Cache rating system

[+addisonbr]

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.

I'm not sure I followed this. My intuition would be that a 100% positive vote would mean more for a cache with 300 votes, than for a cache with only 10 votes. Did you mis-type, or is there a way to explain what you're getting at?

[+GeoGeeBee]

One issue is that different cachers like different things... that's been discussed in this thread, and others.

 

A less discussed issue is that caches are not static. I can go rent "Casablanca" and it's the same movie my Dad watched in 1942. But the cache I go find tomorrow might be very different from that same cache a year ago. It could have been a great cache when placed, and for several years after. Then the CO left the game, the container got a crack in the lid, and the contents are now a wet, moldy mess. The beautiful meadow across the road has been bulldozed and a shopping center built. But the cache still has a four-star rating...

[+addisonbr]

A less discussed issue is that caches are not static. I can go rent "Casablanca" and it's the same movie my Dad watched in 1942. But the cache I go find tomorrow might be very different from that same cache a year ago. It could have been a great cache when placed, and for several years after. Then the CO left the game, the container got a crack in the lid, and the contents are now a wet, moldy mess. The beautiful meadow across the road has been bulldozed and a shopping center built. But the cache still has a four-star rating...

Sounds very similar to what Yelp faces.

[+JohnnyVegas]

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.

I'm not sure I followed this. My intuition would be that a 100% positive vote would mean more for a cache with 300 votes, than for a cache with only 10 votes. Did you mis-type, or is there a way to explain what you're getting at?

I have been away from the forums for most of the past two years. I see lot of the same old subjects still pop up. This is one of those. There is no way to set up a cache ratting system. If you get 10 cachers of multiple geocache exeriance levels to rate the same cache you will get 10 differant ratings.

[+L0ne.R]

A less discussed issue is that caches are not static.

 

True. I have suggested creating a rating system where votes drop off after one year.

[+addisonbr]

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.

I'm not sure I followed this. My intuition would be that a 100% positive vote would mean more for a cache with 300 votes, than for a cache with only 10 votes. Did you mis-type, or is there a way to explain what you're getting at?

I have been away from the forums for most of the past two years. I see lot of the same old subjects still pop up. This is one of those. There is no way to set up a cache ratting system. If you get 10 cachers of multiple geocache exeriance levels to rate the same cache you will get 10 differant ratings.

I understand that point of view. I may not agree with it, but I understand what you are suggesting.

 

What I'm trying to understand is the point about a 100% positive rating for a cache with 300 votes meaning less than a 100% positive rating for a cache with 10 votes. I was hoping that Washingtonirving81 could help me figure out what he's getting at.

[+L0ne.R]

You can just use GSAK to find the caches with the most verbose logs.

 

GSAK is too complicated. I tried the trial. Not intuitive. If I can't figure the basics out within the first 5 minutes without having to go to the help pages, I'm not interested. I also read about having to use all kinds of macros to make GSAK do what you want it to do. It seems to be designed for the technologically gifted.

 

Integrate a way to filter out caches with the most verbose logs on the gc.com site.

 

But personally, it hasn't been my experience that the best caches get verbose logs. Some of the more clever caches get short logs like...'Nicely done', 'Wow', 'Hilarious', 'Good work' ...so as not to give away the surprise.

 

Perhaps scenic caches get more verbose logs. But one of our very scenic caches gets 2-sentence logs:

• "Found it! Awesome view!"
  
• "A great view it was........TFTC!!!!!!!!"
  
• "I've gone by here several time and today was the day I finally stopped by to cache for it. Excellent view, TFTH."
  
• "great cache! tricky hiding spot."
  

[+L0ne.R]

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?

 

I'd say that most people have similar feeling when it comes to lame. See: What is your definition of lame? I'm not seeing a lot of disagreement about the listed definitions of lame. In a nutshell, I'd say most people feel a lame cache is "a cache that is placed for no particular discernible reason".

[+sbell111]

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?

 

I'd say that most people have similar feeling when it comes to lame. See: What is your definition of lame? I'm not seeing a lot of disagreement about the listed definitions of lame. In a nutshell, I'd say most people feel a lame cache is "a cache that is placed for no particular discernible reason".

A quick read of that thread found loads of different definitions and examples. I guess that you must have meant to link to a totally different thread.

[+L0ne.R]

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?

 

I'd say that most people have similar feeling when it comes to lame. See: What is your definition of lame? I'm not seeing a lot of disagreement about the listed definitions of lame. In a nutshell, I'd say most people feel a lame cache is "a cache that is placed for no particular discernible reason".

A quick read of that thread found loads of different definitions and examples. I guess that you must have meant to link to a totally different thread.

 

That thread points out that there are a number of different kinds of lame cache experiences. Didn't see anyone defend any of the lame suggestions (example: guard rail hide in a bad neighborhood with no view) as actually a good caching experience. You're suggesting that there are plenty of people who would rate such a cache as a 4 or 5 star, if that were true I'd expect someone to jump on that statement in the lame thread and say that guard rail hides in bad neighborhoods are their favorite kind of cache.

