Jump to content

New Feature - Rating Caches


unclerojelio

Recommended Posts

Thats an excellent idea! The hider get to rate it for terrain and difficulty to find. We could then come up with the average finders ratings for terrain and difficulty. I find I rarly agree with the hider on the difficulty. That would be a great feature.

 

mcb

Link to comment

I think unclerojelio means vote whether the cache sucks or not. That has been discussed to death and most folks have come to the conclusion that it would be rude to have reviews that way.

 

I feel that perhaps people could nominate their own favorite 10 caches and do rating that way.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

I think unclerojelio means vote whether the cache sucks or not. That has been discussed to death and most folks have come to the conclusion that it would be rude to have reviews that way.


 

That is what I meant. I don't think it would be rude. I'm just kinda curious what folks think about my caches. Sometimes you can tell from the log pages that say: Found it easily enough ... or This wasn't so bad ... but I'd rather have them come out and say that it sucks if it sucks.

 

quote:

I feel that perhaps people could nominate their own favorite 10 caches and do rating that way.

 

Jeremy


 

That doesn't address the point that if I have a choice of caches to visit today, which is the better (most challenging, harder, best stuff, etc) one to go to. You can get a sense from the overall/terrain rating, but I'd rather see what other cache finders think of the cache.

Link to comment

I would like to introduce a rating system that was statistically fair (using standard deviation and all that), but I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak about it.

 

(For those who didn't take statistics, I'm referring to removing some of the worst and best scores to get a statistical average. Posts that have less than X reviews will not have a rating until there are enough votes, unlike these forums where a single vote of 1 makes the topic a 1)

 

However, I am the Geocaching.com whipping boy, so I should be able to handle it.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

I would like to introduce a rating system that was statistically fair (using standard deviation and all that), but I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak about it.


 

I personally would love to see this implemented! The feedback provided on my own caches would help me learn which are below par as well as identify those elements that people like best.

 

24_700.gif

Link to comment

Jeremy ...not to make things needlessly complicated, but if you'd consider throwing out the highest and lowest votes - a good idea - and not showing a cache's rating until a certain number of votes have been cast ...would you then perhaps consider breaking the vote down into something like:

 

- Location (the view, surroundings, etc)

- The cache itself (container, contents)

 

...That way we can find out if people hated the area or the fact that the container leaked. Or combinations thereof.

 

"Strictly hand-held is the style I go." --Beastie Boys

Link to comment

I think rating is a good idea.

 

Why not try this: For every 10 caches you have found, you may vote for 1. So if you have found 34 (like me), you may pick 3 of them that you really enjoyed - your personal top 10%. I think that would be more fair than letting everyone pick 10 caches. And a lot of caches will get no votes at all, so we're not being rude to anyone, just giving credit to those who deserve it.

Link to comment

Since what makes for a good cache is more subjective than what is difficult terrain.

 

Can you start with that? An average (say - located next to the stars that says something like +2.5 or -1) indicating that the cache has been rated too easy or too hard.

 

As far as the other ratings go.... Maybe a check box like the MOC that defaults to "no" but allows people to rate the cache if selected.

 

This way, people have the option to receive feedback on caches. This eliminates the fear of negative feedback since people would specifically have to request this feedback.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

I think unclerojelio means vote whether the cache sucks or not. That has been discussed to death and most folks have come to the conclusion that it would be rude to have reviews that way.

 

I feel that perhaps people could nominate their own favorite 10 caches and do rating that way.

 

Jeremy


 

Hey great idea! Add that to the profile page!!!

 

Rob

Link to comment

This has been discussed before and I guess I'm still on the fence. Sometimes though, collecting my thoughts and putting them in writing helps me make up my mind, let's see what happens...

 

My initial reaction is that it would be great for cache finders to have the ability to rate a cache. Just a one to five star "vote" on your overall satisfaction.

 

One star... Not satisfied

Two stars... Somewhat satisfied

Three stars... Satisfied

Four stars... Very satisfied

Five stars... Extremely satisfied

 

No need to complicate things with all sorts of categories like ingenuity, creativity, scenic value, terrain atributes. Keep it simple. Yeah, your vote is very subjective, but so is everyone elses vote. One cacher may vote five stars for a great hiding spot while another may vote only one star because there was no scenic view or they didn't like climbing that big hill or whatever. Some would rate it low because it was too difficult and some would rate it low because it was too easy. In the end though, it should all average out.

