New Cache Rating System

[+geodarts]

The same goes for stats...you can't ignore the fact that statistics are a widely-enjoyed meta-game, and I'm very pleased to see that we're going to start seeing official stats. Go !

 

I missed this announcement but looked it up in feedback. An opt out tag would be nice.

Edited December 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+niraD]

An opt out tag would be nice.

Sorry. There will be no way to opt out. Once you've logged 10 finds, you won't be allowed to log another one until you select a favorite. And after 20 finds, you need to select another favorite. And after 30 finds, another, and so on.

 

[+ZeLonewolf]

The same goes for stats...you can't ignore the fact that statistics are a widely-enjoyed meta-game, and I'm very pleased to see that we're going to start seeing official stats. Go !

I missed this announcement but looked it up in feedback. An opt out tag would be nice.

Why? Because you're somehow harmed or inconvenienced by a "Statistics" link all of a sudden showing up on the site? If you don't care about stats, just don't look at them. Does the presence of a new "Souvenirs" link somehow detract from your caching experience? I don't really understand this complaint.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The same goes for stats...you can't ignore the fact that statistics are a widely-enjoyed meta-game, and I'm very pleased to see that we're going to start seeing official stats. Go !

 

I missed this announcement but looked it up in feedback. An opt out tag would be nice.

 

One of more common phrases I"ve read in this forum is "You don't have to find every cache." With that in mind, When using the geocaching.com web site you don't have to click on every link.

[+briansnat]

Hmm. I like the idea of a cache rating system. I was hoping for something like a general 1-5 star rating but I'll play along with it because at least it's something.

 

I'm interested to see how this will work with the different areas (high cacher density vs. low cacher density). Like here in the boonies. A neato cache might be exceptionally in the boonies and all 5 of us locals have found it but it's going to look bad because only the 5 of us thought it was cool versus a cache in a higher cacher dense area where it might not be cool but because it's the coolest of the available options 100 people might like it.

 

Then I also wonder about the folks who don't go after just any cache and end up with the vast of majority of their caches found being awesome with a few duds mixed in. Limiting which ones they can essentially rate means some awesome caches won't get a vote they deserve. Which is again why I favored the 1-5 system. Then if all one finds are awesome caches (with a few duds) then they appropriately rate those awesome caches. Especially if it's a cacher who goes to remote caches or difficult terrain caches which may get visited once in a long while.

 

There are flaws. I think older caches will be penalized. Many of the finders might be now out of the game and will not be rating them. I can think of several caches that are highly regarded locally and would be on the favorite list of most finders, but if you look through the logs close to half of the people who found them are no longer involved in the sport. Even for those still in the sport a cache found 8 years ago will really have to stand out for someone to remember it, so older caches will likely be held to a higher standard of sorts than newer caches. Older caches will be penalized, especially if the system is weighted based on total finds.

 

Being able to rate all caches on 1 - 5 basis will cause most caches to average out at about 3.5 or 4. Go to Amazon.com and other sites that use that system and you'll notice that nearly everything that has a lot of ratings winds up in that range.

 

I once suggested, half in jest, that the average number of words in logs be used to rate caches because better caches tend to get more wordy logs and the best caches usually have lengthy logs. But there may be a cache that is so bad that people write long logs complaining about it, or detailing the horrible time they were given by security or a meeting with an irate homeowner.

 

Point is that every system has its flaws, but overall I like the one being used here because it seems to give people a limited number votes so they have to put more thought into it.

[+geodarts]

One of more common phrases I"ve read in this forum is "You don't have to find every cache." With that in mind, When using the geocaching.com web site you don't have to click on every link.

 

Granted. But it is not necessarily what I click. I have seen enough posts from people who don't even want their numbers displayed let alone more detailed stats.

 

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.

Edited December 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+addisonbr]

I think older caches will be penalized.

I think this is true.

 

Being able to rate all caches on 1 - 5 basis will cause most caches to average out at about 3.5 or 4.

I think this is also true. The curve tends to be pretty meaty in the 3.5-ish range. It makes sense that quality is not linearly distributed. I usually pay extra attention to ratings 4.5+ and below 2 (although I usually only really pay attention to the high ratings if there are enough of them - it's very common for authors / app developers / restaurant owners / etc. to get their friends to seed the early reviews).

 

I once suggested, half in jest, that the average number of words in logs be used to rate caches because better caches tend to get more wordy logs and the best caches usually have lengthy logs. But there may be a cache that is so bad that people write long logs complaining about it, or detailing the horrible time they were given by security or a meeting with an irate homeowner.

Although there are exceptions, I've found that the correlation between log length and cache quality is very robust. Counter-examples exist, but by and large if I had nothing else to go on, I'd be pretty comfortable going by log length.

 

Point is that every system has its flaws, but overall I like the one being used here because it seems to give people a limited number votes so they have to put more thought into it.

I'd definitely prefer this to a simple, unlimited "Like" button; limiting votes will give votes more value. It's a bit of a bummer that it may overly restrict particularly discriminating cachers (like Criminal), and it will probably depress the ratings of older caches. But it's definitely better than a Facebook-style unlimited Like button on cache pages.

