Jump to content

New Cache Rating System


addisonbr

Recommended Posts

Since Groundspeak had said on the Feedback site some time ago that the rating system was under review, and then it went into planning, I would say yes. These things don't happen overnight. I daresay the same goes fro the API and all the other "coincidences". I rather doubt internal discussions, design, coding, testing, tweaking, and implementation can be done within a couple of days just because another site came online. In my 30 years in IT, the only code I've seen cranked out that fast was junk code you wouldn't want in production.

+1

 

Also +1

 

I'm optimistic about all of this, and appreciative of the effort. I don't have anything more to say than I'm excited to try it out.

Link to comment

 

For me, I don't have an aversion to stats per se. But I probably prefer being the one who decides what information is displayed on my public profile. I am on various caching lists, you can see what caches I have found or hidden, you can see my souvenirs, you can see what I have chosen to tell people about my caching experiences on my main profile. So there are very few private aspects in this game and we are given very few choices as it is.

 

But there are some kinds of detailed stats that I may or may not want to share. Since I have no idea what Groundspeak has in mind, I don't know. But in general, it would be nice to have the option to decide what I want to be displayed to others.

 

But back to the topic, the ability to identify my favorites is not one of these concerns.

 

I can understand your reasoning behind this. My hope is that when they do create the statistics they give you the option to check or uncheck which ones you want to share. My current stats program does this, and I like being able to pick and choose what I want to share and what I don't.

 

Just like in my personal life, say in regards to facebook; I don't like to share everything there and I have certain privacy settings, I'd enjoy that same option in regards to my geocaching profile.

 

I sincerely hope they take that into consideration.

Link to comment

The proposed system does nothing, *NOTHING* to help me determine if a cache is really bad.

But certainly the really bad caches will get zero favorites. A cache somewhere in the middle is likely to get a few favorites. And the really good caches will be on lots of favorites list.

 

I shudder when the people asking for a ratings system act as if every geocacher likes or dislikes the same caches. They assume the the good caches will get high ratings and the bad caches will get low rating and the ratings will provide a measure where the can rank every cache from the best to the worst.

 

Do you really believe that every geocacher will rank caches in the same order? Do you really believe that your tastes in geocaches are so typical that a rating based on the average score will rank the caches the way you would?

 

The proposed solution at least measures something that I can evaluate. I like the idea that if someone puts a cache on their favorites list they are in some manner recommending this cache to others. I can go to Paducah and find the most recommended caches. If I only want to find recommended caches, I can start with the caches that have the highest number of recommendations and work down from there depending on how many caches I have time for. Of course I'm likely going to take other factors into account. Caches that get visited more often are likely to get more likes. So I might look at the number as a percentage of the total finders. I'm also likely to consider other factors such as terrain, difficulty, caches size, and cache type in selecting the caches that I want to find. I find the propose solution much more useful that know what the average rating given by other cachers is. Some highly recommended cache might get a somewhat average vote if there are also many people who don't like that particular kind of cache. I'd rather it show up as highly recommended and then I can look at the cache page and decided if this is for me or not.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I shudder when the people asking for a ratings system act as if every geocacher likes or dislikes the same caches. They assume the the good caches will get high ratings and the bad caches will get low rating and the ratings will provide a measure where the can rank every cache from the best to the worst.

 

Do you really believe that every geocacher will rank caches in the same order? Do you really believe that your tastes in geocaches are so typical that a rating based on the average score will rank the caches the way you would?

In my own opinion, I don't think that necessarily needs to be true for ratings to be useful. I've found that the ratings on Yelp, in the Apple App Store and in other places are useful - even though I'm fairly certain there is at least as much variety in restaurant and software preferences as there is in geocache preferences.

Link to comment

In response to OC's new rating system using contemporary teen slang words such as "Awesomness", "Sweet, "fierce" and "totally awesome" Groundspeak has decided to implement similar ratings using youthful slang. It is based on a 10 point scale.

 

1. FUBAR

2. pooper

3. jake

4. keen

5. swell

6. fab

7. cool beans

8. boss

9. groovy

10. bees knees

Link to comment

In response to OC's new rating system using contemporary teen slang words such as "Awesomness", "Sweet, "fierce" and "totally awesome" Groundspeak has decided to implement similar ratings using youthful slang. It is based on a 10 point scale.

 

1. FUBAR

2. pooper

3. jake

4. keen

5. swell

6. fab

7. cool beans

8. boss

9. groovy

10. bees knees

 

That's pure sweet righteous with a side order of cranked.

Link to comment

This sounds better than a 5 star system or something similar.

User rating systems tend to stink because people tend to treat 4 or 5 stars as the "average" and subtract from there. Amazon for example has a useless amount of poorly written "5-star" reviews coupled with a bunch of silly "1-star" complaining their package was late or whatever.

 

As long as people have a limitited number of favorites to spend I could see this being somewhat useful. Also, its maybe a little less heart-breaking for the noob whose first cache averages out at a 1. I know the forums would have little sympathy for those people, but I would.

 

It seems like many here would rather not read the cache descriptions and surmise if a cache is the sort of cache they would like. These are the sort of people who let meta-critic decide what movies/music/games/books they'll consume. Its not really a good or bad thing per se, but its not a great way to maximise your enjoyment of anything. A simple "+1" feature is probably enough for me to make sure I check out a cache if I'm in the area, but I'm still gonna do my homework to avoid caches I know I'll dislike. beyond that it seems pretty arbitrary.

