Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DirtRunner

Cache Rating System

Recommended Posts

Hey!

 

I was just wondering, what is the general concensous on including a 1-5 scale dropdown on how well the finder liked the cache.

 

Not the contents of the cache but the overall experience of finding that particular one.

 

a 1 could be a bad experience with the cache, like it is in a bad place in the city or it should be archived becuase of vomit covering it or something. *ick*

 

a 5 could be an awesome cache with imcredable views or fun and challenging process to get there.

 

a 3 could just be your average, looked for it, found it, logged it, *yawn* next.

 

Every cacher could rate what they though and then an overall average could be posted along side the terrain and difficulty listings.

 

This way when presented with 30 new caches in my area during the week, I could go after the higher rated ones first.

 

We could call it the CC Rating (Cache Coolness Rating)

 

I dunno, what do you think ?

DirtRunner

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people like the idea. I don't.

 

Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.

Share this post


Link to post

But it might be useful to have finders enter their impression of the find and terrain difficulties, and have the average appear right below the cache placer's rating ... maybe the "finder rating" of these parameters would appear only after 5 finds had been recorded to the page.

 

My impression has been that most cache placers do very well or underrate the terrain difficulty by perhaps 1/2 star, but rate the challenge in finding the cache at least 1 star too high.

Share this post


Link to post

I like BasoonPilot's idea of having ratings compiled but hidden until at least five have found a cache. I know I'd be hesitant about rating a cache if I knew that the cache owner would have no trouble figuring out who vomited on his McToys. icon_wink.gif

 

Then again, we all have different wants and expectations. A drive by 1/1 cache may be great for those with young children or who are mobility challenged. They may rate it a five star, whereas I might not go to it to begin with. Overall that cache might end up with higher ratings than caches that are more creative, in a more scenic location, and involved a great hike.

 

~erik~

Share this post


Link to post

I like BasoonPilot's idea of having ratings compiled but hidden until at least five have found a cache. I know I'd be hesitant about rating a cache if I knew that the cache owner would have no trouble figuring out who vomited on his McToys. icon_wink.gif

 

Then again, we all have different wants and expectations. A drive by 1/1 cache may be great for those with young children or who are mobility challenged. They may rate it a five star, whereas I might not go to it to begin with. Overall that cache might end up with higher ratings than caches that are more creative, in a more scenic location, and involved a great hike.

 

~erik~

Share this post


Link to post

In general, rating is far too subjective, of course. An excellent family-friendly cache might be disparaged by people who want a cache to take no less than 3 hours, and vice versa.

 

That said, someone in a similar thread once proposed a Gold Star system. After you find a cache, you vote whether it deserves a star. After some minimum number of finds finds, having a certain percentage finders give you a star promotes the cache to Gold Star status. I like that concept because it's more anonymous and highlights the "better" caches without crushing the others.

 

But whenever ratings have come up, I think the best solution has always been: read the logs.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I like the idea of the "Gold Star"

 

It's simple, and clearly would show the better of them.

 

If a cache gets say, 5 different cachers all rating the cache with a gold star, then it's official and the Gold Star gets displayed next to the cache.

 

Of course, no one know how many stars a cache has until the fifth one gets recorded and trips the display.

 

It would be a nice way to reconize those who go all out to make this hobby so enjoyable.

 

How about calling it a "Hallmark Cache" ?

 

Like dem Gold Stars Idears

DirtRunner.

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I'd really like this idea if I thought it would work..

 

But, like Markwell.. I feel that they'd all be bold.

 

Look at eBay feedback. From reading the feedback, you'd think just about every person on eBay was the best buyer or seller in the world. A+++++++. C'mon.

 

I think we'd end up with most caches having 5-star ratings, and a few with 1-star. Most people just don't care enough to put any thought into an anonymous rating.

 

My suggestion, as has always been: tell how much you liked or disliked the cache in your log entry. That way, someone knows why you liked the cache, or why you didn't.

 

Another case where I feel that we have the tools already available to us to accomplish this idea.

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I see with cacher ratings lies in the fact that each hunt isn't the same for each cacher even if its the same cache.

 

re:

 

You trip and skin your knee or stain your lucky cacheing underwear on the way to the cache.