 

I just remembered we used to have a Facebook-style unlimited Like button on the cache pages. That was weird.

[+addisonbr]

But in general, it would be nice to have the option to decide what I want to be displayed to others.

All things equal, that's not a bad philosophy.

[+Castle Mischief]

I just remembered we used to have a Facebook-style unlimited Like button on the cache pages. That was weird.

 

That was much more than "Facebook-style" it was a direct link to Facebook. Punching that button had no effect and posted nothing to this site but posted to your Facebook account.

 

It wasn't relevant to caching and now it's gone.

[+Castle Mischief]

But in general, it would be nice to have the option to decide what I want to be displayed to others.

All things equal, that's not a bad philosophy.

 

Good grief, here we go again.

 

Dear Jeremy, can I please opt out of the font and background color choice on my profile page? Also, could you throw some time and money at development that will allow me to make my profile a blank page or look like a nightmare from Myspace?

 

[+geodarts]

But in general, it would be nice to have the option to decide what I want to be displayed to others.

All things equal, that's not a bad philosophy.

 

Good grief, here we go again.

 

Dear Jeremy, can I please opt out of the font and background color choice on my profile page? Also, could you throw some time and money at development that will allow me to make my profile a blank page or look like a nightmare from Myspace?

 

 

Huh? It is this kind of insightful response that makes me think I should protect my privacy on this site. If you want to put all the information that you have for people to see on your profile page, that is fine. I am happy with what I share about who I am and my caching experience - I am certainly not the one who is asking for time and money spent on development of anything else pertaining to it. But if detailed information is going to be put on my public profile, I would like to have some say in what is shared about me.

 

I was curious about the stats announcement because I had not seen it, but did not mean to derail the topic at hand.

 

So back to favorites and ratings. Since I have kept a list my favorites would be weighted toward older caches. It might work the other way with newer cachers. But it is only a starting point and generally I would look at location, the cache title, description, and other factors before relying on any kind of rating.

Edited December 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+addisonbr]

Dear Jeremy, can I please opt out of the font and background color choice on my profile page? Also, could you throw some time and money at development that will allow me to make my profile a blank page or look like a nightmare from Myspace?

Oh, I wouldn't be interested in those options. I agree that level of HTML design control isn't something I'd like. I think the look of the Groundspeak pages is generally pretty good.

[+Castle Mischief]

But in general, it would be nice to have the option to decide what I want to be displayed to others.

All things equal, that's not a bad philosophy.

 

Good grief, here we go again.

 

Dear Jeremy, can I please opt out of the font and background color choice on my profile page? Also, could you throw some time and money at development that will allow me to make my profile a blank page or look like a nightmare from Myspace?

 

 

Huh? It is this kind of insightful response that makes me think I should protect my privacy on this site. If you want to put all the information that you have for people to see on your profile page, that is fine. I am happy with what I share about who I am and my caching experience - I am certainly not the one who is asking for time and money spent on development of it. But if detailed information is going to be put on my public profile, I would like to have some say in what is shared about me.

 

What exactly do you think will be added to your profile page that isn't already public now? If you are logging your finds online, that data is already in the wind. If you don't want that data available then don't log your finds.

 

I understand protecting your real name, your birth-date, and many other details, but nobody has been able to explain to me how your cache stats are "personal data" in the security sense of the word. I don't understand how cachers that have been logging their finds and publishing to planet the fact that they've made these finds are now suddenly feeling like this is information that they don't want shared. You've been sharing it the whole time!

 

Bleh.

 

EDIT: And sorry for the bonus sarcasm. My insight is in the shop and sarcasm was on sale.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Castle Mischief]

Dear Jeremy, can I please opt out of the font and background color choice on my profile page? Also, could you throw some time and money at development that will allow me to make my profile a blank page or look like a nightmare from Myspace?

Oh, I wouldn't be interested in those options. I agree that level of HTML design control isn't something I'd like. I think the look of the Groundspeak pages is generally pretty good.

 

A bit of hyperbole on my part. But not too far off the mark. I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there. This is what makes caching on this website what it is."

 

Those that don't like it can take their ball and bat and try the other options.

 

Clearly, I won't be applying for a position in marketing at HQ any time in the future.

[+addisonbr]

I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there.

I also agree that I don't want them to take away anything. I like the stuff that's there. I wouldn't mind if they added other functionality (like making the Friends list more useful than it currently is), but that doesn't mean that I want Groundspeak to take things away entirely. Definitely.

 

Although I was glad when they got rid of the Facebook Like button, I'll admit that.

[+L0ne.R]

 

If you don't want that data available then don't log your finds.

 

As a CO I would much rather someone log their finds.

[+L0ne.R]

I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there. This is what makes caching on this website what it is."

 

How would not seeing someone's find count affect your caching experience?