Is anyone really going to care THAT MUCH if the average cacher think one cache is 1-star better than another? 2-Stars? At a certain point, it just turns into "thumbs up/down" which is maybe more appropriate.

 

I'm rambling... Point is, the system sounds useful functional tool. Anything more granular would be so flawed it would basically be ignored and/or taken with a grain of salt. You're going to have to do all the same homework either way.

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment
It seems like many here would rather not read the cache descriptions and surmise if a cache is the sort of cache they would like. These are the sort of people who let meta-critic decide what movies/music/games/books they'll consume.

I'm not sure that's a perfectly fair characterization of people who would be interested in a rating system.

 

Like many things, it depends on the situation. I doubt anyone is going to restrict their cache research solely to ratings, nor do I suspect people will use ratings as an excuse to skip the description. There are well over a million listed caches; it can be helpful to filter them down a bit before reading on. When I visit a new place with a dense cache population (like Seattle) I may not have time to read the description of every cache within city limits, to look for something I might find fun. In the past I've used targeted PQs, and have posted questions to local forums or looked for "favorites" bookmark lists. This seems like it could be another helpful tool.

Link to comment
It seems like many here would rather not read the cache descriptions and surmise if a cache is the sort of cache they would like. These are the sort of people who let meta-critic decide what movies/music/games/books they'll consume.

I'm not sure that's a perfectly fair characterization of people who would be interested in a rating system.

 

Like many things, it depends on the situation. I doubt anyone is going to restrict their cache research solely to ratings, nor do I suspect people will use ratings as an excuse to skip the description. There are well over a million listed caches; it can be helpful to filter them down a bit before reading on. When I visit a new place with a dense cache population (like Seattle) I may not have time to read the description of every cache within city limits, to look for something I might find fun. In the past I've used targeted PQs, and have posted questions to local forums or looked for "favorites" bookmark lists. This seems like it could be another helpful tool.

Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Link to comment

 

Groundspeak are trying to be way too PC by eliminating any negativity (low rating scores) and are ignoring the fact that there are really a lot *A LOT* of crappy caches on the guardrail near the dumpster behind the strip mall that deserve a low (or even negative) rating score.

 

 

Maybe Groundspeak is trying to find a compromise to appease the people who continuously scream for a ratings system, while ultimately recognizing that you are responsible for your own caching experience and the only good way to know if a cache is worthwhile or not is to look for caches that have been in place for a while, and take the time to read the cache page and the cache logs.

 

At a certain point, bulk caching and quality caching start to conflict with each other. You can't have the best of both worlds.

 

As long as the caches you think are "lame" are allowed by the guidelines, I don't see why it's necessary to implement a system than penalizes cache owners simply because their caches aren't to your taste.

 

+1

 

--

 

2010 for me was the year I got that message loud and clear. My "burn rate" for caching dropped by half but I'll call it the most enjoyable year I've had caching. Took a lot of log reading - particularly the logs of cachers I know with similar caching interests.

 

The "Favourite" feature is a nice start toward a rating system that won't necessarily breed animosity like a 5 star rating could potentially, so I'll give it a chance.

Link to comment
It seems like many here would rather not read the cache descriptions and surmise if a cache is the sort of cache they would like. These are the sort of people who let meta-critic decide what movies/music/games/books they'll consume.

I'm not sure that's a perfectly fair characterization of people who would be interested in a rating system.

 

Like many things, it depends on the situation. I doubt anyone is going to restrict their cache research solely to ratings, nor do I suspect people will use ratings as an excuse to skip the description. There are well over a million listed caches; it can be helpful to filter them down a bit before reading on. When I visit a new place with a dense cache population (like Seattle) I may not have time to read the description of every cache within city limits, to look for something I might find fun. In the past I've used targeted PQs, and have posted questions to local forums or looked for "favorites" bookmark lists. This seems like it could be another helpful tool.

Perhaps I was being reductive....

But the bolded is sort-of what I'm getting at. You have to do all the same homework. In my opinion, "50 out of 150 people selected this as a 'favorite'" is just as useful (if not more) for this as "3.5 star cache"

I feel like there is a desire amongst some to "punish" the "bad" caches. You could just as easily (in theory) filter by "% favorited" and get more functional/ useful results.

Either way, you are going to have to read the logs and cache description to find out if things suit your likes/dislikes...

 

I just don't see the advantage in a "rating system" over a "favorites" and I guess I don't understand why people would ask for it other than just wanting to complain or not thinking about the purpose, origins and meanings behind different rating metrics. I don't see a reason for caches to be seen in a light any more granular than "a lot of people seem to like this one." This is really all I've ever used when going after specific caches. Its a fairly binary process. It's either one I want to find or one I don't.

The only reason given seems to be avoiding "bad" caches, but I think most of us forum users would be suprised at what a 1-star cache looked like to the majority of cachers. Again though, I think finding people's favorite caches and reading the descriptions is probably a better way to do this as user rating systems have proven to be either flimsy or extreme in the past without text for context.

This is where I stumbled into the clumsy assumption that some people wanted a shortcut beyond readin the text... but to be fair rating systems continue to play out like this again and again in other venues.

 

I'm sort of a nerd when it comes to rating metrics and the "science" of reviews so perhaps I'm reading to much into it, but I think this is a case where people won't know what they want unless they try both and realize one is a frustrating version of the other. People's desire to be punitive is strong thougha dn there are certainly some caches I'd enjoy giving 1-star... I just don't think that information would be that useful to anyone and/or worth the effort.

