Cache rating system

[+Washingtonirving81]

I was driving home after a particularly memorable cache the other day and it got me to thinking, why don’t I do more unique or outstanding caches. And my answer was I never know if I’ll be going after a “run of the mill park and grab” or if it will turn out to be an excellent cache. My idea is that some sort of rating system for caches. Maybe like multiple categories such as camo, location, originality and difficulty. It could be a 1 to 5 star rating system. This would just allow the opportunity on a day when you have a few hours to burn to go after one of those more difficult but truly original caches. Anyone have any feedback on this idea?

[+tozainamboku]

I was driving home after a particularly memorable cache the other day and it got me to thinking, why don’t I do more unique or outstanding caches. And my answer was I never know if I’ll be going after a “run of the mill park and grab” or if it will turn out to be an excellent cache. My idea is that some sort of rating system for caches. Maybe like multiple categories such as camo, location, originality and difficulty. It could be a 1 to 5 star rating system. This would just allow the opportunity on a day when you have a few hours to burn to go after one of those more difficult but truly original caches. Anyone have any feedback on this idea?

Well at least you're not proposing as straight 1 to 5 star rating on whether you like the cache. But even trying the figure out what categories to rate that would work for most people is going to be hard. Some might enjoy cleverly cammo'ed caches while others get tired of the same types of cammo over and over. One person may rate the cache high for cammo and another will rate it low. Some may like urban locations with lots of muggles were others prefer a cache in the woods (with lots of bugs). A newbie may find every hide original, while and experienced cacher may find only a few caches deserve a high originality rating. Sometimes people want to be challenged by a difficult cache, other times they may think "this is a needle-in-the-haystack, I'd rather not waste my time looking for this". I don't think two cachers are alike - so I'm not sure what ratings might help. Most of the people who propose a rating system are convinced there are some caches that are just so bad everyone will rate them low (cruddy container hidden by a smelly dumpster) or so great everyone will rate them high. There certainly have been caches that everyone talks about. I kinda like the proposal that would allow each geocacher to recommend a limited number of geocaches. You can then score a geocache by how often it gets recommended. Now some cache that are really great but get found less often may get a lower score - but even if these get recommended just two or three times they will stand out if you combine this with other factors. For example, high terrain caches are found less often - so if you are looking for a highly recommended high terrain cache you might look for one with just 2 or more recommendations. If you are looking for a highly recommended park and grab, you might use a higher threshold.

[+CapeDoc]

There is already something you can use: GC Vote

It is a more basic system than your suggestions, simply a rating scale from 1 to 5.

It is very easy to use and is very visual, letting you quickly see what others have rated the cache. It shows the average rating of all the votes, but a breakdown is also given too.

The main objection to such a system is that individual cachers will have different opinions on caches. This is true, but in my experience with using the system, even with just a few votes on each cache, one gets a good "feeling" for the quality of the cache. If there have been just 3 or 4 votes and the cache only gets 1 or 2 stars on average, you can safely put the cache on your ignore list.

[+niraD]

You may be interested in the following suggestions on the feedback site:

Recommend Caches

Introduce a cache award system

Create a cache feedback/rating system

[+L0ne.R]

There is already something you can use: GC Vote

It is a more basic system than your suggestions, simply a rating scale from 1 to 5.

It is very easy to use and is very visual, letting you quickly see what others have rated the cache. It shows the average rating of all the votes, but a breakdown is also given too.

The main objection to such a system is that individual cachers will have different opinions on caches. This is true, but in my experience with using the system, even with just a few votes on each cache, one gets a good "feeling" for the quality of the cache. If there have been just 3 or 4 votes and the cache only gets 1 or 2 stars on average, you can safely put the cache on your ignore list.

 

GC Vote is an excellent greasemonkey script rating tool. Problem with it is, in some areas you may be the only one using it. But if you start using it, maybe others will follow. In my area there are a handful of people using it and I've found that even a small group of voters is still very useful for finding a few great caches. What I like to do is find a 4 or 5 star rated cache and start my geocaching day at that cache, then pick up caches nearby and along a route.