So far in the forums the reason people are vehement about seeing someone's find count is so they can judge them.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the find count, if not hidden, at least put it click away. I'd like to see less emphasis on the numbers. I think the numbers-mentality is having a detrimental effect on geocaching.

[+addisonbr]

As a CO I would much rather someone log their finds.

I'm with you. Anything that encourages people to log finds online or add photos to my cache page, I'd love that.

 

I know a few people from outside of geocaching, who happen to geocache, but who refuse to log their finds online, and whatever their reasons it makes me a little bummed.

 

Are there any indications that people's cache ratings will be pseudo-anonymous? For example, bookmark ratings are pseudo-anonymous (nobody but Groundspeak knows who left them, unless the reviewer decides to identify him/herself). Would cache ratings work the same way? Or would I be able to see, at my option, every cache that's been rated by a particular person?

 

Would they be the same as bookmark ratings, or different?

[+Castle Mischief]

I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there.

I also agree that I don't want them to take away anything. I like the stuff that's there. I wouldn't mind if they added other functionality (like making the Friends list more useful than it currently is), but that doesn't mean that I want Groundspeak to take things away entirely. Definitely.

 

Although I was glad when they got rid of the Facebook Like button, I'll admit that.

 

Sorry, by "aways be here" I mean "uniformly across everybody's profile with no opt out".

[+Castle Mischief]

I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there. This is what makes caching on this website what it is."

 

How would not seeing someone's find count affect your caching experience?

So far in the forums the reason people are vehement about seeing someone's find count is so they can judge them.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the find count, if not hidden, at least put it click away. I'd like to see less emphasis on the numbers. I think the numbers-mentality is having a detrimental effect on geocaching.

 

How does me seeing your find count affect your caching experiance?

[+addisonbr]

Sorry, by "aways be here" I mean "uniformly across everybody's profile with no opt out".

Yeah, I agree. Opting out seems to me to be a lot more code and trouble for the developers than just incorporating the Friends list. I don't even know how they would go about designing an "opt out" setting for souvenirs, which I think JYoungman said they were working on... it sounds like a lot of extra architecture.

[knowschad]

Of course, there's also the fact that cache quality isn't static. A cache that was awesome when found a while back may have devolved into trash. Those dozen people who marked it as a fave will never know that it's no longer awesome, so future cachers will continue to be led by bad info.

For that matter, original ideas generally get copied until they are boring. When I began caching, one of the most popular hiders in the area was the one that put out the first fake rock cache, the first skirt lifter in the area, the first fencepost cap hide... they were indeed "great" at the time, and fooled many.

[+Chokecherry]

Of course, there's also the fact that cache quality isn't static. A cache that was awesome when found a while back may have devolved into trash. Those dozen people who marked it as a fave will never know that it's no longer awesome, so future cachers will continue to be led by bad info.

For that matter, original ideas generally get copied until they are boring. When I began caching, one of the most popular hiders in the area was the one that put out the first fake rock cache, the first skirt lifter in the area, the first fencepost cap hide... they were indeed "great" at the time, and fooled many.

 

I'm less likely to base my cache favorites on cache alone. I'd more likely look at the enter experience. So it might be just an ammo can by a stump but if the journey there was great or the area great I'd put it on my favorites. Same if it was just a skirt lifter but if it's in an awesome spot in an awesome park I'd probably mark it as a favorite.

[+tozainamboku]

I just remembered we used to have a Facebook-style unlimited Like button on the cache pages. That was weird.

The advantage of the Facebook Like button is that you get to see what your friends like. You are much less interested in the total number of likes something gets as you are in seeing what your friends like. They are your friends because you tend to have similar interests and likes already, so getting notified it they like something has value to to you.

 

The problem it that it might not work as well for caching. Unless you have friends in that distant city your are going to visit, you might not see many caches that your friends like. Perhaps some of your local friends have visited the same city in the past and they may have liked something there. But again this will not give you much information. Facebook sometimes resolves this problem by putting you in a network with not just your friends but the friends of your friends. Enough steps and you might get somewhere.

[+geodarts]

I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there. This is what makes caching on this website what it is."

 

Those that don't like it can take their ball and bat and try the other options.

 

Without knowing what Groundspeak has in mind, I am not certain that a detailed public report on my activities makes caching what it is. My wife might give me an ultimatum if she really added up the time caching against the time spent on house painting - the sum of the numbers are different than telling her I am going out caching with a friend on a furlough day. But really it is just an uneasy feeling. I am not sure why anybody needs to know patterns of my life (excepting google of course). The find totals, the logs, or the information on lists that I chose to join is enough.

 

The list of logs make some people uneasy, but I can see their use in detecting bots or armchair loggers. The find and hide stats can be useful. Other stats might be fun, but if it is not necessary to the game, I like to be asked. I don't know whether I would choose to block certain things but the option should be mine, just like I can choose to make other things public or private on any number of sites.

 

There are things I like to keep private even if the information can be obtained in other ways. You can find out a lot about me on the web, but I still asked the DMV to block some of that information when I took my present job.