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment
Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Ah. I hadn't seen anyone claiming that, but if someone said they wanted a rating system so that they wouldn't have to do any further research, that's a pretty narrow way to look at ratings.

Link to comment
Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Ah. I hadn't seen anyone claiming that, but if someone said they wanted a rating system so that they wouldn't have to do any further research, that's a pretty narrow way to look at ratings.

To be clear: I think its fine if thats how people want to cache.

Still, I think filtering by a %favorited would be much more precise for this than a point based review system. I was under the impression from people's posts that many thought a star system would somehow help them avoid negative experiences more than knowing how many people gave it a thumbs up... which would probably be false when you really think about how it usually plays out.

Of course, we haven't seen it or how it works so who knows? :)

I'm making a few assumptions about how the feature will be integrated here

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment
But the bolded is sort-of what I'm getting at. You have to do all the same homework. In my opinion, "50 out of 150 people selected this as a 'favorite'" is just as useful (if not more) for this as "3.5 star cache"
I think I understand your point a little better. I thought you were comparing a rating system against no rating system, not comparing one rating system against another.

 

In my opinion, a simple cumulative favorites system may build in a bias against otherwise great caches that aren't visited as often. And I think it would also introduce a bias against older caches, because by and large people are less likely to go back into the past and rate things that they once did a long time ago. If the only rating that can get awarded is a "favorite" vote, that would depress the ratings for long-lived and well-loved caches. So, when you're filtering, I think it's plausible that the results could get skewed in a couple of directions. I don't think that means that people aren't interested in reading the cache pages, but when you're doing an initial filter it's an interesting phenomenon to think about.

 

I feel like there is a desire amongst some to "punish" the "bad" caches. You could just as easily (in theory) filter by "% favorited" and get more functional/ useful results.
I've seen a number of suggestions for "number of favorites votes / number of times the cache has been found". I don't know if that's what you meant or not. But on chewing on it and trying to interpret your %, I think a far more interesting metric would be "percentage of users who found this cache who also gave it a favorite vote". That would likely eliminate most of my concerns about the bias towards high-find caches. I haven't heard anything from Groundspeak regarding if they intend to report simple raw numbers (total number of favorites) or any sort of a ratio. That would be interesting to learn.

 

Either way, you are going to have to read the logs and cache description to find out if things suit your likes/dislikes...
Except for the folks sbell111 says mentioned in another thread that said they didn't want to do any research except for relying on cache ratings, I think that no rating system is likely to be used as a stand-alone by cachers. For most I think it will be a filter used alongside the cache type, the difficulty rating, etc. Just another way to help narrow the field of 1.2M caches down to something manageable.

 

I just don't see the advantage in a "rating system" over a "favorites" and I guess I don't understand why people would ask for it other than just wanting to complain or not thinking about the purpose, origins and meanings behind different rating metrics.
I hope I've given a few reasoned opinions to prefer one method over another, other than just complaining. I try to inject some thought into my posts now and again.

 

I'm sort of a nerd when it comes to rating metrics
Me too. No shame in that.
Link to comment
I've seen a number of suggestions for "number of favorites votes / number of times the cache has been found". I don't know if that's what you meant or not. But on chewing on it and trying to interpret your %, I think a far more interesting metric would be "percentage of users who found this cache who also gave it a favorite vote". That would likely eliminate most of my concerns about the bias towards high-find caches. I haven't heard anything from Groundspeak regarding if they intend to report simple raw numbers (total number of favorites) or any sort of a ratio. That would be interesting to learn.

 

It would eliminate the bias toward high find caches but not one towards long-lived/widely liked caches. Take this cache, which I think would wind up on most finder's favorite list. By my count 9 of the 29 finders are no longer active cachers, nearly 1/3. Or this outstanding cache where I counted 28 finders (give or take a few) who are no longer active cachers.

Link to comment

In my opinion, a simple cumulative favorites system may build in a bias against otherwise great caches that aren't visited as often. And I think it would also introduce a bias against older caches, because by and large people are less likely to go back into the past and rate things that they once did a long time ago. If the only rating that can get awarded is a "favorite" vote, that would depress the ratings for long-lived and well-loved caches. So, when you're filtering, I think it's plausible that the results could get skewed in a couple of directions. I don't think that means that people aren't interested in reading the cache pages, but when you're doing an initial filter it's an interesting phenomenon to think about.

 

Its certainly something to consider, but at the end of the day it seems like a small price to pay. We've seen the alternative and the result would be a larger heap of things to sort through all with identicle ratings. Also, I know my local community cares a great deal about it's "classic" caches and I have a pretty strong hunch they will get an initial burst of "favorites" when this takes effect. Some people tend to have a weird thing where their "favorite" things are usually in the past. I call this the "baby boomer effect" :)

It remains to be seen, but I suspect older caches will fare okay. Either way, I'm not sentimental by nature and don't care if I miss a few classics, as long as what I AM finding is awesome. so I certainly have a bias there...

 

I've seen a number of suggestions for "number of favorites votes / number of times the cache has been found". I don't know if that's what you meant or not. But on chewing on it and trying to interpret your %, I think a far more interesting metric would be "percentage of users who found this cache who also gave it a favorite vote". That would likely eliminate most of my concerns about the bias towards high-find caches. I haven't heard anything from Groundspeak regarding if they intend to report simple raw numbers (total number of favorites) or any sort of a ratio. That would be interesting to learn.