 

On the other hand, there will always be those who abuse the feature... consistently rating caches high or low, or a group of cachers getting together to target a specific cache hider whom they, for whatever reason, dislike or disapprove of. I know it sounds terrible but it could happen. Jeremy's idea of throwing out the highs and lows, and holding off on adding a rating until a certain number of votes had been cast (or just starting every cache off with a neutral three star rating) could prevent this problem and make it very difficult for any cache to achieve a one or five star rating. In other words, a cache would have to be really, really bad or really, really good respectively, to earn a one or five star rating.

 

Hmmm, now that makes me think a rating system might not serve much purpose in the end as most caches would wind up in the two, three, or four star category.

 

Ok, if I had a third hand to hold another opinion in it would have to be the same as Moun10bike's... "The feedback provided on my own caches would help me learn which are below par as well as identify those elements that people like best." Indeed, I think I would most likely use a rating system to assess my own cache hiding abilities, and identify what folks enjoyed or disliked for planning future caches, rather than using it to help decide which caches I was or was not going to hunt.

 

Well, I guess I would probably fall off the fence on the side of being in favor of a cache rating system provided it's implementaton was fair and simple. One vote for overall satisfaction. Throw out the highs and lows etc...

 

Regards,

Tedoca

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gustaf:Why not try this: For every 10 caches you have found, you may vote for 1. So if you have found 34 (like me), you may pick 3 of them that you really enjoyed - your personal top 10%. I think that would be more fair than letting everyone pick 10 caches. And a lot of caches will get no votes at all, so we're not being rude to anyone, just giving credit to those who deserve it.

 

I think this is my preferred way of implementing this. All anyone would see is something on the cache listing like: "8 people placed this cache among their favorites" The issue I have with a "ranking" is that, like Tedoca said, most caches will drift toward the center so the rankings will essentially be meaningless. Maybe if it was implemented on a 10 point scale it would work out better? just a thought.

 

On another note, I am definitely in favor of finders being allowed to rank their thoughts about difficulty and terrain, and those numbers being averaged to display a finders rating of those elements. It might help folks get a feel for how accurate those numbers really are.

 

Thanks,

 

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

Link to comment

Just as long as it is not required to post a log. I'm usually dragging myself through the door late at night after a long day. Taking a shower, logging the finds, and hitting the bed is about all I'm up for. If I have to rate the caches as well, I would probably collapse at the computer. Besides that, I don't think I will want to rate most of them anyways. If it's a really good cache, I'll say it in my found log.

 

rdw

Link to comment

quote:
I think this is my preferred way of implementing this. All anyone would see is something on the cache listing like: "8 people placed this cache among their favorites"

quote:
Why not try this: For every 10 caches you have found, you may vote for 1. So if you have found 34 (like me), you may pick 3 of them that you really enjoyed - your personal top 10%. I think that would be more fair than letting everyone pick 10 caches. And a lot of caches will get no votes at all, so we're not being rude to anyone, just giving credit to those who deserve it.

 

What about adding a top 10 favorite finds to a cachers profile? If the user adds the cache to their top 10 list a top 10 icon could replace the smiley face in the log entry. It wouldn’t provide across the board ratings but would acknowledge the best caches out there and wouldn’t be open to abuse as some have pointed out could happen.

icon_cool.gif

Link to comment

quote:
I think this is my preferred way of implementing this. All anyone would see is something on the cache listing like: "8 people placed this cache among their favorites"

quote:
Why not try this: For every 10 caches you have found, you may vote for 1. So if you have found 34 (like me), you may pick 3 of them that you really enjoyed - your personal top 10%. I think that would be more fair than letting everyone pick 10 caches. And a lot of caches will get no votes at all, so we're not being rude to anyone, just giving credit to those who deserve it.

 

What about adding a top 10 favorite finds to a cachers profile? If the user adds the cache to their top 10 list a top 10 icon could replace the smiley face in the log entry. It wouldn’t provide across the board ratings but would acknowledge the best caches out there and wouldn’t be open to abuse as some have pointed out could happen.

icon_cool.gif

Link to comment

I haven't seen a lot of opposition to rating systems. I think that the statistical approach is the best - removing high and low and averaging the rest.