 

All of which somehow gets into whether a rating system should be anonymous. In other games I have played, it has not, perhaps limiting its effectiveness. If Groundspeak adopted a five star rating system I would think it would be more accurate if kept anonymous - although I am pretty easy in any event (would I give a LPC a bad rating when I knowing chose to do it - when it might be perfectly fine for what it is?).

 

But I would like to know who judges a cache to be a favorite, I would trust some people's recommendations more than others. And since it is a postive recommendation there is nothing unfavorable to take personally.

Edited December 10, 2010 by mulvaney

[+kwcahart]

This kinda reminds me of bad mouthing a pair of boots that you've never seen or owned or wore. I want to see how it works.

[+L0ne.R]

I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there. This is what makes caching on this website what it is."

 

How would not seeing someone's find count affect your caching experience?

So far in the forums the reason people are vehement about seeing someone's find count is so they can judge them.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the find count, if not hidden, at least put it click away. I'd like to see less emphasis on the numbers. I think the numbers-mentality is having a detrimental effect on geocaching.

 

How does me seeing your find count affect your caching experiance?

 

I think it affects geocaching overall. There's an emphasis on numbers - comparing and trying to outdo. Not just wrt finding caches but also to hiding cache. Publishing caches so that people can up those numbers rather then considering the quality of the cache placement. I also think the numbers mentality contributes to the increase in the number of power trail placements.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Lone R

[+addisonbr]

All of which somehow gets into whether a rating system should be anonymous. In other games I have played, it has not, perhaps limiting its effectiveness. If Groundspeak adopted a five star rating system I would think it would be more accurate if kept anonymous - although I am pretty easy in any event (would I give a LPC a bad rating when I knowing chose to do it - when it might be perfectly fine for what it is?).

 

But I would like to know who judges a cache to be a favorite, I would trust some people's recommendations more than others. And since it is a postive recommendation there is nothing unfavorable to take personally.

It's interesting that bookmark list ratings are anonymous. There is a thumbs up and a thumbs down option, and an opportunity to comment.

 

I'm fairly certain I don't like the thumbs up / thumbs down option, but I know I like the opportunity to comment along with the rating. It would give any type of rating more context.

 

If people had the opportunity to choose to be anonymous or not, that would also be nice. You could rate anonymously like for bookmarks (perhaps keeping things more honest), but you could also allow your ratings to be attached to your username if you wanted. At your option, people could even view a list of JOE CACHER's favorites. That would be pretty cool.

[Andronicus]

I like this idea for a number of reasons:

 

1) If filterable in PQs, this will make geocaching as a tourist in a new city much more enjoyable. It will result in a kind of "insider information" type of a situation.

 

2) While promoting good caches, it does not provide a vehicle for derogatory comments, bullying, or negitive feed back. Some people may think that these things are needed, but I think GS wants to keep everything on a more freindly level.

[+Castle Mischief]

I want Groundspeak to put their foot down and say "this is what's on your profile page. You can add to it, but these things here, here, and here- they will always be there. This is what makes caching on this website what it is."

 

How would not seeing someone's find count affect your caching experience?

So far in the forums the reason people are vehement about seeing someone's find count is so they can judge them.

 

Personally, I'd like to see the find count, if not hidden, at least put it click away. I'd like to see less emphasis on the numbers. I think the numbers-mentality is having a detrimental effect on geocaching.

 

How does me seeing your find count affect your caching experiance?

 

I think it affects geocaching overall. There's an emphasis on numbers - comparing and trying to outdo. Not just wrt finding caches but also to hiding cache. Publishing caches so that people can up those numbers rather then considering the quality of the cache placement. I also think the numbers mentality contributes to the increase in the number of power trail placements.

 

Everybody (logging their caches online) has always been able to see everybody's find stats. So caching has always sucked then?

 

So let say you get to hide your numbers. Great. How does that lessen the number competition between all the other people that can still see each others number and want it that way because for them it just is about the numbers?

 

People will make it about what they want to make it about. No manner of hiding or obfuscating the stats will change that.

[Andronicus]

...I'm interested to see how this will work with the different areas (high cacher density vs. low cacher density). Like here in the boonies. A neato cache might be exceptionally in the boonies and all 5 of us locals have found it but it's going to look bad because only the 5 of us thought it was cool versus a cache in a higher cacher dense area where it might not be cool but because it's the coolest of the available options 100 people might like it.

....

 

I don't think a cache with 5 "Favorit" votes will look bad. I suspect that the way it will work out is that it will be an honor to have any votes. Ones with 5 votes will become "Must do" caches.

 

When I went to Fredericton, NB, I asked the locals for a short list of "Must Do" caches. Well, no one had a list, but, I should check out caches in a certain park. I think this new system will really work well to produce your own "Must do" list for a new city.

[+addisonbr]

Everybody (logging their caches online) has always been able to see everybody's find stats. So caching has always sucked then?

That's not how I feel about it, anyway (that caching has always sucked). There are a number of feature additions I'd love to see to the geocaching.com site that I think would improve my experiences, but it doesn't mean that I think geocaching always sucked before those features are added.