 

I really like this idea as well. Either way, the # of times a cache has been found is already listed on the cache page so going forward, you already will have a decent guage of how well received a certain cache was even if it IS seldomly found. Again, I think you'd have to seek out those classic older caches either way with some legwork so a rating system doesn't seem to be a solution for that, but rather a method of piling them onto the stack.

 

Except for the folks sbell111 says mentioned in another thread that said they didn't want to do any research except for relying on cache ratings, I think that no rating system is likely to be used as a stand-alone by cachers. For most I think it will be a filter used alongside the cache type, the difficulty rating, etc. Just another way to help narrow the field of 1.2M caches down to something manageable.

 

I don't actually care if people want to do things that way or not. My real point is that a 5 star system is probably too granular for something like this.

Its like asking someone to rate a movie on a scale of 1-100. I have no idea what seperates a 4 star cache from a 5 star one and from person to (millionth) person its just going to seem arbitrary. User reviews are weird because people tend to not take them very seriosly or think critically about them. They tend to either end up as extremes or just a big muddled pool of "4 stars"

If you make this a limited resource such as Groundspeak is proposing here, you stand a fair chance of making them more precise when you filter the results. Sure you might lose a few good caches in the shuffle but thats the choice you make when you filter caches. You'll have to do research to void that issue entirely.

 

I guess I just don't see the upside of a rating system vs. a "favorite" system. This one could potentially make filters bring back less results. Sure, I might miss out on some caches, but that would be my own fualt.

Imagine filtering youtube or amazon based on 4 star results. the list would barely shrink. If you are just going to filter let's say "5 star" results... well, at that point we're getting pretty close to a binary metric and the list would STILL be hard to sort through.

 

P.S. I totally see what you are saying and respect your opinion. I hope I didn't come across in another way. I imagine trying to filter results by score and it seems like to would save me little to no work so I don't see why we bother. I suppose some people may want to preserve some classic caches in the results, but they are still going to have to read through them all to find it so why filter?

 

I like my filters to really get the water clean :rolleyes:

I've seen a number of suggestions for "number of favorites votes / number of times the cache has been found". I don't know if that's what you meant or not. But on chewing on it and trying to interpret your %, I think a far more interesting metric would be "percentage of users who found this cache who also gave it a favorite vote". That would likely eliminate most of my concerns about the bias towards high-find caches. I haven't heard anything from Groundspeak regarding if they intend to report simple raw numbers (total number of favorites) or any sort of a ratio. That would be interesting to learn.

 

It would eliminate the bias toward high find caches but not one towards long-lived/widely liked caches. Take this cache, which I think would wind up on most finder's favorite list. By my count 9 of the 29 finders are no longer active cachers, nearly 1/3. Or this outstanding cache where I counted 28 finders (give or take a few) who are no longer active cachers.

True, but I'm guessing a rating system won't get you much closer to finding that cache in your PQ without really looking for it anyway. If I'm going to filter my results, I want noticeably narrowed results.

I could definitly see a future where mobile logs go from simply saying, "TFTC, TNLNSL" to ""TFTC, TNLNSL 5/5" because we've seen it in so many other places (see: user reviews on products, ebay sellers, youtube videos).

It would be one thing if the purpose of this site were to review things (see: Yelp) but it would inevitably be an afterthought here as logs themselves are quickly becoming. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic.

On the other hand, I have fait that established users will initially go back and mark their all-time favorites so maybe I have too much optimism? :S

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment

I doubt anyone is going to restrict their cache research solely to ratings, nor do I suspect people will use ratings as an excuse to skip the description. There are well over a million listed caches; it can be helpful to filter them down a bit before reading on. When I visit a new place with a dense cache population (like Seattle) I may not have time to read the description of every cache within city limits, to look for something I might find fun. In the past I've used targeted PQs, and have posted questions to local forums or looked for "favorites" bookmark lists. This seems like it could be another helpful tool.

 

+1!

 

It's a helpful tool.

 

I want:

  • something to help me in dense cache populations
  • a better chance that I'll have at least one good caching experience that day
  • to hunt that must-see cache in an area I'm vacationing in. I can't read through all 800 local cache descriptions plus their logs - it's not possible
  • to experience that one-in-a-thousand really clever micro.

I use GCVote and always read the cache description and logs of the higher rated cache before deciding if that cache will be right for me.

Link to comment

I'm sure it's been said already but I suspect that given a limited number of 'favorite' votes to dispense cachers are going to tag their friend's caches with them first.

 

In a highly social environment such as is Alabama caching "Dude, you tagged his cache but you didn't tag mine?" is going to be a problem, even if it is never actually voiced.

Good point, I never considered this. Even in highly social Alabama do most cachers know eachother?

I would wager our community here is pretty tight (at least compared to places where nmy friends cache which have no award ceremonies or annual events and such) but I would say there are really just a handful of people out of the perhaps hundreds living in/passing through Austin who actively participate in the community and put names to the caches... the is all anecdotal though so I'm not really sure. I'm a member of a local group, but haven't ever crunched the number... seems like a small group though.

Is it like that where you are?

Link to comment

Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Well, I guess it's how you interpret what people are saying in the forums. I have yet to read that people wouldn't read the cache descriptions or logs (but I haven't read every post on every discussion about rating systems). I would think that those that currently do this....load up their GPS and hunt without cache descriptions would just continue to do that, rating system or no rating system.