 

I would like to see it incorporated into Cache Sense (formerly Cacheberry). It's incorporated into BlackStar (a free blackberry app) but I've got to set aside some time to figure out how to use BSt properly. I think it's incorporated into GSAK, which I haven't purchased.

 

Ideally, I want to see an in-house rating system that's filterable with PQs. GS says (via the feedback sites and on the forums) that they are considering a system. No news yet about any further development beyond 'consideration'. So in the meantime, try GC Vote.

[+Washingtonirving81]

I really like the cache award system idea.

[+dfx]

i stopped using gcvote because it kept slowing down my browser and kept breaking with site updates (like many of the GM scripts do).

[+The Chaos Crew]

I use GCVote, and it hasn’t let me down yet. Although few people are using it in the UK, those caches that I have chosen on the basis of a high GC Vote score have always been well deserving of their high marks.

 

I just wish more people would use it as there are still many UK caches unrated.

[+L0ne.R]

i stopped using gcvote because it kept slowing down my browser and kept breaking with site updates (like many of the GM scripts do).

 

I had that problem (slowing the browser) the first time I loaded gcvote onto my laptop but subsequent updates have been fine (I use Firefox and Chrome - don't like IE since it's always way too slow for me even without greasemonkey scripts). It hasn't broken in the last update of the site, which was a surprise because I expected it to. I find the GCVote updates to be quick and painless and every time it's updated I find some nice new features. I particular like how the highest rated caches float to the top when looking at the Map It feature.

[+L0ne.R]

I really like the cache award system idea.

 

At first I was mostly in favour of a rating system that would let me know what the cream of the crop caches were - 4 and 5 star caches. But now that I've been using GCVote I also want to know about the 3 star caches. Average caches are good - those usually provide a decent experience. I want to avoid anything that rates less then a 3.

 

One idea I had was an Olympics-style rating system - bronze/silver/gold ratings.

 

 

3 stars = Bronze Signal Award , 4 stars = Silver Signal Award, 5 stars = Golden Signal Award.

[+Washingtonirving81]

An Olympic style rating system would work for me but the question is how do you keep cachers from rating everything high? Although I guess there is a critic is us all just waiting to get out. After researching the GCvote (which I didn’t know existed until this am) I’m not really a fan of it because I haven’t ran across a single cache in my area that is rated. Also it can’t be used with phone browsers because it has to be downloaded. A rating system needs to be developed that is incorporated with logging in your find.

[+L0ne.R]

An Olympic style rating system would work for me but the question is how do you keep cachers from rating everything high?

 

Another site that I'm a member of, has a Diamond award system that uses a voting pattern algorithm. So it's do-able, i.e. prevent people from rating every thing high. In my area, GCVote is being used as intended.

[+GeoGeeBee]

What an awesome idea! I wonder why no one has ever suggested it before?

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

Reading the logs tells me all I need. If there are a lot of "tftc" than it's most likely unexciting. Even cachers that don't normally write long logs will express how great they thought one is.

[+L0ne.R]

Reading the logs tells me all I need. If there are a lot of "tftc" than it's most likely unexciting. Even cachers that don't normally write long logs will express how great they thought one is.

 

Then a rating system won't be useful for you and you would not use it and there would be no obligation for you to use it. But there's quite a few cachers who would love an in-house rating system and would prefer it to reading 1000s of logs.

[+sbell111]

An Olympic style rating system would work for me but the question is how do you keep cachers from rating everything high?

Also, the system must be able to account for changes to the cache over time. I've yet to see a scheme promoted that would adequetely do this.

[+addisonbr]

I've found the rating systems I use in other systems (Yelp, Apple's App Store, etc.) can be helpful, even when considering all of the flaws mentioned (limitations of a star system, biases in ratings, changes in the item over time, etc.).