 

For example, I'd like to see a rating system, but I don't think geocaching sucks without one. I'd like to see profile controls, but I don't think geocaching sucks without them. I'd like to see more flexible PQs, but I don't think geocaching sucks without them.

[+Rathergohiking]

A few ideas about improving cache quality:

 

1) Extend the closest cache requirment to 1/4 of a mile instead of 1/10th.

2) Ban all light pole type caches - this could be accomplished by banning all caches in shopping centers and gas stations.

3) Ban all containers that are not waterproof - pill bottles, plastic bags, etc.

4) When a cache is disabled, require it to be fixed in a certain amount of time like 30 days or else it will be archived.

5) If a cache has more than a certain number of DNFs in a row (4 or 5?) then it should automatically be disabled.

6) Limit the amount of hides an owner can have active at one time. Perhaps 20 or so?

7) If a cache is muggled and disabled more than a certain number of times (perhaps 3?) within a certain period of time (six months ?), it should be archived.

 

Part of the cache quality problem in my mind, is that there are too many caches out there (especially urban micros) and there needs to be away of limiting the amount of caches, which should in turn lead to improved quality. The game has turned into more of a "numbers" game; high quality traditional caches with swag are becoming extinct.

 

Just some ideas for discussion; you may like them, you may not.

Edited December 10, 2010 by rathergohiking

[Skippermark]

I wonder if it will be like in the feedback thing, where you get so many votes to spread around. That way you can delete an old one when you find a new better one.

 

There should, as others have suggested, some mechanism to allow for the difference in overall find rates. One of my favorite caches has only been found twice. Some LPCs have hundreds.

I think I'd rather see some kind of a ratio rather than a fixed number of "favorites" like on the Feedback site. The more caches someone finds the more chance they'll have of coming across some favorites.

 

For the average cacher who finds a mix of caches, a 1:10 ratio would probably be ok, but if someone only goes after "quality" caches, that could prevent them from rating some truly good caches as favorites.

 

I agree with the idea of allowing for differences in find rates. Like you, one of my favorite caches doesn't have a lot of finds. It's a long, tough multi, which already goes against it, and if only 20 people have found it and 12 make it a favorite, it won't get that much exposure compared to those that get found more often.

[Andronicus]

...I agree with the idea of allowing for differences in find rates. Like you, one of my favorite caches doesn't have a lot of finds. It's a long, tough multi, which already goes against it, and if only 20 people have found it and 12 make it a favorite, it won't get that much exposure compared to those that get found more often.

This could be easely fixed by not giving 10:1 votes. Give much less. Then when a vote is more valuable. that one with 20 finds will still have 10ish, and the lame one with lots of finds will have no votes.

 

That said, I would support a Votes:Finds display. That would be the real indicator of quality. If every finder voted for it, it woud be obviously exelent. If it got 1000s of votes, but only a 10% vote rate, it would indicate it is good, but not a "Must Do"

[Skippermark]

...I agree with the idea of allowing for differences in find rates. Like you, one of my favorite caches doesn't have a lot of finds. It's a long, tough multi, which already goes against it, and if only 20 people have found it and 12 make it a favorite, it won't get that much exposure compared to those that get found more often.

This could be easely fixed by not giving 10:1 votes. Give much less. Then when a vote is more valuable. that one with 20 finds will still have 10ish, and the lame one with lots of finds will have no votes.

 

That said, I would support a Votes:Finds display. That would be the real indicator of quality. If every finder voted for it, it woud be obviously exelent. If it got 1000s of votes, but only a 10% vote rate, it would indicate it is good, but not a "Must Do"

Great point. Making the favorites more valuable makes them more special when assigned to a cache.

 

I also like the Vote:Find display idea. Sometimes we're looking to do a really great cache, and if 20 people found it and 19 "favorited" it, you know it's going to be good.

 

And then it would be great if we could search/sort on the highest rated caches nearby somehow, so a 20:19 ratio cache would likely appear high on the list with a 95% favorite rating.

[+Harry Dolphin]

A few ideas about improving cache quality:

 

1) Extend the closest cache requirment to 1/4 of a mile instead of 1/10th.

2) Ban all light pole type caches - this could be accomplished by banning all caches in shopping centers and gas stations.

3) Ban all containers that are not waterproof - pill bottles, plastic bags, etc.

4) When a cache is disabled, require it to be fixed in a certain amount of time like 30 days or else it will be archived.

5) If a cache has more than a certain number of DNFs in a row (4 or 5?) then it should automatically be disabled.

6) Limit the amount of hides an owner can have active at one time. Perhaps 20 or so?

7) If a cache is muggled and disabled more than a certain number of times (perhaps 3?) within a certain period of time (six months ?), it should be archived.

 

Part of the cache quality problem in my mind, is that there are too many caches out there (especially urban micros) and there needs to be away of limiting the amount of caches, which should in turn lead to improved quality. The game has turned into more of a "numbers" game; high quality traditional caches with swag are becoming extinct.

 

Just some ideas for discussion; you may like them, you may not.