 

You Find the cache wet or full of McCrap.

 

The weather is poor or excellent.

 

The cache container is plastic and you like ammo cans or vice versa.

 

All sorts of factors can affect a cachers Idea of what is a good trip and could affect the rating even though it shouldn't. If a cache is wet and all the contents are ruined i'm sure even that would have a small effect on the terrain rating of a chcher. I also think that a half star or even a full star off what a cache should be rated is going to make little difference to a hunter be it too high or too low. most people go to the closest caches that look like they suit thier liking. I'm sure someone with kids would avoid a 3/4 cache and someone looking for adventure won't go to a 1/1. but there is a definate rating difference there. Plus I have faith in the cache rating sytem provided when you hide a cache.

 

Anyone want this soap box? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Eeyore

 

It took a GPS to get me away from technology.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I see with cacher ratings lies in the fact that each hunt isn't the same for each cacher even if its the same cache.

 

re:

 

You trip and skin your knee or stain your lucky cacheing underwear on the way to the cache.

 

You Find the cache wet or full of McCrap.

 

The weather is poor or excellent.

 

The cache container is plastic and you like ammo cans or vice versa.

 

All sorts of factors can affect a cachers Idea of what is a good trip and could affect the rating even though it shouldn't. If a cache is wet and all the contents are ruined i'm sure even that would have a small effect on the terrain rating of a chcher. I also think that a half star or even a full star off what a cache should be rated is going to make little difference to a hunter be it too high or too low. most people go to the closest caches that look like they suit thier liking. I'm sure someone with kids would avoid a 3/4 cache and someone looking for adventure won't go to a 1/1. but there is a definate rating difference there. Plus I have faith in the cache rating sytem provided when you hide a cache.

 

Anyone want this soap box? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Eeyore

 

It took a GPS to get me away from technology.

Share this post


Link to post

Markwell, didn't you recently post that there is work being done on a regional rating system in Chicago? How is that going? I liked that idea, especially the categories. I've been meaning to propose that to the MiGO admin.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

The system is implemented.

 

We're up to 19 votes so far by local cachers. I've hyped up the Chicago Discussion board on Yahoo to have people get over and cast their votes. The problem is, with 19 voters and 206 active caches on the possibilities (in four regions) - we're not coming to any clear standouts.

 

You can see current results here, but to date, the only regions/categories that have 3 or more votes are...

 

NW - Quick in and Out: Cache in a Snag

NE - Quick in and Out: Drury Lane Theater

SW - Most Rugged: Lost Kendall Wilderness Cache

SW - Don't Miss: Great Village of the Maramek Cache

SE - Don't Miss: Black Partridge Surprise

 

And Great Village of the Maramek Cache is the only one with 5 votes (it really is a fabulous cache!).

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

I thought about a rating system for caches as well. But the above posts have brought up some really good points.

 

I think the only way to solve most of the concerns is rating multiple aspects of the cache, like: accuracy of cache, locale, points of interest, cleverness of hide, etc.

 

I know I would recommend a couple of caches in my area. Caches that made me scratch my head, left me with a sense of accomplishment, and really good ideas for hiding my own caches.

 

There are others that are in the "Don't Bother" category--like the ones just hidden behind a bush right next to a path, not an interesting locale, etc.

 

However, rating in the open, I think, would be bad form. No one really wants to criticize someone's cache. It should be anonymous. (I know one of my own caches would be in the "don't bother" category.)

 

Anyway, what about all of the previous finds? People would have to go back in enter--generally from memory--what they thought of the caches they found.

 

I like the idea of a rating system, it's just that there is a lot of questions that need to be answered.

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

How about rating the cache placer instead of the individual caches?

 

Sounds kind of scary or maybe even intimidating, but odds are if a person has X number of hides and still has a good rating, he probably is a thoughtfull placer, maintains his cache, and you could be fairly sure all his hides are decent.

 

Only people that have visited at least one of the hider's caches could vote on the placer, and is only allowed one vote, but is able to change that vote at a later date if he decides he rated them wrong.

 

Just an off-the-wall thought...

 

Women are like guns, keep one around long enough and you're going to want to shoot it.