[+Washingtonirving81]

I would also like to have the ability to sort cache results by the quality rating much like I can sort by size and difficulty. (I know, I want everything) There are just some days that I have a few hours to burn and I want to hunt an exceptional cache.

[+Chokecherry]

I've found the rating systems I use in other systems (Yelp, Apple's App Store, etc.) can be helpful, even when considering all of the flaws mentioned (limitations of a star system, biases in ratings, changes in the item over time, etc.).

 

I find any shopping site's rating system helpful and many are just a simple 5 star rating system with comment areas. The general log is ample room to leave any pertinent comments and the 5 stars give me ample information. There will always be outliers and some people prefer one type more than another or whatever. But I could quickly see where the majority of people are falling. If everyone visiting the cache is rating it poorly, knowing that different folks like different things, I can probably be assured it's not that great of a cache and to not make special effort to go to it.

[+L0ne.R]

An Olympic style rating system would work for me but the question is how do you keep cachers from rating everything high?

Also, the system must be able to account for changes to the cache over time. I've yet to see a scheme promoted that would adequetely do this.

 

Maybe this could work.... ratings older then 1 year drop off the log.

[+narcissa]

Everyone has different likes and dislikes when it comes to geocaches. I absolutely love geocaches that others loathe. There's simply no way to make an objective "quality" rating that gives reliable results.

 

I use a Greasemonkey script called "VIP List" that provides a small list of links to logs written by trusted geocachers I've selected. If I want to know whether or not a cache is worth my time, I look to see what my friends have said about it.

[+Washingtonirving81]

Everyone has different likes and dislikes when it comes to geocaches. I absolutely love geocaches that others loathe. There's simply no way to make an objective "quality" rating that gives reliable results.

 

I use a Greasemonkey script called "VIP List" that provides a small list of links to logs written by trusted geocachers I've selected. If I want to know whether or not a cache is worth my time, I look to see what my friends have said about it.

 

Everyone may have different likes and dislikes but you still know if a cache is particularly exceptionally done rather you like it or not.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Everyone has different likes and dislikes when it comes to geocaches. I absolutely love geocaches that others loathe. There's simply no way to make an objective "quality" rating that gives reliable results.

 

I use a Greasemonkey script called "VIP List" that provides a small list of links to logs written by trusted geocachers I've selected. If I want to know whether or not a cache is worth my time, I look to see what my friends have said about it.

 

Everyone may have different likes and dislikes but you still know if a cache is particularly exceptionally done rather you like it or not.

 

People who like lamp post caches will rate them highly. People who don't like them will probably not look for them, and thus, will not rate them at all. So if I search for highly rated caches, the list that comes back is likely to include a bunch of LPC's.

 

A cache that requires a five-mile hike up a mountain, and ends in a spot with a breathtaking view, is going to be rated highly by everyone who finds it. But it isn't going to be found nearly as often as the LPC in the WallyWorld parking lot.

 

Any rating system that will return the same rating for both the mountainside cache and the LPC is inherently flawed. But any simple rating system is likely to do just that. In fact, if the system takes into account the number of people who rated the cache highly, the LPC may even rank higher than the mountain cache.

 

I guess that's ok if you like parking lots.

[+L0ne.R]

Everyone has different likes and dislikes when it comes to geocaches. I absolutely love geocaches that others loathe. There's simply no way to make an objective "quality" rating that gives reliable results.

 

I use a Greasemonkey script called "VIP List" that provides a small list of links to logs written by trusted geocachers I've selected. If I want to know whether or not a cache is worth my time, I look to see what my friends have said about it.

 

Everyone may have different likes and dislikes but you still know if a cache is particularly exceptionally done rather you like it or not.

 

People who like lamp post caches will rate them highly. People who don't like them will probably not look for them, and thus, will not rate them at all. So if I search for highly rated caches, the list that comes back is likely to include a bunch of LPC's.