 

Yes. May not like some of them...

6) Why do you think an owner should only have 20 caches???

5) Specious. People with DNF because they got in the car, but decided not to look for it.

2 ) and 3) I like

4) is subjective. Lots of caches should be disabled, but are not. This would cause cache owners with problems at their caches not to diable them.

 

You got a problem with 'urban micros'???? (Which are usually 'suburban'.) I've got some that I think are great. Keep your NA away from them!! (Of course, I will agree that many of them are pretty bad.)

[+tozainamboku]

A few ideas about improving cache quality:

 

1) Extend the closest cache requirment to 1/4 of a mile instead of 1/10th.

While this might mean fewer caches on a power trail, it probably wouldn't have an effect on the quality of caches. It may have the opposite effect than what you want. A cool site .1 miles from an existing cache will be blocked, so someone will place a cache in the parking log that is 1/4 mile from the existing cache.

2) Ban all light pole type caches - this could be accomplished by banning all caches in shopping centers and gas stations.

These are cache that you feel are lower quality for some personal reasons. If there were no more of these cache, no doubt some other type of hide or cache location would end up on top of your list of lame caches. Some people enjoy finding LPCs and other kinds of easy caches. Were the guidelines changed people would continue to find ways to hide easy park and grab caches.

3) Ban all containers that are not waterproof - pill bottles, plastic bags, etc.

In some regions these containers work fine for certain hides. I wouldn't want to start banning certain types of containers and pricing some kid out of the opportunity to hide a cache. I'm all for education to encourage the use of better containers.

4) When a cache is disabled, require it to be fixed in a certain amount of time like 30 days or else it will be archived.

For someone who would rather go hiking, you must realize that some caches may not accessible for 30 days or more at a time. Geocache owners have lives outside of geocaching as well. I would be opposed to a single firm number of days that a cache can remain disabled. Perhaps the reviewers (or maybe a special reviewer just for this) could get notification when a cache is disabled for more that a certain length of time and could start communications with the cache owner to see if there is a reasonable excuse for the cache being disabled for that long.

5) If a cache has more than a certain number of DNFs in a row (4 or 5?) then it should automatically be disabled.

I've seen difficult caches that have this number of successive DNFs. Especially if a group looks for the cache and everyone post a DNF you can get a lot of these quickly. I believe the the cache owner is in the best position to determine if the cache is really missing or not. Certainly I believe that if several groups DNF my cache in a row and previously most people were finding it, then I would need to make a trip to confirm the cache is there. Caches that go missing and the cache owner appears to no longer be doing maintenance should get a Needs Archive not and the reviewer can take care of it.

6) Limit the amount of hides an owner can have active at one time. Perhaps 20 or so?

Some high number cache owners do a great job maintaining their caches. Many high number hiders enjoy hiding caches that they take pride in and that generally better than average. I wouldn't want to discourage these hiders with a rule aimed at a few irresponsible hiders. Again I don't like a specific number. The community and the reviewers can tell is someone in not doing maintenance. I would agree with a rule that allowed a reviewer to not publish caches if the owner appears to be having problems maintaining the caches they already have.

7) If a cache is muggled and disabled more than a certain number of times (perhaps 3?) within a certain period of time (six months ?), it should be archived.

Lots of reasons why a cache gets muggled or disappears. It should be up the cache owner to determine if the cache isn't in a good spot because they have to replace it so often.

 

Part of the cache quality problem in my mind, is that there are too many caches out there (especially urban micros) and there needs to be away of limiting the amount of caches, which should in turn lead to improved quality. The game has turned into more of a "numbers" game; high quality traditional caches with swag are becoming extinct.

I disagree with the premise that there are too many caches and that is the cause of low quality caches. Perhaps the problem is that some people have not yet found an easy peasy method to select the caches they want to hunt for. I almost seem that you could set up a GSAK filter to find the caches you would like. Avoid cluster of dense caches (or just select a random subset from these clusters. Avoid 1/1 micros in urban areas. Avoid caches with Needs Maintenance set or where there are logs that say "the cache was wet inside". Avoid disabled caches (aren't you doing this already). Avoid cache with several recent DNFs, Avoid caches by owners with many caches. Avoid caches that have been disabled and reenabled several times in the past few months. Let me know how it work.

 

This newly announce system for rating cache may help some people select caches to search for. The number of favorites gives some idea that people enjoyed the cache enough to recommend it. Combining it with other filters should help you from being overwhelmed by too many caches.

 

Just some ideas for discussion; you may like them, you may not.

[+geodarts]

And then it would be great if we could search/sort on the highest rated caches nearby somehow, so a 20:19 ratio cache would likely appear high on the list with a 95% favorite rating.

 

As always it will depend on what you are looking for. A cache that definitely will be on my list requires an all day hike, climbing and bushwhacking up to a volcanic ridge overlooking a valley below. Its hard to imagine that one not appearing as a favorite for anyone who goes there. But what a 99% favorite rating means would vary depending on what you are seeking.