 

Anyway, who cares if there are a few people who would choose to hunt based solely on caches on favorite lists, without doing any research? How will their caching style negatively affect your geocaching experience? Or even geocaching in general?

Link to comment

I'm sure it's been said already but I suspect that given a limited number of 'favorite' votes to dispense cachers are going to tag their friend's caches with them first.

 

In a highly social environment such as is Alabama caching "Dude, you tagged his cache but you didn't tag mine?" is going to be a problem, even if it is never actually voiced.

 

An anonymous system could help. Instead of saying "Lone R has placed this on the favorite's list" it could say "1 person has placed this on their favorites list".

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Anyway, who cares if there are a few people who would choose to hunt based solely on caches on favorite lists, without doing any research? How will their caching style negatively affect your geocaching experience? Or even geocaching in general?

I'm not sure anyone does care. I expressed myself poorly, but was trying to make a point about the sort of results you get with a rating system over a "favorites" system. It seems like people want to know "how much" someone liked it by looking at a number rather than just "did you like it?"

I questioned how useful/accurate this information would be when used practically. I posed the question poorly (and continue to do so :) ) and later clarified.

I'm just trying to get at the heart of why people like one system is good over another and "scoring" a cache amongst other things would seem to appeal to people who want to know if a cache is "good" or "bad" just by glancing at them. I don't think it would lead to pleasant caching, but I also don't mean to suggest its not a valid way to do things...

I also don't mean to suggest its the only reason people like a rating system over a favorties one, but I would be MORE in favor of a "thumbs up/down" than "5-star", but would prefer "5-star" to "10-point" and "10-point scale" to "out of 100" etc. if only for the sake of precise meaningful filtering. I feel that favorites are more precise than all of those.

Edited by d+n.s
Link to comment

I'm sure it's been said already but I suspect that given a limited number of 'favorite' votes to dispense cachers are going to tag their friend's caches with them first.

 

In a highly social environment such as is Alabama caching "Dude, you tagged his cache but you didn't tag mine?" is going to be a problem, even if it is never actually voiced.

 

If our fellow Alabamians want to get torqued up over which of their caches are tagged then that's their issue, not mine. I've yet to hear anybody whining over so-and-so's cache being on a bookmarked favorite list- why would this be any different?

Link to comment
If I'm going to filter my results, I want noticeably narrowed results.
I usually use ratings in one of a couple of ways. One is I sometimes like to sort through the very highest ratings just to see what all of the fuss is about. Another is that sometimes I just want to filter out the lowest ratings - I may not have a strong opinion between a 3 or a 4 or a 3.5 or even a 2.5, but if I'm on a time budget, skipping over those with only a 1.5 or lower can be useful. Another is that when there is a sub-category I'm interested in (dive taco stands) it can be nice to simply sort them on rating and start by reading through the stuff near the top of the list.

 

My gut tells me that a star rating would do this better than a simple "like" or "favorite" rating. But, I don't really have any way of knowing for sure, because I haven't worked very much with "like" or "favorite" systems. For example, the highest rated caches (the ones that would get nothing but 5's) will likely be favorited a lot, so that would likely still bear fruit (earlier observations about high find / older caches possibly affecting things a little). So maybe this preference / concern is not a big deal.

 

I don't have any sense for how effective it would be for filtering out low-rated caches, because I don't know how "rare" or valuable the favorite votes will be. If they are expensive, it could be that only truly exceptional caches get any votes at all, and the vast majority (including many perfectly fine caching experiences) get none. Which means that filtering out low-vote or no-vote caches is way more of a filter than what I'm shooting for. But if they are a little cheaper, maybe it will turn out that a "no-vote" total for a cache that's been around for a bit really is conveying some information about people's experiences. I don't have a great feel for this one.

 

I totally see what you are saying and respect your opinion.
Likewise, for sure; your comments are pretty well-reasoned.
Link to comment

I'm sure it's been said already but I suspect that given a limited number of 'favorite' votes to dispense cachers are going to tag their friend's caches with them first.

 

In a highly social environment such as is Alabama caching "Dude, you tagged his cache but you didn't tag mine?" is going to be a problem, even if it is never actually voiced.

I suppose that's possible. We haven't had a problem with bookmark favorite lists in my part of the country, but your neck of the woods may be different - and maybe we actually *are* having a problem with it here it's just that nobody is saying anything about it.

 

It could be solved by giving people the option of making their favorites list open to the world, open to just their Friends, or completely private. Boorkmark lists work in a somewhat similar way, now that I think about it - they can be open to the world (and published both in a cacher's profile and on the cache pages of included listings), they can be hidden from casual view (you can view them if you know the URL, which the bookmark list owner could supply to you if he/she wanted to share it with you), or they can be completely private lists that you can edit with comments and information you wouldn't want to share with others. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

Link to comment
Has it been determined if the "votes" are anonymous or not?
I don't think it's been determined, or at least it hasn't been revealed. The only further info I've seen from Groundspeak has been in the feedback thread:

 

Certainly the usefulness of this new feature will be the ability to filter cache listings by how many favorites they get.

 

BTW, the viewing of the ratings will be available to everyone from the beginning. It is the actual favoriting of the caches that will only be available to Premium Members during the beta.