 

A cache that requires a five-mile hike up a mountain, and ends in a spot with a breathtaking view, is going to be rated highly by everyone who finds it. But it isn't going to be found nearly as often as the LPC in the WallyWorld parking lot.

 

Any rating system that will return the same rating for both the mountainside cache and the LPC is inherently flawed. But any simple rating system is likely to do just that. In fact, if the system takes into account the number of people who rated the cache highly, the LPC may even rank higher than the mountain cache.

 

I guess that's ok if you like parking lots.

 

Not seeing that happening with GCVote but then again not many are using it in my area. I did read a comment from someone using GCVote in Europe (Germany I believe) where it's quite popular and the above scenario wasn't happening there.

 

Anyway, if you find the rating system to be conceptually flawed there's no need for you to use it. Ignore it.

[+sbell111]

Anyway, if you find the rating system to be conceptually flawed there's no need for you to use it. Ignore it.

It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that is known to be conceptually flawed.

[+addisonbr]

Any rating system that will return the same rating for both the mountainside cache and the LPC is inherently flawed. But any simple rating system is likely to do just that. In fact, if the system takes into account the number of people who rated the cache highly, the LPC may even rank higher than the mountain cache.

 

I guess that's ok if you like parking lots.

Not seeing that happening with GCVote but then again not many are using it in my area.

FWIW, I am looking at my own caches as they are rated by GCVote and they don't seem crazy.

 

I have a magnetic micro outside a semi-tourist location that's rated 2.5, a small traditional in Central Park that's rated a 3.3, another traditional nearby with a gimmick and a clever camo job (if I say so myself) that's rated a 4.5, and a multi that takes about 6 hours to complete that has a 5.

 

That's about how I'd sort them myself. For my own listings, it seems to be working about as well as Yelp and the Apple App Store ratings do.

[+Kit Fox]

I have always felt that a simple rating system would be an abject failure due to the fact that cachers who like caches I consider lame would give said caches high ratings. I've consistently noticed the type of caches I enjoy have large photo galleries, long found it logs, and multiple "geocacher so & so's favorite bookmarks. I've requested bookmark search functionality for geocaching.com, but it has never been implemented. I've learned that I can use GSAK to sort caches in my pocket queries by using the log size, which significantly reduces the amount of "chaff" I need to go through.

 

Here is my current solution. Recipe for fun, Share your techniques for avoiding caches you dislike.

[+Method81]

I would also like to see an in-house rating system. GCVote works very well for me but it would be nice to be able to do a search basd on ratings.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what type of cache your into a poor cache is a poor cache and will get marked down accordingly. Just like films and books you still get stinkers in your favourite genre.

[+narcissa]

Everyone has different likes and dislikes when it comes to geocaches. I absolutely love geocaches that others loathe. There's simply no way to make an objective "quality" rating that gives reliable results.

 

I use a Greasemonkey script called "VIP List" that provides a small list of links to logs written by trusted geocachers I've selected. If I want to know whether or not a cache is worth my time, I look to see what my friends have said about it.

 

Everyone may have different likes and dislikes but you still know if a cache is particularly exceptionally done rather you like it or not.

 

No, I wouldn't. Everyone's idea of "exceptional" is different. New cachers might think that a nano stuck to a sign post is exceptionally clever, but someone with 5000 finds probably won't. There are too many variables, and the game is far too subjective for a ratings system to work.

 

If you want to get a sense of whether or not a cache is worth visiting, read the cache page and the logs. It's simply not possible to quantify what you'll learn there.

 

Even "lame" caches can be fun under the right circumstances. I've had some really great times where a bunch of us crammed into one or two cars and raced from lamppost to lamppost. Normally those caches would rate a great big MEH in my book, but add some friends and laughter and they're lots of fun.

Edited October 21, 2010 by narcissa

[+sbell111]

I would also like to see an in-house rating system. GCVote works very well for me but it would be nice to be able to do a search basd on ratings.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what type of cache your into a poor cache is a poor cache and will get marked down accordingly. Just like films and books you still get stinkers in your favourite genre.

and yet, people still rent Solaris and The Super.

