experience of finding this cache: Enjoyable - Miserable

 

Once that's all aggregated for a geocache, how does the prospective seeker evaluate it for a cache run?

 

Give me all caches (according to present PQ criteria) which are in at least good locations, in at least good condition and were at least Didn't suck?

 

While container condition is least subjective and personal experience most subjective, I don't think there's a chance of implementation of such a system, as one person's good may be another person's bad ("just another stupid LPC" or "another fun LPC!")

[+BlueDeuce]

A "liked" system is a bit better. A "15 finders liked this cache" sort of thing. But being implemented at this late stage of the game it could give a poor impression of some older caches. There could be a cache with 250 finds going back to 2001, with only 15 likes. It may appear as if it had a really poor percentage of people liking it even though it may be a excellent cache.

 

Yeah, but what type of rating system could take that into account? You have to start the program at some point. Maybe only on newly published caches with a join-option for those owners who are willing to include an older cache into the system?

 

If there is an older cache that I really like and recommend to people, I'm going to access that cache page and give it my review. Not everyone will but if 5 people give it a top rating that's probably just as good as a cache that had 20 mixed reviews.

 

Heck, a new cache isn't going to have a decent sampling right away either.

[+Nebrcacher]

I'm iffy on the 5 star system. I like the rating system Groundspeak is considering. The only issue I see is that some (maybe a lot of) people will never go back and rank caches they have previously found. I am trying to get a Best of series that would highlight all the great local caches, and I have asked local cachers to send me their top 12 geocaches. Out of at least 20 real active cachers I have 4 responses.

 

GC vote is another option, but it too relies on others in your region to actively use it.

 

I'm not keen on a star system. They tend to work if you get a lot of people rating them. But some people are clueless when it comes to rating systems. I see a product given a poor rating all the time on Amazon and other sites for reasons unrelated to the product. Shipping took too long, package was damaged in transit, it wasn't what they ordered, etc. and these things can skew ratings.

 

I can see people giving a cache a bad rating because it rained that day, or they returned from from the cache to find a flat tire, or they stepped in dog poo on the way.

 

A "liked" system is a bit better. A "15 finders liked this cache" sort of thing. But being implemented at this late stage of the game it could give a poor impression of some older caches. There could be a cache with 250 finds going back to 2001, with only 15 likes. It may appear as if it had a really poor percentage of people liking it even though it may be a excellent cache.

 

So then use a percentage system: 15 out of 16 geocachers who rated this cache liked it. or give it a 92% "like" rate or something like that.

 

A rating system will always be somewhat subjective. I will do with that information what I like. But, I feel that I would like to have that information. I'm a big boy and can make my own decisions. It is up to me if I choose to use it or ignore it. Most geocachers seem pretty honest to me.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Nebrcacher

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I used to be against them until I realized that I wouldn't have to pay any attention to them, so go for it!

[I!]

One way a rating system could (just conceivably) work is to have an unobtrusive (and optional) question appear on the web site asking you: "please place these four caches visited recently in preference order". Thus the web site gradually learns a ranking of caches.

[+humboldt flier]

This needs to be posted be posted on the weed eating thread LOL

[+bflentje]

I used to be against them until I realized that I wouldn't have to pay any attention to them, so go for it!

 

I used to be completely for a rating system. In fact, I wrote the website ratethiscache.com. But now having run it for a couple of years, I am changing my position. Or, should I say, I like the idea of ratings but I am abandoning my efforts as generally speaking, not enough people care. People generally do not see the rating information on the cache listing or they just don't give a rip. For your run of the mill cache, the hard core numbers cachers will go get the cache regardless. For the weekender, they're not in tune enough to even notice. Any REAL COOL cache will be heard about through word of mouth. And the biggest thing I've noticed about geocachers that do use my rating system is that the first thing they do when they set up their cache to be rated is that they give their own cache a vote.. 5 stars of course. That happens nearly 95% of the time.