Share this post


Link to post

I can defiantly see the benefit of being able to quickly pick out top-notch caches, but as has been pointed out a rating system could have a lot of problems. A solution that occurs to me would be a top 10% or maybe just 5% list.

Here’s how I envision it working. On each cachers profile page they would have the option of adding caches to their top ten list. Being a percentage a user with 15 finds wouldn’t be able to declare every cache he found an outstanding cache, but a user with 500 finds would have the ability to recognize a larger number of excellent caches. Then on the cache page there could be an icon indicating that the cache has received a top rating and perhaps the number of users who have put it on their lists. On the search page a “Top 10” icon could display the same way the “new” displays now.

This would facilitate the desire for users to find top rated caches, provide a way to acknowledge outstanding caches (other then just praising them in the logs), and could not be used to bash or degrade a less appealing cache since it could only be used to provide positive feedback

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~whidbeywalk/

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
A solution that occurs to me would be a top 10% or maybe just 5% list.


 

I feel this is a MIGHTY fine idea. I like 10% of finds and then the number of times a particular caches is on user's pages. If caches with 30 finds and on 10 people's Top 10% List would be a definate "Must Find!"

 

I like that idea alot!

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

.. who will want to visit the lower rated ones? I dont think of myself as having much Caching Karma yet, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. True, there are caches that arn't as good as others, but so what? If a top 10 list were implimented, you would have traffic jams of weekend cachers all out hunting the same small percentage of caches just because they want to find the latest and greatest. Meanwhile other lowly caches get the short shrift. (And don't tell me it wouldn't happen.) There comes a point where the point of finding a cache (which is the Finding!) crosses the line into competition. Competition only belongs in a formal game or organized cache hunt. Im happy to leave my views of a cache in the log, if I feel the need.

Having said that, I also voted in the Chicagoland picks to see how it would work out anyway. icon_smile.gif

 

-Centaur

 

logo_small.jpg

 

[This message was edited by Centaur on September 27, 2002 at 06:37 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

.. who will want to visit the lower rated ones? I dont think of myself as having much Caching Karma yet, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. True, there are caches that arn't as good as others, but so what? If a top 10 list were implimented, you would have traffic jams of weekend cachers all out hunting the same small percentage of caches just because they want to find the latest and greatest. Meanwhile other lowly caches get the short shrift. (And don't tell me it wouldn't happen.) There comes a point where the point of finding a cache (which is the Finding!) crosses the line into competition. Competition only belongs in a formal game or organized cache hunt. Im happy to leave my views of a cache in the log, if I feel the need.

Having said that, I also voted in the Chicagoland picks to see how it would work out anyway. icon_smile.gif

 

-Centaur

 

logo_small.jpg

 

[This message was edited by Centaur on September 27, 2002 at 06:37 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

_But when all of the caches get labelled with gold stars, nothing stands out

 

An old saying in typing: if everything is bold, nothing is bold.

 

http://www.markwell.us

http://www.chicagogeocaching.com._

 

I don't agree with you the gold star is only for truly special caches. I've has 28 finds, maybe 4 or them are truly memorable. Maybe two of them I would give the gold star to. So we are able to discern good from the ordinary. You have your own rating system is Chicago, how come they all didn't all become Must Sees? Because people used common sense.

 

My question was only to ask if there was some mechanism that could be put in place that would allow a cacher to quickly determine which caches in his area are worth more concideration. As for traffic jams, hell, shouldn't that be the reward for someone who put a lot of thought and effort into making sure his cache was memorable ?

 

With a five anonomous gold star rule, we would get something approaching what I had asked about.

 

DirtRunner.

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post

"...traffic jams of weekend cachers all out hunting the same small percentage of ..."

 

Oh, I don't know. I think most of caches I've found so far have been worth the trouble. It's just some are outstanding, either for the great park it's in or the "ah ha!" factor of the hide itself.

 

Personally, I wouldn't mind a "don't miss" rating of caches.

 

As for putting your true feelings in the log, well, we can do that, but that would mean shifting through a aweful lot of logs...

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you 100% Sissy!