[+narcissa]

I would also like to see an in-house rating system. GCVote works very well for me but it would be nice to be able to do a search basd on ratings.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what type of cache your into a poor cache is a poor cache and will get marked down accordingly. Just like films and books you still get stinkers in your favourite genre.

and yet, people still rent Solaris and The Super.

 

I only have to look at what movies are considered "hits" and what books are considered "bestsellers" to know that a general rating system would be absolutely useless to me. A five-star geocache under that kind of rating system would be the geocaching equivalent of a Dan Brown novel. Bleh.

[+tozainamboku]

Everyone has different likes and dislikes when it comes to geocaches. I absolutely love geocaches that others loathe. There's simply no way to make an objective "quality" rating that gives reliable results.

 

I use a Greasemonkey script called "VIP List" that provides a small list of links to logs written by trusted geocachers I've selected. If I want to know whether or not a cache is worth my time, I look to see what my friends have said about it.

 

Everyone may have different likes and dislikes but you still know if a cache is particularly exceptionally done rather you like it or not.

I think different cachers might have different ideas about what is exceptional as well, though it is likely that the few caches that get substantially more high ratings then low ratings will have something special that makes them stand out from the usual cache.

 

A system that helps find caches that are highly recommended is doable. Each cacher could recommend a limited number of caches and those with that get some threshold number of recommendations may be worth taking a closer look. Particularly when traveling and only having a limited time for geocaching, I may want to spend it looking for caches that several of the locals recommend rather than just picking caches at random.

[+addisonbr]

I have always felt that a simple rating system would be an abject failure due to the fact that cachers who like caches I consider lame would give said caches high ratings. I've consistently noticed the type of caches I enjoy have large photo galleries, long found it logs, and multiple "geocacher so & so's favorite bookmarks.

My suspicion is that the types of caches that people are likely to rate high probably overlap a bit with the types of caches that inspire people to write longer logs.

 

I just compared GCVote's ratings for each of my caches against average log length, and the correlation was 73%. Higher than I expected.

[+L0ne.R]

Anyway, if you find the rating system to be conceptually flawed there's no need for you to use it. Ignore it.

It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that is known to be conceptually flawed.

What I hear you saying is...."It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that I, sbell111 thinks is conceptually flawed."

 

You believe GCVote is conceptually flawed but there are 100s of people using it that find that it is not and that it meets their needs and provides a more enjoyable caching experience. An in-house system may prove to satisfy even more cachers. You can simply ignore the feature.

[+L0ne.R]

Any rating system that will return the same rating for both the mountainside cache and the LPC is inherently flawed. But any simple rating system is likely to do just that. In fact, if the system takes into account the number of people who rated the cache highly, the LPC may even rank higher than the mountain cache.

 

I guess that's ok if you like parking lots.

Not seeing that happening with GCVote but then again not many are using it in my area.

FWIW, I am looking at my own caches as they are rated by GCVote and they don't seem crazy.

 

I have a magnetic micro outside a semi-tourist location that's rated 2.5, a small traditional in Central Park that's rated a 3.3, another traditional nearby with a gimmick and a clever camo job (if I say so myself) that's rated a 4.5, and a multi that takes about 6 hours to complete that has a 5.

 

That's about how I'd sort them myself. For my own listings, it seems to be working about as well as Yelp and the Apple App Store ratings do.

 

Same here. 16 of our hides are rated. 7 got 4 stars, 8 got 3 stars, 1 got 2 stars. I think the ratings are fair - of course a 2 was an eye-opener but yeah, it wasn't our best hide - whoever rated it probably expected better from us. It'll make me work harder next time when I plant a new one.

[+sbell111]

Anyway, if you find the rating system to be conceptually flawed there's no need for you to use it. Ignore it.

It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that is known to be conceptually flawed.