 

Many of the caches in my favorites bookmarks require more than a quick walk, some being found only once or twice a year, if that. There is park and grab that will get my vote, but it is 60 miles from nowhere on a dirt road where passenger cars may not make it.

 

And I don't know if the cache that still gives me nightmares every time I think about it would be a favorite or an avoid-at-all possible cost (or both). It will make for some interesting weighing: should I vote for the obvious (the cache on the peak above Machu Picchu or the Tunnel of Light) or something more obscure? And if I ignore the obvious, are my favorites really my favorites?

 

But favorites for locals and favorites for travelers may be two separate things. If I am traveling through an area, I will look for caches that are easier to do, particularly with a noncaching family. So there I look for caches in interesting locations, that are relatively easy to get to, quickly found, in a place that we would want to visit in any event. I go out of my way for virtuals and earthcaches. My local favorites list would not help with those. And if a small group of people visited a cache where everyone liked extremely hard to find caches, it would not met my needs.

 

So I will have to see what a favorite rating means in practical terms. I will probably rely on the same kind of things that I have always used to find caches that I want to do on a trip. However, if only as a sociological matter, it will be interesting to see how the community as a whole views certain caches.

Edited December 11, 2010 by mulvaney

[sylven]

We will complete our first attempt at a rating system by the end of the month. In lieu of a generic (and IMO unhelpful) 1-5 star rating system we have decided to let people rate a percentage of their finds as their favorites.

 

This favorite count will then be displayed on the cache listing. The beta feature will initially be introduced to Premium Members but will eventually opened up to all users.

 

We will also be exploring other ways to identify the best caches to encourage quality. Quality of the game is one of the major themes for 2011.

 

My only hope is that all this doesn't complicate logging a cache. Im not speaking for myself, I love the hobby,and I wouldn't personally mind opting in. However I do know quite a few who love the game, but think logging caches can be a tedious adventure, and should be allowed the option to opt out.

[+Markwell]

Buying something on Amazon and rating it are two very different things. Reading a book and writing a book report are two very different things.

 

I would bet a shiny new dime that logging caches and marking favorites are two very different things.

[+baloo&bd]

However I do know quite a few who love the game, but think logging caches can be a tedious adventure, and should be allowed the option to opt out.

 

Should be? If they check the guidelines, there is nothing in there that states online logging is required. Many do not.

[+ZeLonewolf]

There are flaws. I think older caches will be penalized. Many of the finders might be now out of the game and will not be rating them. I can think of several caches that are highly regarded locally and would be on the favorite list of most finders, but if you look through the logs close to half of the people who found them are no longer involved in the sport. Even for those still in the sport a cache found 8 years ago will really have to stand out for someone to remember it, so older caches will likely be held to a higher standard of sorts than newer caches. Older caches will be penalized, especially if the system is weighted based on total finds.

I know that when this is implemented I'll be going through my list and setting favorites on the more memorable caches that I've done. VIEW CARRE ' (GCE02C) and Hilltop at Green Mountain (GCHGHX) will be the first two on my list. Though, I can't say it's necessarily a bad thing if this new feature causes people to compete for favorites by placing new high quality caches!

[+addisonbr]

I would bet a shiny new dime that logging caches and marking favorites are two very different things.

I very much think that you are right.

[+sseegars]

A few ideas about improving cache quality:

 

1) Extend the closest cache requirment to 1/4 of a mile instead of 1/10th.

 

This works quite well in our state parks system, but I enjoy a run with a friend of mine now and then and we are always trying to best ourselves. I like the more rough pursuit of a cache more than he does (5/5) when I can but they are few and far between for me. At least the REALLY adventurous ones.

 

2) Ban all light pole type caches - this could be accomplished by banning all caches in shopping centers and gas stations.

 

Personal opinion. I have found that since I have started staying home with my infant son that these have their place in the caching world. I completely understand the folks who make this statement so often now. It's a good argument.

 

3) Ban all containers that are not waterproof - pill bottles, plastic bags, etc.

 

Agreed!

 

4) When a cache is disabled, require it to be fixed in a certain amount of time like 30 days or else it will be archived.

 

I like this one!

 

5) If a cache has more than a certain number of DNFs in a row (4 or 5?) then it should automatically be disabled.

 

I don't like this one. Just because it has that many DNFs doesn't mean it's not there. I am completely against automation on this one. That's why we have reviewers that contact the CO. If it ain't broke...

6) Limit the amount of hides an owner can have active at one time. Perhaps 20 or so?

 

NO! There are hiders here in our area (one in particular that enjoys the hide rather than the hunt. And he does it AWESOMELY WELL!

7) If a cache is muggled and disabled more than a certain number of times (perhaps 3?) within a certain period of time (six months ?), it should be archived.

 

NO! If a CO wants to keep replacing it, so be it!

No argument from me I liked what I liked and I didn't what I didn't!

[AZcachemeister]

I think the proposed system is a step in the right direction, but a favorites list is something any PM can already create.