 

Thanks for the support

DirtRunner

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post

nice thought, but it wont work. similar systems have been brought up before. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

whack.gif

Share this post


Link to post

nice thought, but it wont work. similar systems have been brought up before. icon_rolleyes.gif

 

whack.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone says it wont work but can't give me a reason.

 

I know I wouldn't abuse it, what makes it so obvious everone else would ?

 

Just Wonderin

DirtRunner.

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

I agree with you 100% Sissy!

 


 

uh... I'm CR.

 

Maybe, it's time to post an avatar of us so people will know it's two of us?

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Whidbey Walk:

I can defiantly see the benefit of being able to quickly pick out top-notch caches, but as has been pointed out a rating system could have a lot of problems. A solution that occurs to me would be a top 10% or maybe just 5% list.


 

Yup, I'd like to see this implemented exactly as described. Letting people 'honor' their favorite caches would encourage cachers to place better caches.

I'm visulizing a mention in the upper righthand corner under number of watchers.. like...

 

3 account(s) watching this cache.

5 account(s) have this cache on their top 5% list.

 

Of course there would need to be a link to who's got it on their 5% list (maybe just clicking on the number), and from the individual profile pages, a link to that persons 5% list.

 

---------------------------------------

Missoula Organization Of Geocachers (MOOG)

MOOG; Unarguably, the coolest geocaching club acronym to date. icon_cool.gif

---------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Whidbey Walk:

I can defiantly see the benefit of being able to quickly pick out top-notch caches, but as has been pointed out a rating system could have a lot of problems. A solution that occurs to me would be a top 10% or maybe just 5% list.


 

Yup, I'd like to see this implemented exactly as described. Letting people 'honor' their favorite caches would encourage cachers to place better caches.

I'm visulizing a mention in the upper righthand corner under number of watchers.. like...

 

3 account(s) watching this cache.

5 account(s) have this cache on their top 5% list.

 

Of course there would need to be a link to who's got it on their 5% list (maybe just clicking on the number), and from the individual profile pages, a link to that persons 5% list.

 

---------------------------------------

Missoula Organization Of Geocachers (MOOG)

MOOG; Unarguably, the coolest geocaching club acronym to date. icon_cool.gif

---------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post

Now it would be nice to have 30 new caches in my area in one week, but that ain't going to happen. icon_wink.gif

 

Speaking from experience with other non-geocaching sites, I can't see a problem with the 'gold star' idea. Most people really are sensible enough to only award them sparingly.

 

I guess you could always restrict the number of stars that people are allowed to give out to a percentage of their finds. For example - after every 10 finds you are able to award 1 gold star? That would also have the added benefit of encouraging people to hunt for more caches.

 

General 1-5 star ratings could have one of two effects. It either encourages people to think of more ingenious places or, if their first couple of caches get a low score, it discourages them and they give up the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Now it would be nice to have 30 new caches in my area in one week, but that ain't going to happen. icon_wink.gif

 

Speaking from experience with other non-geocaching sites, I can't see a problem with the 'gold star' idea. Most people really are sensible enough to only award them sparingly.

 

I guess you could always restrict the number of stars that people are allowed to give out to a percentage of their finds. For example - after every 10 finds you are able to award 1 gold star? That would also have the added benefit of encouraging people to hunt for more caches.

 

General 1-5 star ratings could have one of two effects. It either encourages people to think of more ingenious places or, if their first couple of caches get a low score, it discourages them and they give up the game.

Share this post


Link to post

All the positive sugestions are really good but I had imagined something a little simpler.

 

Either the Cache is of "Hallmark" rank or it is not. As soon as you get different grades of good, thats where people get confused.

 

As soon as five anonomous cachers have independantly rated this cache as having "Hallmark" status, the Gold Star gets applied. And nobody but the web site knows who those five were.

 

By default, when you log a cache, the hallmark designation would be set to "Not a hallmark" That way it's a consious effort to rate the cache accordingly.

 

Jeremy! Doable or Not ?

Inquiring Minds want to Know!

DirtRunner.

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post

So the Scuba cache, which probably would be one of the greatest in many people's minds, would be very unlikely to get a star because it's going to be a while, if ever, before 5 (or more if the first 5 don't give it a star)people find it?

 

The whole idea still does not set well with me...

 

Women are like guns, keep one around long enough and you're going to want to shoot it.

