Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DirtRunner

Cache Rating System

Recommended Posts

I don't like the voting while logging bit. My top 10% list is in flux. I'd hate to waste a vote on caches that aren't nearly as good as the more recent ones.

 

I think you'd have to be able to change your vote.

 

Because you really don't know what your top 10% is until you've found them all, right?

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

I don't like the voting while logging bit. My top 10% list is in flux. I'd hate to waste a vote on caches that aren't nearly as good as the more recent ones.

 

I think you'd have to be able to change your vote.

 

Because you really don't know what your top 10% is until you've found them all, right?

 

CR


 

It would seem to me that I've been to over 30 finds and would probably only give one HDCV to one cache I've been to. They've all been good, some great, but only one truly memorable.

 

just becuase you have 3 or 4 HDCVs to give out doesn't mean you have to give them all out at once.

 

But in fairness to the cache, once a vote gets recorded, it should stay.

 

You'll know when your on a truly memorable cache, and it'll be one of the ones you'll award with your HDCVs. As you continue to find more caches, you'll generate more votes, so I don't think any of the great caches you will discover will go without your vote.

 

Good Question

DirtRunner.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

I still disagree. Many times I only really like or dislike a cache after I put it in true perspective a couple of weeks down the road.

 

My Top 10% list is now part of my profile, and I will review it periodically to make sure that the list is indeed what reflects my top 10%.

 

This has just become too cumbersome to worry about. Why not just go out and find them all instead of worrying about rating them? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

I still disagree. Many times I only really like or dislike a cache after I put it in true perspective a couple of weeks down the road.

 

My Top 10% list is now part of my profile, and I will review it periodically to make sure that the list is indeed what reflects my top 10%.

 

This has just become too cumbersome to worry about. Why not just go out and find them all instead of worrying about rating them? icon_biggrin.gif

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

I still disagree. Many times I only really like or dislike a cache after I put it in true perspective a couple of weeks down the road.

 

My Top 10% list is now part of my profile, and I will review it periodically to make sure that the list is indeed what reflects my top 10%.

 

This has just become too cumbersome to worry about. Why not just go out and find them all instead of worrying about rating them? icon_biggrin.gif


 

For the same reason you rated your top 10%. Why did you do that?

 

If you want to mull it over first, I am sure that the system can be made that you could add your vote at any time after you first logged your visit.

 

As for cumbersome, most the mechanics of the solution will be handled behind the scenes on the web site invisible to the user. I just gave a very detailed proposal in order to try to answer as many questions as possible.

 

Thanks

DirtRunner.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

I still disagree. Many times I only really like or dislike a cache after I put it in true perspective a couple of weeks down the road.

 

My Top 10% list is now part of my profile, and I will review it periodically to make sure that the list is indeed what reflects my top 10%.

 

This has just become too cumbersome to worry about. Why not just go out and find them all instead of worrying about rating them? icon_biggrin.gif


 

For the same reason you rated your top 10%. Why did you do that?

 

If you want to mull it over first, I am sure that the system can be made that you could add your vote at any time after you first logged your visit.

 

As for cumbersome, most the mechanics of the solution will be handled behind the scenes on the web site invisible to the user. I just gave a very detailed proposal in order to try to answer as many questions as possible.

 

Thanks

DirtRunner.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Maxwell:

My Top 10% list is now part of my profile, and I will review it periodically to make sure that the list is indeed what reflects my top 10%.


Markfield,

 

I like that idea, (but I can't implement it for I have my no-finds in my profile) but be careful you don't get too extravagant. There is a character limit in the profiles, which I've hit and had to trim down my text. With all those links, it gets big in a hurry. You may want to move some of the other stuff (picture, chart) up to another section of the profile.

 

(Hmmm.. does each section have a character limit, or is there a limit for the profile in total? I guess up until just now, I figured it was for each section. Now, I'm not sure.)

 

Jamie

 

addendum:

It just occured to me that you are probably nowhere near the character limit. I forgot that I have all those images in my profile. I may have to do a global URL, to cut the size of each of my image links.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, I've got a little more time to respond--I was rushing out the door on my previous post.

 

Here's the deal. Even with the few that we've seen, I'm sure there are better caches out there. With only a few finds under your belt, how would one know what really good caches are and what aren't? I know the first few, save one, were no big deal. But what happens when all of a sudden I start coming across some really, really good ones? I've wasted my votes on caches not nearly as good as these good ones. Consequently, these new, really good, ones get short changed.

 

My vote would be for being able to list in my profile--with the option of them being visible on my profile page--the caches that I think are the best at any given time. To save server load, it could be set up so the totals are run over night instead of real time.

 

Another issue, from looking at Markwell's profile, what happens if you "burn" a vote on a cache that gets archived?

 

A suggestion on selecting the top 10%: a page could be developed that lists all of the caches found by a user. Next to each cache is a check box. You are told how many boxes you can check and an error checking routine can check for too many selections. You hit send and your list is updated.

 

One more point: granting 1 vote for every 10 finds, it will tend to have 1 vote for every 10 find block. But that doesn't mean a person's top 10% votes would necessarily be in any one 10 find block. There could be more than one in a block of 10 and maybe none in a block.

 

I just don't like not being able to change my own top 10% list.

 

Hope that helps!