[sdarken]

You're suggesting that there are plenty of people who would rate such a cache as a 4 or 5 star, if that were true I'd expect someone to jump on that statement in the lame thread and say that guard rail hides in bad neighborhoods are their favorite kind of cache.

 

I agree. Every time the subject of ratings comes up people suggest that numbers-oriented cachers will rate a guardrail hide or a lightpole hide highly. I just don't believe that's the case and I'd like to hear from someone who thinks that they personally would rate a typical guardrail hide (without a great view or any other special characteristic) as a 5 out of 5 star hide. I'm pretty sure that numbers-oriented cachers would give that kind of cache a very average rating.

[+tozainamboku]

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?

 

I'd say that most people have similar feeling when it comes to lame. See: What is your definition of lame? I'm not seeing a lot of disagreement about the listed definitions of lame. In a nutshell, I'd say most people feel a lame cache is "a cache that is placed for no particular discernible reason".

A quick read of that thread found loads of different definitions and examples. I guess that you must have meant to link to a totally different thread.

 

That thread points out that there are a number of different kinds of lame cache experiences. Didn't see anyone defend any of the lame suggestions (example: guard rail hide in a bad neighborhood with no view) as actually a good caching experience. You're suggesting that there are plenty of people who would rate such a cache as a 4 or 5 star, if that were true I'd expect someone to jump on that statement in the lame thread and say that guard rail hides in bad neighborhoods are their favorite kind of cache.

That thread was for people to post what made a cache lame for them. It would be silly to use that thread to defend any sort of cache. Just as liking a cache is subjective, so is finding a cache a lame. There were a number of different opinions in that thread about what made a cache lame. The defenders of everything lame also defend every cachers right to find something lame about any particular cache. If you don't like strawberry ice cream, no matter how much I defend it as my favorite flavor it won't make a difference to you.

[+L0ne.R]

That thread points out that there are a number of different kinds of lame cache experiences. Didn't see anyone defend any of the lame suggestions (example: guard rail hide in a bad neighborhood with no view) as actually a good caching experience. You're suggesting that there are plenty of people who would rate such a cache as a 4 or 5 star, if that were true I'd expect someone to jump on that statement in the lame thread and say that guard rail hides in bad neighborhoods are their favorite kind of cache.

That thread was for people to post what made a cache lame for them. It would be silly to use that thread to defend any sort of cache. Just as liking a cache is subjective, so is finding a cache a lame. There were a number of different opinions in that thread about what made a cache lame. The defenders of everything lame also defend every cachers right to find something lame about any particular cache. If you don't like strawberry ice cream, no matter how much I defend it as my favorite flavor it won't make a difference to you.

 

Would you rate a grey and black film canister tucked into the hollow spot on a guardrail in a bad neighborhood overlooking a ditch a 4 or 5 star?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Lone R

[+sbell111]

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?

 

I'd say that most people have similar feeling when it comes to lame. See: What is your definition of lame? I'm not seeing a lot of disagreement about the listed definitions of lame. In a nutshell, I'd say most people feel a lame cache is "a cache that is placed for no particular discernible reason".

A quick read of that thread found loads of different definitions and examples. I guess that you must have meant to link to a totally different thread.

 

That thread points out that there are a number of different kinds of lame cache experiences. Didn't see anyone defend any of the lame suggestions (example: guard rail hide in a bad neighborhood with no view) as actually a good caching experience. You're suggesting that there are plenty of people who would rate such a cache as a 4 or 5 star, if that were true I'd expect someone to jump on that statement in the lame thread and say that guard rail hides in bad neighborhoods are their favorite kind of cache.

Your position is that because people didn't jump into that thread to argue means that every opinion in it is universally accepted? Really? Isn't another theory that people accept that some people think that some caches are lame and that the referenced thread was the appropriate place to whine about them?

[+niraD]

That thread points out that there are a number of different kinds of lame cache experiences. Didn't see anyone defend any of the lame suggestions (example: guard rail hide in a bad neighborhood with no view) as actually a good caching experience.

Okay, I'll bite. I had been ignoring that thread, but just for grins I scanned the types of caches described as "lame". Some of my favorite finds would have been considered "lame" by at least one of the posters. The same goes for several caches that I've enjoyed, but wouldn't consider a favorite.

 

I'm not saying I enjoy everything described as "lame" in that thread. I'm just saying that there appear to be people who despise caches that I enjoy. They aren't going to find my ratings of these caches very useful, and vice versa.

[+addisonbr]

I'm just saying that there appear to be people who despise caches that I enjoy. They aren't going to find my ratings of these caches very useful, and vice versa.

I think this will be a factor for a fair number of people. I know it is for me with Yelp, the Apple App Store, Amazon, etc.

 

Most of the time, what most people think about quality helps me filter the world. But there are areas where I need to make some adjustments. For instance, my wife and I love dive taco stands. I know that on Yelp I'll have to look at those types of restaurants relative to each other, because the overall ratings won't be as high as how we feel about the food... If most of them are getting 2 stars but there are a few with 3 and 3.5, those are probably places we'll try even if there are plenty of 4 and 5 star restaurants around.

 

Same thing in the App Store, and Amazon... I know that I like some kinds of games (or books, etc.) more than the typical person, so I've learned to look at the ratings comparatively.