Share this post


Link to post

Thats where you find others impressions of a cache. I dont think we need drop downs, pop ups, auto email, or any other kind of rating system. If it gets to that point I will be done hiding caches. I just went on a 2/4 cache today and for me it was about a 2/2. But for others it will be a 2/4. So the same will be true for rating caches. A 5 to me may be a 3 to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

OK,

 

The "Hallmark" rating isn't going to tell people that after you go you can die because you will never experience anything nicer for as long as you shall live. The Hallmark rating is just there to allow people to quickly determine what caches in their area are of distinction. It's a mark of approval that if you go, you will be glad you did. It's most definitely an upper percentile.

 

I cannot think of any other hobby or sport that does not want to recognize its truly superior offerings in the endeavor.

 

This is not meant to slam anybody or hurt anybody's feelings if they don't get a hallmark; it's just a leading indicator to those doing their searches as to where a good place to start might be.

 

For example, In the Canadian forums, you read all the time, "Where are the good caches in Ottawa?” "Where are the good caches in BC?" Well, if we had a hallmark indicator, one would at least know where to start. We could all THEN read the logs and determine if the cache was for us or not.

 

You see? At best, a good way for those new to the sport or a geographical area to see some of the finer offerings in the field. At worst, a little ego stroke for those responsible for those caches judged "Hallmark" worthy.

 

I hope this answers any questions

DirtRunner.

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Travers:

 

Speaking from experience with other non-geocaching sites, I can't see a problem with the 'gold star' idea. Most people really are sensible enough to only award them sparingly.

 

I guess you could always restrict the number of stars that people are allowed to give out to a percentage of their finds. For example - after every 10 finds you are able to award 1 gold star? That would also have the added benefit of encouraging people to hunt for more caches.

 

General 1-5 star ratings could have one of two effects. It either encourages people to think of more ingenious places or, if their first couple of caches get a low score, it discourages them and they give up the game.


 

Total agreement here. The 10 find, one star idea is great. The general rating concequences might lean toward discouraging cache placement. In some cases this might not be a bad thing. It may be more likely that cache ratings might lean toward over inflation. Lets stick with the 10 find one star method or even 20 to one. The stars would have greater significance that way.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Freelens & Mosie:

icon_biggrin.gificon_eek.gif Couldn't delete...had to say something


 

I noticed that too. My solution is to keep hitting the Back button on my toolbar until it goes away icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Freelens & Mosie:

icon_biggrin.gificon_eek.gif Couldn't delete...had to say something


 

I noticed that too. My solution is to keep hitting the Back button on my toolbar until it goes away icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

How about if each finder of a cache gets a text input field where they can write just about anything they want about the cache? Then, people who were interested in the cache could read them all, sort of in a list, or something. And, based on those entries, they could decide if the cache looked appealing. I don't know, let me know what you think. icon_wink.gif

 

stealyourcache.gif Serious cachers needed! www.theheavenlyhost.com/geocache

Share this post


Link to post

How about if each finder of a cache gets a text input field where they can write just about anything they want about the cache? Then, people who were interested in the cache could read them all, sort of in a list, or something. And, based on those entries, they could decide if the cache looked appealing. I don't know, let me know what you think. icon_wink.gif

 

stealyourcache.gif Serious cachers needed! www.theheavenlyhost.com/geocache

Share this post


Link to post

What a ground-breaking, earth-shattering idea, Dru! Way to think out of the box.

 

What would we call this little text input field? Maybe a blotter? A narrative? A comment?

 

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

It's only when you look at an ant through a magnifying glass on a sunny day that you realise how often they burst into flames.

Share this post


Link to post

I like Dru's idea. Some sort of free-write thing, where a cacher is not limited to a finite number of ratings, but where he could describe his thoughts and senses as he searched for the cache.

 

That part about organizing them into a list for easy reading is brilliant, but I don't know how easy that would be to code. Jeremy, you up to it?

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. It's simple, flexible, and allows people to express exactly what they think about a cache.

 

Think we could also upload photos while we're at it?