 

I think that it's more fair to the geocaching community to know what others think of a cache before they spend a lot of time, energy and money looking for it than it is to possibly offend the cache placer. Frankly, some cache hiders need to be offended.

 

1 to 5 stars, remove high and low, average the rest. Not even for difficulty and terrain. Just for 'the experience'.

 

In reply to RDW, I think that logs should be required to vote. I don't think that you need to do it right then, though. Like uploading an image. You don't have to right when you log your find. You can wait until whenever you want.

 

I disagree with only after 5 or after 10 logs posted, show 'em or only if a finder has more than a 2:1 find to hide ratio or "My top 10 caches are" stats. Keep it simple.

 

Com'on, Whipping boy! You can do it!

 

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:

You can wait until whenever you want.

 


 

Can I wait forever??? Because I still don't like the idea of rating caches. If it's good I'll mention it in the log. If it's bad, it would be better to contact the owner directly. Could you imainge the feeling a newbie would get if his cache had low ratings, but nobody bothered to explain why? Or a veteran for that matter. A favorites list isn't as bad, but how do you account for people who have only found a few. What do they know about what's good or not? Then after you have your top ten list filled you find a new one so you have to remove a cache from your favorites to fit the new one on. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

 

It strikes me as all being a big pain in the bum. Let's just get out there and cache. You'll find some good ones, and some bad ones. If you want a preview, read the logs or email someone who has already found it.

 

rdw

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:

In reply to _RDW_, I think that logs should be required to vote.


 

Uh, my post seems to be a little interpretable now that I look back on it. Originally, I meant: Do you have to vote when entering a log? Not: Can you vote without making a log? I would like to log a find without ever having to vote on cache quality.

 

Just clearing up potential confusion.

 

rdw

Link to comment

quote:
I think this is my preferred way of implementing this. All anyone would see is something on the cache listing like: "8 people placed this cache among their favorites"

 

quote:
What about adding a top 10 favorite finds to a cachers profile? If the user adds the cache to their top 10 list a top 10 icon could replace the smiley face in the log entry. It wouldn’t provide across the board ratings but would acknowledge the best caches out there and wouldn’t be open to abuse as some have pointed out could happen.

icon_cool.gif


 

I would completely agree with both of these suggestions. I have been to some excellent caches that don't get much traffic becuase they are difficult. It seems that they would not get the credit they deserve if it took a minimum number of votes to get a rating. Here in Michigan we seem to have a lot of cachers that never log >5 finds and they seem to hit the same few beginner caches. There is only a small core of people who will go out and find everything they can and seek out the tougher ones.

 

Rusty...

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Link to comment

quote:
I think this is my preferred way of implementing this. All anyone would see is something on the cache listing like: "8 people placed this cache among their favorites"

 

quote:
What about adding a top 10 favorite finds to a cachers profile? If the user adds the cache to their top 10 list a top 10 icon could replace the smiley face in the log entry. It wouldn’t provide across the board ratings but would acknowledge the best caches out there and wouldn’t be open to abuse as some have pointed out could happen.

icon_cool.gif


 

I would completely agree with both of these suggestions. I have been to some excellent caches that don't get much traffic becuase they are difficult. It seems that they would not get the credit they deserve if it took a minimum number of votes to get a rating. Here in Michigan we seem to have a lot of cachers that never log >5 finds and they seem to hit the same few beginner caches. There is only a small core of people who will go out and find everything they can and seek out the tougher ones.

 

Rusty...

 

Rusty & Libby's Geocache Page

Link to comment

Choberiba suggested:

quote:
As far as the other ratings go.... Maybe a check box like the MOC that defaults to "no" but allows people to rate the cache if selected.

 

This way, people have the option to receive feedback on caches. This eliminates the fear of negative feedback since people would specifically have to request this feedback.


Did everyone miss Choberiba's suggestion? I like it.

 

Let the cache owner decide if they want to receive ratings feedback when they create the cache.

 

That way those who have uneasy feelings about ratings don't have to include them when they create a cache and when they rate someone else's cache they can feel comfortable knowing that the cache owner is asking for them.

 

I guess I just resaid what Choberiba did... icon_rolleyes.gif

 

-exConn

 

What is Project Virginia?

Link to comment

Choberiba suggested:

quote:
As far as the other ratings go.... Maybe a check box like the MOC that defaults to "no" but allows people to rate the cache if selected.