 

So, on that note, the www.ratethiscache.com website is up for a short life. Unless someone wants to buy the work out from me for a very fair fee, the website will go away by the year's end. If you're interested, you get ownership of the source, database and any artwork. Does not include hosting.

[+L0ne.R]

I used to be against them until I realized that I wouldn't have to pay any attention to them, so go for it!

 

I used to be completely for a rating system. In fact, I wrote the website ratethiscache.com. But now having run it for a couple of years, I am changing my position. Or, should I say, I like the idea of ratings but I am abandoning my efforts as generally speaking, not enough people care. People generally do not see the rating information on the cache listing or they just don't give a rip. For your run of the mill cache, the hard core numbers cachers will go get the cache regardless. For the weekender, they're not in tune enough to even notice. Any REAL COOL cache will be heard about through word of mouth. And the biggest thing I've noticed about geocachers that do use my rating system is that the first thing they do when they set up their cache to be rated is that they give their own cache a vote.. 5 stars of course. That happens nearly 95% of the time.

 

So, on that note, the www.ratethiscache.com website is up for a short life. Unless someone wants to buy the work out from me for a very fair fee, the website will go away by the year's end. If you're interested, you get ownership of the source, database and any artwork. Does not include hosting.

 

Wow, that's interesting. There's a lesson to be learned from your experience. Groundspeak needs a rating system where the CO cannot rate their own cache. And I would add a finder can't rate a cache unless they find it.

 

One thing about Groundspeak creating their own system, it could be filterable. I would expect that we could use a PQ to filter out caches rated highly. Currently GCVote will float the highest scored caches to the top when looking at the map feature - I find that very useful. Apparently with GSAK one can filter for the highest rated caches but I'd like to be able to do this via PQs.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Lone R

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wow! What is that machine used for?!

 

Extracting the log from a nano.

 

At least, that's what I'd use it for.

[+buttaskotch]

Isn't the new LIKE button enough?

[+lachupa]

Isn't the new LIKE button enough?

 

Am I missing something? I swear I don't see a LIKE button.

[knowschad]

Isn't the new LIKE button enough?

That was removed with the last software release. I liked that release!

[+BuckeyeClan]

Isn't the new LIKE button enough?

 

Am I missing something? I swear I don't see a LIKE button.

 

I think I read that it got removed in the last update. A couple of months ago TPTB added a Facebook Like button to each cache page. There was a big hubbub about it, a lot of people apparently didn't like it, and now it sounds as if it is gone.

[+BulldogBlitz]

i'm not sure that enough people would use a system like that. you could put down "like"... today i "like" mint chocolate chip ice cream. if i ate it every day for the next 2 years i might not "like" it.....

 

if i find a micro under a lamppost today, i might like it... but if i find one every day for the next 2 years... hehe.

 

also... i might be one of those weirdos that likes the urban hide.... or likes hides by a certain person... or what not. just because i "like" it doesn't mean that you like it the same. actually, come to think of it, i like to walk up to GZ without having to beat my way through thorns, PI, nettles, fire ants, and 100 degree heat... look for a few minutes... grab the cache without thinking a snake is down in that same hole... sign the log and move on to the next. so maybe LPC is right for me.

[+Zwack_&_Irish_Eyes]

And how do you decide what makes a good Cache?

 

I was in Lincoln City caching twice recently. The first cache I found there was in an unexpected container, and was great... The second was in the same container... the second trip (caching wasn't the reason for going to Lincoln City either time) I parked the car, looked at the GPS, walked over to the cache (same hide) and found it instantly. I did the rest of them on foot for that run, and the walk was very enjoyable... But the monotony of the unusual hides made them very predictable.

 

I'm not saying that there was anything wrong with how they were rated, just that the first one was a "cooler" cache than the rest because I wasn't quite expecting the hide. But after that the subsequent ones became even easier to find.

 

Z.

[+sbell111]

i'm not sure that enough people would use a system like that. you could put down "like"... today i "like" mint chocolate chip ice cream. if i ate it every day for the next 2 years i might not "like" it.....

