Jump to content

New Feature - Rating Caches


unclerojelio

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

 

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


 

Yes, but these administrators would be nominated by fellow geocachers and new administrators would be added and removed every 3 months.

 

Personally, I'd be more willing to trust the opinion of an elected administrator who has over 100 finds in a given area versus a newbie with 10 or fewer finds. If an administrator starts abusing his/her power then they simply lose administrator status.

 

I think it would work and would have many other benefits beside a great way to rate caches. For example, it would be a certain badge of honor if you were recognized as an administrator for your geographic area. Not only that, but I think newbies would get a kick if an administrator visited their cache and gave it a positive rating.

 

The bottom line is that I think it would give people the sense that they are having a positive impact in the geocaching community and website. Perhaps I'm a little altruistic in my thinking, but I honestly believe that the more you reward and recognize long-time veterans, the more loyalty you will have. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

--CoronaKid

Link to comment

Ah, but what if the administrator doesn't like a certain type of cache? There's one guy around Chicago that is quite verbose and has 100+ finds. He brought it up once that he didn't like a particular type of cache. It caused a lot of friction among the ranks of local cachers. (If you haven't guessed - I was the verbose guy.)

 

I'd hate to have an "administrator" who didn't like one particular type only allowing a certain type of cache on the list, whether s/he did it intentionally or not. That to me sounds much more like an "electoral college" mentality - elect those to elect for us, then elect them out when they don't vote the way we like.

 

If you're going to have votes on good caches, why not something like Chicago's voting procedure? Everyone gets a vote that wants to , and you can change any time you like. It just shows those that people say really positive things about - without "dissing" anyone's cache. Note, though, that even with this procedure in place for several months, we only have 30 cachers who have voted.

 

Otherwise, like sbell111 indicated, read the logs. Why does everything have to be quantified?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Link to comment

Some of my caches create friction. I don't need to see that they suck to know that people don't like them. Nor do I need to see the votes to know that some of my caches are hits.

 

Since I can't do one without every now and then doing the other... I really don't care about a vote sytem. Besides the logs tell me what I need to know. "TNLN" in the log means "yet another garden variety cache"

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

or we could just read the logs to see if people liked our caches.


 

The problem with logs is that there are so many caches I don't have time to read all of the logs much less visit every cache when I go on a road trip. I want a quick and easy way to identify the best of the best.

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) That way no one will get their feelings hurt but if a lot of people vote for one cache I will at least read the logs and if it looks like a good one I can go find it.

Link to comment

I understand your position about road trips, but in my experience, its not a problem. I merely find the caches that are along my route. Next, I discard the ones with multiple recent 'no finds'. Then, I discard any others that I don't wish to go after because of terrain or difficulty ratings (this is based on my available caching time).

 

This leaves me with a group of caches that I go after. It works for me. On my recent trip to SoCal, I found 13 of 17 caches in one morning before I had to get to the airport at 1pm.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

I understand your position about road trips, ... On my recent trip to SoCal, I found 13 of 17 caches in one morning before I had to get to the airport at 1pm.


 

Aha… but I am after quality not quantity. I would rather find 1 or 2 really neat caches than 13 quick ones. I like both hard-to-get and drive-up-and-log-it type caches but a few are really outstanding, if a rating system let users mark their personal top 10% the cumulative results could be very useful “the best” caches would stand out while no ones feelings would be hurt because there would be no negative rating.

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