 

This way, people have the option to receive feedback on caches. This eliminates the fear of negative feedback since people would specifically have to request this feedback.


Did everyone miss Choberiba's suggestion? I like it.

 

Let the cache owner decide if they want to receive ratings feedback when they create the cache.

 

That way those who have uneasy feelings about ratings don't have to include them when they create a cache and when they rate someone else's cache they can feel comfortable knowing that the cache owner is asking for them.

 

I guess I just resaid what Choberiba did... icon_rolleyes.gif

 

-exConn

 

What is Project Virginia?

Link to comment

...over not having any rating system at all, but I don't think it's necessary.

 

Ever sit with a 14.4Kbps connection trying to download a file that's 1.2MB on your only phone line and after hours of great anticipation you install it and it's the worst program you ever ran? I don't think cnet or amazon or any of those other companies that allow users to rate at will products that they use take into consideration the feelings of the developer. Often, shareware/freeware/postware writers are just garageprogrammers who are trying to get something out there 'cause it impassions them. If they put out a crappy piece of software, they need to know about it, and it will inspire him to improve his existing product or his next new project.

 

Hey, I post on threads out here with 1 star. I'm not going to ignore caches that are one star with 1/1 difficulties. I may go through the logs then to see why such a low rating. Otherwise, I may ignore the logs. I generally like to do my caching au natural (not THAT au natural!). But I'm not going to waste my time on a cache that is soggy and wet and unmaintained that the owner isn't interested in. Then again, I could use that opportunity to improve/refurbish it.

 

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by VentureForth:

Ever sit with a 14.4Kbps connection


 

VF, I love you like a brother but don't start crying over bandwidth. I realize this isn't 1990 anymore but there was a time not that long ago that 14.4Kbps was a wet dream.

 

Now if you had said 2400 baud I might have felt some pity.

 

Back to the topic at hand:

Ths would bring us up to the following choices:

 

MOC []

Rate []

Audit []

ClayJar []

Link to comment

...as long as the owner has control over it. I'd like to see three options: 1. No ratings at all 2. Ratings visible only to the owner 3. Ratings visible to anyone. Give the owner radio buttons on the creation page so they can choose or change their choice.

 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

I would like to introduce a rating system that was statistically fair (using standard deviation and all that), but I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak about it.

...

 

Jeremy


 

So what happened to the rating idea?

 

I really like the idea to let people only pick favorite caches so there would be no negative rating (such as one positive vote for every 10 caches found)

Link to comment

So many people value different things in a caching experience, a simple 1-5 star rating wouldn't mean much (whether fancy statistics were done or not). One cacher's 2 could be another's 5. I like the idea of allowing a cacher so many votes - top 10 list (or 10% of what they have found) and have the icon on their log be a special symbol, maybe a note that this cache is on X cachers top 10% list and that list available on their profile. I have found my enjoyment of caches matches some in my area and is very different from others. This system would let me know what to expect from the cache based a few other select cacher's opinions

Link to comment

Rating a good or bad cache is so subjective; but as there are more and more caches out there that I've not done I would like to see the following, which may be a bit less subjective, and maybe less hurtful to the cache owner.

 

Rate on;

 

1. Hike (as more caches invlove no hiking would be nice for those of us that get into this for the hike would like to see.)

 

2. Family (many caches may be too hard, too dangerous, to urban for those younger cachers.)

 

3. Entertaining (very subjective, but allows those who come up with clever concepts to shine)

 

4. Senic Beauty (kinda goes along with hike, but some drive by's may have great views.)

 

Good for you to get an idea what the cache is about without reading thru all the logs, and not really offensive to the cache owner.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Dekaner of Team KKF2A:

Rating caches has been brought up so many times I think we finally stumped Markwell.

 

In response to if we should rates caches or not, I submit the following: _Please please oh pretty please?_

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A


 

Please Don't, Please Don't! All we need are more numbers to squabble over.

 

Or at least just rate the cache placer, not the cache.

 

Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

Link to comment

Ratings should be handled as follows:

 

If we adopt Dekaner's suggestion, use the URL www.IsMyCacheHotOrNot.com to rate the cache.

 

If we adopt Brdad's suggestion, use the URL www.AmIaHotGeocacherOrNot.com to rate the hider.