 

if i find a micro under a lamppost today, i might like it... but if i find one every day for the next 2 years... hehe.

 

also... i might be one of those weirdos that likes the urban hide.... or likes hides by a certain person... or what not. just because i "like" it doesn't mean that you like it the same. actually, come to think of it, i like to walk up to GZ without having to beat my way through thorns, PI, nettles, fire ants, and 100 degree heat... look for a few minutes... grab the cache without thinking a snake is down in that same hole... sign the log and move on to the next. so maybe LPC is right for me.

Similarly, a cache that you liked two years ago may have changed and degraded to one that you absolutely hate today. Not only are ratings completely subjective, they are perishable.

Edited August 9, 2010 by sbell111

[+GeoGeeBee]

When I said don't attack me its because I have no idea what past history there might be on this.

 

Gee, if only there was some way to find out if a topic had already been discussed. Hmmm...

 

Posts that start out with "don't attack me" are very much like statements that start out "No offense, but..." In the latter case, the person clearly knows he is about to say something offensive.

 

If you really had "no idea what past history there might be," then why would you think anyone would attack you? Most people who start these threads seem to think they are the first one to suggest it, and they are surprised to find out that not everyone thinks it's a great idea.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to have known before making the original post that this idea might result in people flaming you.

 

Maybe we should invent a label for posts and posters that seem to be intended to create controversy.

[+bflentje]

When I said don't attack me its because I have no idea what past history there might be on this.

 

Gee, if only there was some way to find out if a topic had already been discussed. Hmmm...

 

Posts that start out with "don't attack me" are very much like statements that start out "No offense, but..." In the latter case, the person clearly knows he is about to say something offensive.

 

If you really had "no idea what past history there might be," then why would you think anyone would attack you? Most people who start these threads seem to think they are the first one to suggest it, and they are surprised to find out that not everyone thinks it's a great idea.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to have known before making the original post that this idea might result in people flaming you.

 

Maybe we should invent a label for posts and posters that seem to be intended to create controversy.

 

If anyone needs to be flamed here I think it is GeoGeeBee. The rant is completely off topic and you stating the obvious about the OP is actually more telling about one's character than the OP's post is.

[+slukster]

When I said don't attack me its because I have no idea what past history there might be on this.

 

Gee, if only there was some way to find out if a topic had already been discussed. Hmmm...

 

Posts that start out with "don't attack me" are very much like statements that start out "No offense, but..." In the latter case, the person clearly knows he is about to say something offensive.

 

If you really had "no idea what past history there might be," then why would you think anyone would attack you? Most people who start these threads seem to think they are the first one to suggest it, and they are surprised to find out that not everyone thinks it's a great idea.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to have known before making the original post that this idea might result in people flaming you.

 

Maybe we should invent a label for posts and posters that seem to be intended to create controversy.

Geobain... Is that you? LOL

Edited August 9, 2010 by slukster

[+roziecakes]

 

Similarly, a cache that you liked two years ago may have changed and degraded to one that you absolutely hate today. Not only are ratings completely subjective, they are perishable.

 

Ah yes, that's an interesting thought. I know for a fact that many of the caches that I thought were clever in '06 are caches that I consider to be run-of-the-mill nowadays.

 

I'm just so torn on a rating system. It could be great, or it could really have the potential for abuse or inaccurate information...

[+sbell111]

When I said don't attack me its because I have no idea what past history there might be on this.

 

Gee, if only there was some way to find out if a topic had already been discussed. Hmmm...

 

Posts that start out with "don't attack me" are very much like statements that start out "No offense, but..." In the latter case, the person clearly knows he is about to say something offensive.

 

If you really had "no idea what past history there might be," then why would you think anyone would attack you? Most people who start these threads seem to think they are the first one to suggest it, and they are surprised to find out that not everyone thinks it's a great idea.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to have known before making the original post that this idea might result in people flaming you.

 

Maybe we should invent a label for posts and posters that seem to be intended to create controversy.

Geobain... Is that you? LOL

Who is this 'Geobain'?