What I hear you saying is...."It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that I, sbell111 thinks is conceptually flawed."

 

You believe GCVote is conceptually flawed but there are 100s of people using it that find that it is not and that it meets their needs and provides a more enjoyable caching experience. An in-house system may prove to satisfy even more cachers. You can simply ignore the feature.

 

More people than me have brought up problems with that rating system. When these problems are mentioned, you typically respond with the bit that I've bolded. I continue to maintain that implementing a system that is known to not function as planned is a bad business decision.

Edited October 21, 2010 by sbell111

[+L0ne.R]

Anyway, if you find the rating system to be conceptually flawed there's no need for you to use it. Ignore it.

It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that is known to be conceptually flawed.

What I hear you saying is...."It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that I, sbell111 thinks is conceptually flawed."

 

You believe GCVote is conceptually flawed but there are 100s of people using it that find that it is not and that it meets their needs and provides a more enjoyable caching experience. An in-house system may prove to satisfy even more cachers. You can simply ignore the feature.

 

More people than me have brought up problems with that rating system. When these problems are mentioned, you typically respond with the bit that I've bolded. I continue to maintain that implementing a system that is known to not function as planned is a bad business decision.

 

Please provide definitive proof that GCVote does not function as planned.

[+sbell111]

Anyway, if you find the rating system to be conceptually flawed there's no need for you to use it. Ignore it.

It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that is known to be conceptually flawed.

What I hear you saying is...."It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that I, sbell111 thinks is conceptually flawed."

 

You believe GCVote is conceptually flawed but there are 100s of people using it that find that it is not and that it meets their needs and provides a more enjoyable caching experience. An in-house system may prove to satisfy even more cachers. You can simply ignore the feature.

 

More people than me have brought up problems with that rating system. When these problems are mentioned, you typically respond with the bit that I've bolded. I continue to maintain that implementing a system that is known to not function as planned is a bad business decision.

 

Please provide definitive proof that GCVote does not function as planned.

Please read this thread and other similar threads.

[+Castle Mischief]

No system is perfect. The difficulty and terrain rating system that is currently in place isn't perfect but for most cases, it's close enough.

 

A cache rating system, that nobody is required to be beholden to, could be close enough as well. If you don't want to use it then you ignore it and it would have no affect on your caching experiance.

[+L0ne.R]

Anyway, if you find the rating system to be conceptually flawed there's no need for you to use it. Ignore it.

It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that is known to be conceptually flawed.

What I hear you saying is...."It would be a mistake to implement a rating system (or anything else) that I, sbell111 thinks is conceptually flawed."

 

You believe GCVote is conceptually flawed but there are 100s of people using it that find that it is not and that it meets their needs and provides a more enjoyable caching experience. An in-house system may prove to satisfy even more cachers. You can simply ignore the feature.

 

More people than me have brought up problems with that rating system. When these problems are mentioned, you typically respond with the bit that I've bolded. I continue to maintain that implementing a system that is known to not function as planned is a bad business decision.

 

Please provide definitive proof that GCVote does not function as planned.

Please read this thread and other similar threads.

 

This thread does not show proof that GCVote is flawed, in fact the opposite. Those on this thread that use it, support it and have shown evidence wrt ratings on their own cache hides that the ratings are fair.

[+Castle Mischief]

Please read this thread and other similar threads.

 

That would be so awesome on a bumper sticker.

[+Method81]

I would also like to see an in-house rating system. GCVote works very well for me but it would be nice to be able to do a search basd on ratings.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what type of cache your into a poor cache is a poor cache and will get marked down accordingly. Just like films and books you still get stinkers in your favourite genre.

and yet, people still rent Solaris and The Super.

 

I have not watched these films but judging by the ratings that they have recieved I will not go out of my way to do so. You cannot blame the rating systems for the fact that people still rent these films as they clearly show that the two are mediocre at best.