 

Something like this was suggested last evening in the IRC chatroom, but discretion precludes me from disclosing the name of the person who did so. (All official chats are logged, of course, if you really care.)

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

If there's no accounting for stupidity, then why do I need to file a tax return?

Link to comment

No - you didn't stump me. I just haven't seen anything new proposed on this topic.

 

I've handled it a couple of ways.

 

ChicagoGeocaching.com rates caches in an area based on five characteristics. Local cachers vote on the caches they like and the results are displayed.

 

I also keep a list of my top 10% on my own profile. Check it out by clicking here.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Link to comment

What I was trying to say was let's not! Just give a little help to those trying to find a cache find that suits them.

 

Rate the Hider = you be mean to a person.

 

No squabble because everyone gets a vote if they want. If your cache gets low hike rating,,,who cares,,,many like short easy hikes.

 

I like local geowebsites, but many new cachers, and old cramudgens like myself would rather visit only one website per hobby. Let's try to make www.geocaching.com as useful as possible, with out over taxing the servers or the boss.

Link to comment

I've been fond of the Top Ten concept. Everyone gets to put 1 cache per 10 finds on their list. Caches with a certain number of listings per certain number of logs could go to the head of the line. All this with Jeremy's suggestion that the cache isn't rated until a certain number finds have been logged.

 

One must realize though, you'd probably want to make it a Member's Only feature. Otherwise, sock-puppet accounts would spring up and pump up the rating of a poor cache. Then you get into the issue of paying member versus non-paying member and your cache might not get visited by a paying member for a while, etc. etc. This really doesn't bother me as most of quality players in my area are paying members.

 

As for rating the hike, the scenic view, the hide, the interesting things to see on the trail, whatever; it's much too subjective. The logs can be used to report your experience, but too many times it just to claim the find--something I'm guilty of too often.

 

You could start a blog of your experiences. A person could come along and want to do the caches you've done. It's not a rating system, but...

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

I'd support a system where people could say "I really liked this one". Basically only positive votes and then base the 'rating' on that.

 

No matter how much you think a cache sucks, it's just horrible to rate it as bad. The person went to all the trouble of hiding it and probably loves it. It's the same reason it's rude to run up to someone and say, "Hey! Your baby is /really/ ugly!"

 

Not to mention that a cache can get sucky just by virtue of the people trading into it. Might be better to allow cache owners to rate the cachers themselves. "This guy trades used golf balls and chewed on McToys" to "Really rules, replaced my log book and traded out some used golf balls and chewed on McToys for a sweet piece of swag."

 

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Saving geocaches - one golf ball at a time.

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Link to comment

Quote

Not to mention that a cache can get sucky just by virtue of the people trading into it. Might be better to allow cache owners to rate the cachers themselves. "This guy trades used golf balls and chewed on McToys" to "Really rules, replaced my log book and traded out some used golf balls and chewed on McToys for a sweet piece of swag."

 

Not all that bad an idea!!

 

$1000 Bill

Link to comment

Personally, I like all caches icon_smile.gif Some are easier to find than others, but for me, they are all fun icon_smile.gif I hid a fairly hard one this weekend, or so I thought icon_smile.gif and was so happy to read what the first person to find it had to say, read the logs on it:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=50047

 

It really makes me happy to know that some folks truly do appreciate the efforts of another. Even if someone else came by and said this cache sucked, I know that it really didn't because:

 

1) I learned a lot of history educating myself about the cache site.

 

2) I got to get out and take a nice hike, alone in the woods with no phones or radios to harrass me.

 

3) I saw a beautiful deer when placing the cache.

 

4) Other people have enjoyed the cache so if someone else thinks it sucks, they are just a spoilsport.

 

I love Geocaching!

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

Link to comment

I agree with trippy & rdw. The logs speak for themselves. I rated one of my caches using the site rating system. After reading the first few cachers logs, I raised the stars on both. And explained why. I know this is about the finder rating the cache, but just a point. I don't think we need a rating system for what did you think of the cache? That's usually posted. Or at least that's been my experience. JMO.

Happy & Safe Caching.......

rocker51

icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CoronaKid:...You could have experienced and respected veterans that are nominated as administrators for certain geographic areas. Their votes would have more weight in the caches overall ranking. ...

 

I would have to disagree with this. One man's 'experienced and respected veteran' is another man's twisted egomaniac.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...