And, in response to this comment "i think the idea is good.. but the downpoint for me is that i don't have a way to rate caches that are "good" or "above average" if they don't fit in my "favorites" percentage... meaning that even a good cache can be left without any votes. that said, still better to have this than nothing :)" was:

 

I don't think this will be a problem. Since people are logging 1 out of 10 finds as their favorite, even the "good" caches will have at least a point or two. But this is the first attempt at improving the quality of the game.
Which seems to indicate that premium members will be able to vote 10% of their finds as favorites, should they choose. Didn't see anything about anonymity.
Link to comment

In a highly social environment such as is Alabama caching "Dude, you tagged his cache but you didn't tag mine?" is going to be a problem, even if it is never actually voiced.

 

Has it been determined if the "votes" are anonymous or not?

 

This entire thread is mere speculation until we actually get to ride this beast.

 

For any system to work well, it would need to MUST be anonymous to us mere users.

 

For any system to work well, there will need to be a significant number of records to formulate any sort of opinion about a cache, one way or the other. Limiting the possible votes also limits the usefulness IMNSHO.

 

As for the previous comments about my wish to 'stigmatize' caches I find 'lame', there is no such desire.

I do, however, want to help future finders make the best use of their (possibly) limited hunting time.

Every cache is a gift of a possible smilie, and I always thank the owner.

One or two votes on a cache is relatively meaningless (unless there are only one or two finders).

I will repeat that there is a need to call a spade a spade, and if 25 GCVote users rate a cache as 1 star...it's lame.

 

I do not expect Groundspeak to take any action based on user 'votes'. (but maybe someone who's cache is on 100 favorites lists could get a new souvenir? :) )

 

I also do not think enough people will put caches on favorites lists to be helpful in the long run.

Probably not enough users would rate caches no matter what the system was like...certainly there are not enough people using GCVote in my area for me (or anyone) really tell whether any particular cache really is quality or not.

Sure, there will be a huge usage at the beginning, and a few cachers will diligently mark their 10% (or whatever), but most users will loose interest after a few 'you need to find more caches to mark another as a favorite' messages.

Link to comment

to me it kinda smells like a self-made reincarnation of the facebook "like" button.

The facebook like button had the potential to be even better than this. With facebook you could find the caches your friend recommended - or maybe the friends of your friends. Here it looks like, at least at first, you will only know that someone recommended the cache. You won't be able to see if it was your friend or at least someone with similar interests.

 

However for geocaches at least, I suspect using friends networks might be limited. It may help people who have lots of friends among local cachers to find the caches they are most likely to enjoy in their area. But once you get out of your area - or if you don't have many geocaching friends to begin with - the chances are you won't see many recommendations. Simply using everyone's recommendations will of course mean there will be caches on some people's favorites list that are not among your favorite kind of cache. But at least this will show you which caches stand out for many people and you can combine this information with terrain, difficulty, cache type and size, and other things you might already filter caches on to select the caches you might search for first.

Link to comment

Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Well, I guess it's how you interpret what people are saying in the forums. I have yet to read that people wouldn't read the cache descriptions or logs (but I haven't read every post on every discussion about rating systems). I would think that those that currently do this....load up their GPS and hunt without cache descriptions would just continue to do that, rating system or no rating system.

 

Anyway, who cares if there are a few people who would choose to hunt based solely on caches on favorite lists, without doing any research? How will their caching style negatively affect your geocaching experience? Or even geocaching in general?

Why do you bother to respond if you are going to take posts out of context?

Link to comment

Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Really? I can't seem to find any posts in which people say they only want to use ratings, and to do no other research. Could you point me to one of those posts, please? It should be very plainly stated, as you have claimed, please.

 

Thanks very much!

Link to comment

Of course, in previous threads, people have stated quite plainly that they wanted a rating system so they would not have to do any other research.

Really? I can't seem to find any posts in which people say they only want to use ratings, and to do no other research. Could you point me to one of those posts, please? It should be very plainly stated, as you have claimed, please.

 

Thanks very much!

I'll find BS's post for you some time when I am using a pc, rather than my iPod. Otherwise, you can do a better (actual?) search and turn it up yourself.

Link to comment

I think we are approaching this idea the wrong way. A "like" button is a solution which is never how you start out solving a problem. Understanding the problem is generally how you want to start solving something....

 

So...

 

What decides if you go looking for a cache or not?

 

For me?

Lots of sequential DNFs.

Lots of "Wet Log" comments

It appears to be in the middle of a parking lot. (new for me)

Lots of great photos

Lots of great logs

Finds by cachers I know

Hidden by a cacher I know

 

So if we get answers to the question above from 1000 or so cachers around the world and then ask the question:

1. What things are common among cachers?

2. What data is already available out of those common things

3. What data is not available

 

Then you begin to create a solution that addresses the data that is not available. And before you decide on a solution it needs to actually provide data that the majority are looking for.

 

Because somehow I don't think that "30 likes" answers any of the questions that will get asked. And if it does begin to scratch at one...it wont be in any meaningful way. IMHO

Link to comment

 

It would eliminate the bias toward high find caches but not one towards long-lived/widely liked caches. Take this cache, which I think would wind up on most finder's favorite list. By my count 9 of the 29 finders are no longer active cachers, nearly 1/3. Or this outstanding cache where I counted 28 finders (give or take a few) who are no longer active cachers.

 

It's funny. I clicked on the 2 links above, and they already each have 3 blue "favorites" votes on their page.

