+MrPeabody Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 I was wondering what everyone thought about having a 'user rating system' similar to what Amazon uses. For each user that logs a find/didn't find, they would also have the ability to rate the cache in one of two ways: Difficulty/Terrain: If the user felt the rating given by the creator wasn't correct, they could add their own. Overall Rating: This would be closer to the Amazon rating system that is intended to give the finder the ability to rate the overall cache experience. ---- Mr Peabody and his fabulous WABAC Machine. Link to comment
+erik88l-r Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 This has been discussed before - I'm sure someone will Markwell you. I think it's a great idea, but I think the rating should be displayed as an average after at least five people have logged their "scores". That would provide anonymity to those who provide feedback. ~erik~ Link to comment
iryshe Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 I agree with erik. It is a good idea as long as it is used positively. Also, we'd want this to be a statistical average, not take x number of ratings, add them and divide by x average. That would involve more than 5 ratings before you could show a ranking at all. We are definitely considering ratings, for images, logs, caches, etc. We're primarily doing it to "bubble up" the best content on the web site for people like me who like to live vicariously through other geocachers. Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Link to comment
CacheMonkeez Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 If you're talking about rating images and logs and then having a top ten list (or something like that) - that would be incredible! That would generate an incredible amount of interest, discussion, ratings, etc. It'll be bigger than geocaching itself! quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):We are definitely considering ratings, for images, logs, caches, etc. We're primarily doing it to "bubble up" the best content on the web site for people like me who like to live vicariously through other geocachers. Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Originally posted by CacheMonkeez:If you're talking about rating images and logs and then having a top ten list (or something like that) - that would be incredible! That would generate an incredible amount of interest, discussion, ratings, etc. It'll be bigger than geocaching itself! Rating some of the posts would be kind of fun. Some pretty creative people out there (oregone, Yrium to name a couple) that have incredibly entertaining entries. If I didn't frequent the boards I would never look at their logs. Then again, the casual passerby might think, "these people are nuts!" Link to comment
+RuffRidr Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):I agree with erik. It is a good idea as long as it is used _positively_. Also, we'd want this to be a statistical average, not take x number of ratings, add them and divide by x average. That would involve more than 5 ratings before you could show a ranking at all. We are definitely considering ratings, for images, logs, caches, etc. We're primarily doing it to "bubble up" the best content on the web site for people like me who like to live vicariously through other geocachers. I think this is a great idea, and I am stoked that you are considering something like this. I think it will make it easier to go caching in new areas. You will be able to find the "best of the best" local caches much more easily. I'm really liking a lot of the changes you've been making to the site lately. Keep up the good work. Now about those stats... (kidding) --RuffRidr Link to comment
+The Frantic Cachers Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I think it is a great idea as well. I just recently posted a thread in the Northeast forum for what the local cachers consider the top 10 in Northern NJ. Link to comment
+SpongeRob Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 quote: I agree with erik. It is a good idea as long as it is used positively. How can it be objective if it's only used positively? Doesnt that defeat the purpose of a rating? Some good, some bad = Result. Take away the bad and you have a worthless rating. -- SpongeRob rwmech@keenpeople.com www.keenpeople.com Link to comment
+geo-jedi Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 This sounds like a wonderful idea. It is quite easy to set up a system that can be used only in a positive way and still be objective. Just as the item can stay "unranked" until there are at least n (e.g., 5) ratings, the site can also let any item not in the top half or top 100 or top whatever simply stay "unranked." No one needs to know why an item stays unranked. The site can then publish the best 100 items by state or city or whatever. Even better would be to allow users to list the best n items, or top x% of items by any way they can select/filter items. It might be by zip code, or within n miles of a location, or in a corridor around a route. Again, negativity is limited. There is no need to highlight or focus on items (caches, images, logs, ...) with low rankings. The idea is to get the good stuff recognized. Team Geo-Jedi, Searchers 4 Ground Truth Link to comment
+Wily Javelina Posted October 3, 2003 Share Posted October 3, 2003 Rating caches is really a great idea. The top ten best caches in Tucson, no the top ten caches in Arizona, no the top ten caches is the USA, no the top ten caches in the World. You could set up a stats page for each cache and rank it within a regional category. Best Puzzle cache, best urban-micro, best traditional, best background images, best use of HTML (you wouldn't even have to visit the cache the place a vote in this category). There could be prizes awarded, best urban micro gets a lifetime supply of rain-proof yellow micro notpads. Of course to show that you are not biased and are fair you would have to include a worst of show category of as well. Any cacher falling in this category would be banned from geocaching for a week. This is really exciting, I can not wait for this feature to be implemented. Oh yea, how about adding total finds to our profile page. I won't compete, I promise. -Wily Javelina Link to comment
+Wily Javelina Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 going...going...going...not gone. Link to comment
+gallahad Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 In my opinion, a rating system is less than desireable. Personally, I didn't get involved with this sport to be rated and I haven't seen anything affecting this sport that could be used to represent a "standard" against which a participant could be rated. Without a standard, how can you objectively rate a cache and (as was previously stated) what good is a rating if can only be "positive" - unless you intend for "positive" be used to described the wording in the rating (i.e encouragement as opposted to disapproval) of the cache. We already have two opportunities to offer a "rating" for a cache. One is on the log we post, the other (and the one I prefer) is a "positively encouraging" comment sent to the owner of the cache via email. That way it's one private opinion being privately compared with another private opinion - key word here is "private" ahem!!!! "Today's truth remains valid only as long as it withstands the test of tomorrow's discoveries" - George Hicks Link to comment
+GeoZeus Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Just wondered how Frantic Cachers did it. Test or [This message was edited by GeoZeus on October 09, 2003 at 05:55 PM.] [This message was edited by GeoZeus on October 09, 2003 at 05:57 PM.] Link to comment
+Steve Brown Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I love the idea. Too bad this is not a poll. Steve Brown Link to comment
Cupajo Posted October 10, 2003 Share Posted October 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by SpongeRob: quote: I agree with erik. It is a good idea as long as it is used positively. How can it be objective if it's only used positively? Doesnt that defeat the purpose of a rating? Some good, some bad = Result. Take away the bad and you have a worthless rating. I suspect he meant that it would need to be used honestly and not out of spite or revenge. Cacher A pisses off cacher B on the message boards so cacher B leaves negative "feedback" on all his caches to drive their rating down. That sort of thing would be counterproductive. But I agree that for a rating system to be effective, there would have to be the opportunity to leave a negative comment (constructively put, of course..."This cache sucks" is not a contructive comment) Link to comment
Recommended Posts