Share this post


Link to post

That's still similar to what you put in a cache log though isn't it? I suppose if each person was limited to 10 words or less... I suppose it would be different being anonymous, but wouldn't it be kind of easy to guess who wrote what on a lot of occasions?

 

Of course, one could apply that idea to my idea of rating the placer instead of the cache, but evidently that was a real lame idea... icon_frown.gif

 

Women are like guns, keep one around long enough and you're going to want to shoot it.

Share this post


Link to post

That's still similar to what you put in a cache log though isn't it? I suppose if each person was limited to 10 words or less... I suppose it would be different being anonymous, but wouldn't it be kind of easy to guess who wrote what on a lot of occasions?

 

Of course, one could apply that idea to my idea of rating the placer instead of the cache, but evidently that was a real lame idea... icon_frown.gif

 

Women are like guns, keep one around long enough and you're going to want to shoot it.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be useful to be able to rate the terrain/difficulty. After all who is a better judge of the difficulty then those who've had to find it? certainly they're a better judge then the placer because the placer is too close to the subject matter. the method of "how" is the really *****. I don't know how to make it fair so I can't help there but I do support the concept.

 

I also support the idea of ratings for the cache itself. again, I don't know what's the best manner of implementation.

 

What i think is far more useful and much less controversial is an ignore button. When I click on "caches near me" I can eminate from appearing those caches that I have no interest in finding, whethers it's a 5/5 multileg which would be over my head, or for those whom dislike them: LC/VC's. it can't hurt, it can only make your searches quicker and less annoying having to wade thru listings I know you don't want to be bothered with.

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by brdad:

That's still similar to what you put in a cache log though isn't it?


Chuckle.

 

Thanks for proving the point.

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

Hey everyone.

 

OK, before you start tearing me apart lets see if we can define what we are tearing apart in the first place. Combining a lot of the really good ideas brought to this forum; here is my official request for a new feature on the Geocaching.com web site.

 

I would like to see a new summary indicator presented on the geocaching web site that, for lack of a better name, will be called a “Hallmark Designated Cache” or HDC for short.

 

The HDC designation is acquired when five visitors to the cache each designate the cache to be truly special and designate it as a hallmark. This could be called a Hallmark Designated Cache Vote” or HDCV. The voting process is done during a “log your visit”. The recording of who and how many HDCVs a cache possesses is not known to anyone, only the web site is keeping track, this way no feelings are hurt. When a cache accumulates 5 HDCVs from five different cachers, a “HDC” symbol appears next to the cache name. This symbol could be a gold star or other simple icon that readily conveys a special distinction.

 

The HDC mark would also appear when a user performs a search and the cache summary appears. This would allow a cacher to readily see those caches of distinction and then read the logs to see if it is something they can do or would like to pursue.

 

The HDC mark is not designed to replace the cache logs, just give a cacher a quick summary about which caches he is viewing have been deemed by other cachers as truly special.

 

The ability for cachers to grant HDCV while they log their visit could be limited to make sure that the designation is not abused or overused. A simple ratio could be set up to allow a cacher to designate “X” HDCVs for every “Y” personal finds. Say, a cacher could be allowed to designate 1 HDCV for every ten finds, that way a cacher with 30 finds would be able to designate, but he does not have to, a HDCV to up to three caches he’s visited, and a cacher could not allocate any more than one of their HDCVs to any one cache.

 

Remember, a cache does not display it’s Hallmark Designation (HDC) until five cachers have decided to give it one of their HDCVs

 

This system is not designed to do anything other than highlight the truly special caches in an area.

 

So, in summary.

 

10 cache finds grant a cacher 1 Hallmark Designated Cache Vote (HDCV)

5 HDCV’s granted to a cache from 5 different cachers grants the cache a Hallmark Designation (HDC)

 

The amount of HDCVs a cache currently has and who granted them is unknown to all except the web site. It’s not until 5 HDCV’s are granted that the Hallmark Designation is granted

 

This is a really good opportunity for the geocaching community to recognize the truly outstanding caches out there. It would allow newcomers to the hobby an easy reference to see what is really good near them as well as visitors to an area see what is a must see while they are visiting.

 

I hope this clears up any fear and loathing this subject might have stirred.

Thanks for your Time

DirtRunner.

 

Your not first...But you could be next.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...