[+tozainamboku]

I would also like to see an in-house rating system. GCVote works very well for me but it would be nice to be able to do a search basd on ratings.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what type of cache your into a poor cache is a poor cache and will get marked down accordingly. Just like films and books you still get stinkers in your favourite genre.

and yet, people still rent Solaris and The Super.

 

I have not watched these films but judging by the ratings that they have recieved I will not go out of my way to do so. You cannot blame the rating systems for the fact that people still rent these films as they clearly show that the two are mediocre at best.

I think sbell111's point is that some people still like Solaris and The Super and go out of their way to rent them despite their low rating. Unless you are Joe Average movie goer whose tastes in movies reflect a hypthotetical average movie goer then a rating based on the average doesn't really reflect your tastes in movies. This is why sites like Netflix tend to use a much more complicated algorithm to recommend movies based on what you rented in the past and how you rated them.

 

A system like this would not work for geocaches because, unlike movies, we are basically each selecting from a different set of geocaches. When you go to an area you haven't cached in before there will likely not be enough information from other cachers to correlate their likes to your likes. Even in your home area the numbers of finders is likely to be so small that the statisical error would not give much confidence that you will find the caches you would enjoy most.

 

That's not to say that no one would find a simple average rating system like GCVote useful. Some people will perceive themselves to be average even if they are not. The average rating would then tell them something about the cache that they might want to use to select the caches they look for. Since you can't do a control for an individual, these people are likely to believe they are finding better caches and, more importantly, avoiding mediocre caches. So if they find some stinkers they can chalk it up to no system being perfect and if they miss some great caches they will probably never know about it. A great experiment would be for GCVote to return random values on caches for some subset of the users and then to compare this control group to the group that is getting real ratings to see whether there is any difference between the groups in how well they think GCVote works.

[AZcachemeister]

Any rating system can only work if a significant number of users have voted.

This is why the movie/book rating systems work, there are tens of thousands of people contributing to the rating.

Certainly everyone has their own idea of what makes a cache outstanding.

If 1000 people found a cache and 750 rated it 4 or 5 stars, with the rest spread down to 2 or 3, you might suspect it was a pretty good cache.

Conversely, if 1000 find it and 500 rate it 1 or 2 stars, with the rest spread into 3 and 4, you might think it was really not so good, or perhaps only appealing to a select audience.

We're not trying to determine 'Cache Of The Year' here, just providing a little helpful guidance.

[+CapeDoc]

Its quite amusing to see how some cachers seem to think that they view caches in some special way yo other cachers. There seem to be an army of cachers who LOVE LPCs and rate them highly and don't seem to think they are lame. I really don't think that is the case, as is reflected in the logs. This means that on average we probably actually have quite similar feelings about good and lame caches. Given enough votes those that receive shorter logs will tend to have lower ratings, those with longer logs, higher ratings.

 

If I appraise the 30 or so active caches of my own, the GCVote rating correlate perfectly to how I feel about my caches. Caches that i have put effort into rate highly. Caches that I know are in great locations rate highly.

 

As much as one can use ones intuition to find a cache, one can use the rating system to get a feel for caches in the area. If GCVote is used on the maps, it means you can see at a glance which cache pages to bring up and read the listing and logs to hone your search. That's useful.

[+sbell111]

Its quite amusing to see how some cachers seem to think that they view caches in some special way yo other cachers. There seem to be an army of cachers who LOVE LPCs and rate them highly and don't seem to think they are lame. I really don't think that is the case, as is reflected in the logs.

I disagree with you. Many LPCs are obviously LPCs. (Imagine a micro that is named 'LPC cache' or 'Parking Lot cache' or 'Wallyanything'. These caches get many, many visits. If, as you suspect, there isn't lots of people who enjoy caches like this, why wouldn't they simply skip these obvious LPCs?

This means that on average we probably actually have quite similar feelings about good and lame caches.

Like many people, I don't even have the same taste in caches from day to day or minute to minute. How am I supposed to have the same taste in caches that you did three weeks ago?