 

Now that picking one favorite for every ten finds is in place, I can quickly share my experience with it.

 

I've gone caching a total of 6 or 7 times, and have found just under 20 caches. There are two that stand out as my favorites. When I went to favorite them, I realized I had to write log entries for several of the caches I found but didn't bother logging (a tupperware under a tree, a magnetic box stuck to a guard rail).

 

In the end, I was still one shy of being able to add two favorites, so I gave my vote to The END, and made a point to go find one more cache so that I could give another favorite vote to My High School Hangout.

 

Today, I swung by a parking lot and instantly found a magnetic hide-a-key stuck to a sign. When I logged it tonight, I noticed two things:

 

1. Someone had already given a second favorite vote to The END, and

2. someone had already given a favorite vote to My High School Hangout.

 

For a moment, I seriously considered whether there was some other cache I had visited that needed my vote more than My High School Hangout. After all, it now had a blue "favorite" ribbon already, and I'm sure it's good enough that it'll get more.

 

I quickly decided that there was no runner-up. I couldn't think of a third cache that I've found that I need to call to the world's attention as a favorite.

 

This is good. I don't go out hunting very often, and it will be a while before I have 10 more finds. In fact, my tastes are getting more particular. I might not even bother with a cache unless at least one log says "awesome camo" or "awesome view." So, when I post my next favorite, you can be pretty sure it'll be the best of 10 somewhat carefully selected caches.

 

That's my 25 cents worth.

 

DG

Edited by Team Gently
Link to comment
The proposed system would be helpful if I happened to be in Paducah for one day, and I knew I would only have time to look for ONE or TWO caches. Naturally I would want to go for the best cache I could. Conversely, if I am going to be in Paducah for three days, I wouldn't mind going for a few less sparkly caches, and would only want to filter out the really, really bad caches. The proposed system does nothing, *NOTHING* to help me determine if a cache is really bad.
Which was the point: best-of-the-best, and then all the rest. One of the other side-effects I had hoped when I advocated this type of system was that people would WANT their caches to be favorites, so they would start to put more thought into the caches they placed, instead of just throwing them around every parking lot without any thought other than to increase find counts.

 

Many people (some very vocally) have touted in the forums that parking lot caches must be "liked" a lot because their found a lot. I would be very interested six months down the road to see how many parking lot caches are considered as favorites. While as a whole they are great for quick-fixes, increasing find counts, major number runs, or a find after a string of no-finds, I can't imagine that many cachers - given 10 wide-variety caches of scenic territory, longer hikes, etc that are all pretty decent and equal in likability - would then choose the parking lot cache as a favorite based SOLELY on the fact that it's in a parking lot.*

 

You've kind of hit the nail on the head as to who the favorites will benefit. New cachers, or cachers in town for a short time (or regular cachers with limited caching time). If you're living in the area, and you're driven to do so, you'll probably try to find all of the caches regardless of favorite points, although you might look for the higher favorites first. But if you're in town for 3 or 4 days and want to search for say 20 or 30 caches, maybe the favorites isn't the BEST solution, but it will give you a starting point. Then use the other techniques that have existed for years: I would find other caches near the favorites and read the logs, find favorite caches and look for others placed by the same owner, match the criteria of the types of caches for which I would normally enjoy looking. Not every system of "pips" needs to have a corresponding system of "diggs".

 

*The Heisenberg uncertainty principle will probably come in to play. Now that someone knows that people are watching to see if caches in parking lots are favorites, cachers that need to prove their point might skew the data by using all of their favorites on parking lot caches just to say "See? Told you so!"

Link to comment
The proposed system would be helpful if I happened to be in Paducah for one day, and I knew I would only have time to look for ONE or TWO caches. Naturally I would want to go for the best cache I could. Conversely, if I am going to be in Paducah for three days, I wouldn't mind going for a few less sparkly caches, and would only want to filter out the really, really bad caches. The proposed system does nothing, *NOTHING* to help me determine if a cache is really bad.

Which was the point: best-of-the-best, and then all the rest.

I'm still going to use GCVote along with the Favorites system. GCVote allows low votes so it helps weed out the less favourable caches. When I'm visiting a new location I'll spend my time on the GCVote 3-5 rated caches and the Groundspeak 'favorite' rated caches. I'll skip the GCVote 1-2 rated caches.

Link to comment

I'm sure it's been said already but I suspect that given a limited number of 'favorite' votes to dispense cachers are going to tag their friend's caches with them first.

 

In a highly social environment such as is Alabama caching "Dude, you tagged his cache but you didn't tag mine?" is going to be a problem, even if it is never actually voiced.

 

If our fellow Alabamians want to get torqued up over which of their caches are tagged then that's their issue, not mine. I've yet to hear anybody whining over so-and-so's cache being on a bookmarked favorite list- why would this be any different?

 

I live in an area with a very active and social geocaching community. I absolutely would not mark a cache as a favorite simply because it belonged to a friend. My soon-to-be husband owns many caches, and I think I marked ONE of them. I marked the caches I liked the best, regardless of who owns them. If a friend wants to get butthurt because their cache didn't make my 1 in 10 list, they're welcome to stop being my friend.