 

With the GCVote system, yes, most caches will 'level out' in the 2.5-3.5 star range...but the really bad ones will be 2 or less, and the really good ones will be 4 or more.

 

Once my list (your list or anyone's list) of favorites 'fills up' I will then need to agonize over which cache to drop in favor of the new 'really great' cache I just found? Am I going to take the time to sift through a 400-500 entry list to weigh the merits of each one before making my decision?

 

PROBABLY NOT

 

Will I rush out and find eight more caches so I 'have room' to vote for one more?

 

PROBABLY NOT

 

And, if I did, what if one of the eight was also 'really great' and also deserved to be on my list?

 

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.

 

The absence of a 'favorites vote' only tells me the cache is not in the top 10%. Maybe I would be happy to find a cache in the top 50%.

 

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.

 

Thanks for reading.

[+The Jester]

A few ideas about improving cache quality:

 

1) Extend the closest cache requirment to 1/4 of a mile instead of 1/10th.

I'm not sure how this will help quality - quantity, yes, quality, no.

 

2) Ban all light pole type caches - this could be accomplished by banning all caches in shopping centers and gas stations.

Not all light pole caches are the same. I've seen skirt lifters on very nice woodland paths, and tricky non-skirt-lifter hides in parking lots. And around here there are some great views from parking lots, I remember several LPC caches with great views of Mt Rainier.

 

3) Ban all containers that are not waterproof - pill bottles, plastic bags, etc.

It really depends on the setting. No container is totally waterproof, I just did a cache last week where I pour water out of a ammo can. And I've found film cans that have stayed dry for several years.

 

4) When a cache is disabled, require it to be fixed in a certain amount of time like 30 days or else it will be archived.

NOT a good idea. I've had/have a few caches that were inaccesible due to construction (one starts at a historic foundation next to a new freeway off-ramp, it's been over a year since it's been fully available; another, in park, has construction fencing along a road preventing anyone from getting to that section of park, it'll be sometime next year before that's down). There's another of mine that the area is closed from Nov. to April, so the cache is disabled for that time.

 

5) If a cache has more than a certain number of DNFs in a row (4 or 5?) then it should automatically be disabled.

That might limit some high diff caches, just because it's hard to find doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. This would also inhibit some people from logging DNFs, they wouldn't want to be the one that 'killed' a cache.

 

6) Limit the amount of hides an owner can have active at one time. Perhaps 20 or so?

Another not so great idea. Some people have trouble with one cache, others can handle 50+. And will you be counting stages of multi's? I have a couple of long multi's that take more work than 10 of my trads.

 

7) If a cache is muggled and disabled more than a certain number of times (perhaps 3?) within a certain period of time (six months ?), it should be archived.

Owners choice. If they like the spot so much, who are you to tell them to quit replacing the cache?

 

Part of the cache quality problem in my mind, is that there are too many caches out there (especially urban micros) and there needs to be away of limiting the amount of caches, which should in turn lead to improved quality. The game has turned into more of a "numbers" game; high quality traditional caches with swag are becoming extinct.

There a plenty of "lame" trad caches with swag around here. No thought is put into the ammo can under leaves/branchs behind the log/tree/stump. It's been done to death. Or the needle-in-haystack "it's under a fern" cache where there are a couple of hundred ferns (within GZ, thousands within view). How creative/unique is that? But should they be done away with just because they are common?

[+niraD]

I think the proposed system is a step in the right direction, but a favorites list is something any PM can already create.

Yes, and I've created a few myself. But my expectation is that the new favorites system will be tied into the PQ system, so you can specifically search for caches with at least a certain number of favorites, or with at least a certain ratio of favorites/finds, or whatever. You can't do that with bookmark lists.

 

When the new system comes online, I'll go back and mark my favorites, leaving a few slots open for new favorite caches (so I don't need to "agonize over which cache to drop in favor of the new 'really great' cache I just found").

 

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

Honestly, I don't expect Groundspeak to produce a system that stigmatizes "really bad" caches that way. And personally, I hope they don't. Some of my favorite hides would be considered "really bad" by some of the forum regulars. ("Eeek! A suburban nano-cache! Run away! Run away!") If that isn't your cup of tea (or your favorite), fine. But please don't slam the CO with a 1-star rating. I like his work.

 

The goal is to help people find caches they will enjoy, and the favorites system should do that.

 

The absence of a 'favorites vote' only tells me the cache is not in the top 10%. Maybe I would be happy to find a cache in the top 50%.

Do you really expect geocachers to be that uniform? I don't. Like Jeremy, I expect that truly excellent caches will have many favorites, but that most good caches will pick up at least a few favorites.

[I!]

Once my list (your list or anyone's list) of favorites 'fills up' I will then need to agonize over which cache to drop in favor of the new 'really great' cache I just found? Am I going to take the time to sift through a 400-500 entry list to weigh the merits of each one before making my decision?

...

Favourites lists of variable length are possible (previous page), though I imagine that the nice mathematical properties of such a scheme might be outweighed by practical issues of 'marketing' and implementation.

[+narcissa]

 

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.