Given enough votes those that receive shorter logs will tend to have lower ratings, those with longer logs, higher ratings.

If this theory is true, why do we need a rating system? You can just use GSAK to find the caches with the most verbose logs.

[+addisonbr]

If this theory is true, why do we need a rating system? You can just use GSAK to find the caches with the most verbose logs.

I suspect that the number of people who use GSAK is an order of magnitude or two smaller than the number of people who use the Groundspeak site.

 

I can't prove that, of course. Just my gut. Of the people I know who are active in my local geocaching community, the number is less than 10%. A lot of them are Mac users who have no interest in running Virtual PC emulators, etc. But others, including many PC users, find the product a bit overwhelming in general.

[+sbell111]

If this theory is true, why do we need a rating system? You can just use GSAK to find the caches with the most verbose logs.

I suspect that the number of people who use GSAK is an order of magnitude or two smaller than the number of people who use the Groundspeak site.

 

I can't prove that, of course. Just my gut. Of the people I know who are active in my local geocaching community, the number is less than 10%. A lot of them are Mac users who have no interest in running Virtual PC emulators, etc. But others, including many PC users, find the product a bit overwhelming in general.

If you really believed that log length was an indicator of cache quality and you really want a rating system established that would allow you to find the good ones and ignore the bad ones, it seems that you would use teh tool that is already available for you.

 

Also, I'm not buying that a large amount of cachers are mac users. Mac users make up something like 5% of users worldwide and 10% in the US. I have no reason to believe that geocachers would skew far from these numbers. Plus, as you mentioned, mac users can run gsak on an emulator. If this issue was important to them, they would do so.

[+Washingtonirving81]

Everyone has different likes and dislikes when it comes to geocaches. I absolutely love geocaches that others loathe. There's simply no way to make an objective "quality" rating that gives reliable results.

 

I use a Greasemonkey script called "VIP List" that provides a small list of links to logs written by trusted geocachers I've selected. If I want to know whether or not a cache is worth my time, I look to see what my friends have said about it.

 

Everyone may have different likes and dislikes but you still know if a cache is particularly exceptionally done rather you like it or not.

 

People who like lamp post caches will rate them highly. People who don't like them will probably not look for them, and thus, will not rate them at all. So if I search for highly rated caches, the list that comes back is likely to include a bunch of LPC's.

 

A cache that requires a five-mile hike up a mountain, and ends in a spot with a breathtaking view, is going to be rated highly by everyone who finds it. But it isn't going to be found nearly as often as the LPC in the WallyWorld parking lot.

 

Any rating system that will return the same rating for both the mountainside cache and the LPC is inherently flawed. But any simple rating system is likely to do just that. In fact, if the system takes into account the number of people who rated the cache highly, the LPC may even rank higher than the mountain cache.

 

I guess that's ok if you like parking lots.

 

 

Judging by iTunes, Amazon and eBay’s rating system it’s quite the opposite. Usually the more people that vote the more “watered down” the votes get. Therefore a 100% positive vote means less to a cache with 300 votes than it would to a cache with say 10 votes.

[+addisonbr]

If you really believed that log length was an indicator of cache quality and you really want a rating system established that would allow you to find the good ones and ignore the bad ones, it seems that you would use teh tool that is already available for you.

 

Also, I'm not buying that a large amount of cachers are mac users. Mac users make up something like 5% of users worldwide and 10% in the US. I have no reason to believe that geocachers would skew far from these numbers. Plus, as you mentioned, mac users can run gsak on an emulator. If this issue was important to them, they would do so.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't workarounds available. GCVote, for example, is even easier than using GSAK.

 

I'm just gently suggesting that the tool would become more available to more people, and would probably be easier to use, if it were integrated into the site. It could also bring added versatility - being able to filter map views and PQs, etc. on the Groundspeak site.

 

But I completely agree with you that there are partial workarounds available for the technologically inclined.