Link to comment
I'm still going to use GCVote along with the Favorites system. GCVote allows low votes so it helps weed out the less favourable caches. When I'm visiting a new location I'll spend my time on the GCVote 3-5 rated caches and the Groundspeak 'favorite' rated caches. I'll skip the GCVote 1-2 rated caches.
Of course, that is your right. As a comparison, when attributes were first implemented on Geocaching.com, there was another outside service called "The Selector" that had some attributes that Geocaching.com didn't have. There were also some that Geocaching.com had that The Selector did not. There were some forum regulars that were adamantly opposed to using Geocaching.com attributes. However, the biggest problem was the lack of integration in Pocket Queries, which came much later. All of the caches with The Selector aren't searchable in GSAK or in the Pocket Query interface, but those that use GC.com attributes are. My guess is that over the course of time, when favorites are integrated with Pocket Queries and GPX files, less and less people will use the outside resource, reducing it's overall value.

 

Just my guess.

Link to comment

The difference is that attributes tried to copy the basic idea of "The Selector", with icons that showed a few important attributes of the cache at a glance. So it was not so important exactly which attributes you had or didn't have. Eventually the idea of being able to search the attribute gave the Groundspeak version an advantage. In addition, the growth of paperless caches made "The Selector" icons pretty useless. Since we don't have GPS's that display the attributes in the GPX file, they're not much better. (I don't know if the Groundspeak smartphone apps show the attributes or not).

 

With favorites, you have a fundamentally different system than GCVote. I happen to believe that the favorites will be more useful than GCVote for selecting caches when you visit a new area, if for no other reason than more people will participate so you have a better sample than GCVote. The supporters of GCVote seem to want a system that lets you vote down caches you don't like. This is confirmed when some of the same people complain about the 'awesomeness' rating on opencaching.com having the minimum score mean "the cache is okay". If there were a GCVote system on geocaching.com I would probably give LPCs and guardrail caches at least a 3 and maybe higher, because I know that many people actually do like these caches. (I don't believe many will be favorite caches, but these are caches than many enjoy) I would see the GCVote as an election between the groups that believe certain caches are lame and the groups that enjoy these caches. And I wouldn't be so positive that one side is going to win this election on every cache.

Link to comment
My guess is that over the course of time, when favorites are integrated with Pocket Queries and GPX files, less and less people will use the outside resource, reducing it's overall value.

In this country at least, far more folks have "voted" with GC.com's favorites after just a few days than use GCVote over the course of its lifetime. The hurdle to clear to vote is far lower - I don't know what percentage of geocachers are comfortable with Greasemonkey, but it's certainly very small relative to the percentage of geocachers that see the big blue ribbon at the top of every cache page. The one advantage GCVote might have is that it's not restricted to premium members, but if the early numbers are any indication, that doesn't matter much.

 

If there were a GCVote system on geocaching.com I would probably give LPCs and guardrail caches at least a 3 and maybe higher, because I know that many people actually do like these caches. (I don't believe many will be favorite caches, but these are caches than many enjoy) I would see the GCVote as an election between the groups that believe certain caches are lame and the groups that enjoy these caches. And I wouldn't be so positive that one side is going to win this election on every cache.

If everyone votes their own philosophy (yours included), overall the system should work just fine. Where it picks up its power is in comparing the ratings between caches that are otherwise similar. If most LPCs are getting 2's and 3's and there is one that gets 4's and the occasional 5, that would tell an LPC-hunter that this one is a cut above the rest.

Link to comment

I have done 200 caches, some good, some bad and some great ones!!!

Favorites is a great idea simple and quick which should encourage people to actually use it.

Favorites are only a guide , but for me, will point me at the logs I should be reading to see if a cache is for me.

If a cache is special I have no doubt several people will vote for it, making it easy for me to identify as a target.

Favorites are effectively the top ten percent of caches which means if i am only doing 1 cache in an area hopefully it will be a good one!

 

As for Gvote I have not heard of it so not very helpful! But I am going to look at it right now!

 

I look at it this way Favorites If nothing else can not do any harm, and for me I think it will be very useful.

Link to comment

So far I'm liking this system. I went back through my "Best Caches" bookmark list and retroactively awarded a Favorite to all the caches on it, even the Archived ones. I also did a search from my home coordinates and sorted it by the caches with the most Favorites and, sure enough, the bulk of them were caches that I either had on my list, have wanted to do, or ones that I considered "pretty good" but not enough to rate a Favorite from me. (My standards are much higher than 1 in 10, as evidenced by the fact I have around 160 Favorite votes sitting unused.)

 

I'm really looking forward to going to trying this system out when traveling to see how it plays out.

 

I've been fairly critical of some of the changes I've seen Groundspeak make lately, but this one is a-ok by me.

Link to comment

In this country at least, far more folks have "voted" with GC.com's favorites after just a few days than use GCVote over the course of its lifetime. The hurdle to clear to vote is far lower - I don't know what percentage of geocachers are comfortable with Greasemonkey, but it's certainly very small relative to the percentage of geocachers that see the big blue ribbon at the top of every cache page. The one advantage GCVote might have is that it's not restricted to premium members, but if the early numbers are any indication, that doesn't matter much.

 

I've never used GCVote because I don't like the idea of penalizing a cache owner because I didn't enjoy their cache, so I would only be inclined to rate a cache I liked. I like the "favorites" system because it's positive. Adding someone to the list means I loved the cache, but not adding someone to the list is neutral, not negative.

 

I'm already noticing that the really fantastic, memorable caches are getting voted up. If I need to be selective about the caches I'm finding, that's helpful to me. I'm far less concerned about avoiding "bad" caches.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...