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

"There is a character limit in the profiles, which I've hit and had to trim down my text. "

 

How familiar are you with IFRAME? I don't know that it is allowed, but it would certainly get you past the limit--simply call in an outside page.

 

CR

 

EDIT: not sure if Netscape works with it, though.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

For the same reason you rated your top 10%. Why did you do that?


 

Because the idea of personal ratings is fine. I've actually liked that for a long time. I'm not "dissing" anyone's caches, and I can change it whenever I want.

 

Can you search for Markwell's Favorites? Not unless you go to my profile. Would you know to go to my profile if you were coming to Chicago? Only if you've read this thread.

 

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

If you want to mull it over first, I am sure that the system can be made that you could add your vote at any time after you first logged your visit.

 

As for cumbersome, most the mechanics of the solution will be handled behind the scenes on the web site invisible to the user. I just gave a very detailed proposal in order to try to answer as many questions as possible.


 

I'm just explaining my opposition to this - and it's really too long of a post. Once I post this, I'm off the subject.

 

As a database geek, that was the "cumbersome" I was talking about. The more conditions you add to a statement (X votes per Y finds, being able to edit your votes at a later date, etc., etc.) the more cumbersome it is on the database administration side - the SERVER side.

 

But let's take a stab at it from the other side. Who is going to benefit from this Hallmark Designation?

 

Local Cachers? Bah. They'll hunt all the caches in their region until they're depleted. Even the bad ones, unless we get something that says "Ignore this cache."

 

New Local Cachers? Yes, but only for the first couple of finds. They might use that list to start with, but then they'll become a local cacher (see above re: depletion).

 

Visitors? Yes, they're the target. If I'm going to Memphis and I have a limited time to hunt caches, it would be nice to see the good ones (which is why the Chicago Website did their voting mechanism.

 

In the HDC scenario, let's say a brand new cache gets placed 3 days before my hypothetical Memphis trip. Jiminy Z has already found it and thinks that this is the best darn tooting cache on the planet. Three others have found it as well, and have given it HDCVs icon_rolleyes.gif . Unfortunately, with only 4 votes (100% of the possible voters) I won't see that designation, so I won't hunt it - because I'm only looking for Hallmark Caches.

 

Isn't it just simpler to write that you really enjoyed the cache in the logs? If individuals want to participate in some top 10% list on their own - fine. If you are travelling to another area, why not find someone in the area through the forums and/or placed caches and ask THEIR opinion?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

For the same reason you rated your top 10%. Why did you do that?


 

Because the idea of personal ratings is fine. I've actually liked that for a long time. I'm not "dissing" anyone's caches, and I can change it whenever I want.

 

Can you search for Markwell's Favorites? Not unless you go to my profile. Would you know to go to my profile if you were coming to Chicago? Only if you've read this thread.

 

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

If you want to mull it over first, I am sure that the system can be made that you could add your vote at any time after you first logged your visit.

 

As for cumbersome, most the mechanics of the solution will be handled behind the scenes on the web site invisible to the user. I just gave a very detailed proposal in order to try to answer as many questions as possible.


 

I'm just explaining my opposition to this - and it's really too long of a post. Once I post this, I'm off the subject.

 

As a database geek, that was the "cumbersome" I was talking about. The more conditions you add to a statement (X votes per Y finds, being able to edit your votes at a later date, etc., etc.) the more cumbersome it is on the database administration side - the SERVER side.

 

But let's take a stab at it from the other side. Who is going to benefit from this Hallmark Designation?

 

Local Cachers? Bah. They'll hunt all the caches in their region until they're depleted. Even the bad ones, unless we get something that says "Ignore this cache."

 

New Local Cachers? Yes, but only for the first couple of finds. They might use that list to start with, but then they'll become a local cacher (see above re: depletion).

 

Visitors? Yes, they're the target. If I'm going to Memphis and I have a limited time to hunt caches, it would be nice to see the good ones (which is why the Chicago Website did their voting mechanism.

 

In the HDC scenario, let's say a brand new cache gets placed 3 days before my hypothetical Memphis trip. Jiminy Z has already found it and thinks that this is the best darn tooting cache on the planet. Three others have found it as well, and have given it HDCVs icon_rolleyes.gif . Unfortunately, with only 4 votes (100% of the possible voters) I won't see that designation, so I won't hunt it - because I'm only looking for Hallmark Caches.

 

Isn't it just simpler to write that you really enjoyed the cache in the logs? If individuals want to participate in some top 10% list on their own - fine. If you are travelling to another area, why not find someone in the area through the forums and/or placed caches and ask THEIR opinion?

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

How familiar are you with IFRAME? I don't know that it is allowed, but it would certainly get you past the limit--simply call in an outside page.

 

EDIT: not sure if Netscape works with it, though.


I'm not at all... but I'm working to increase my knowledge of online coding. This is what I found on HTML Goodies.

 

"This is another flag that has been around since Internet Explorer version 3, and is now part of the HTML 4.0 standard, so you can expect future versions of Navigator to support it."

 

With HTML 4.0 supporting the <iframe> tag, I'd have no problem using it.

 

Probably later tonight, I'll take a look at his <iframe> tutorial to see if I can figure it out.

 

Thanks for the tip!

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Because the _idea_ of _personal_ ratings is fine. I've actually liked that for a long time. I'm not "dissing" anyone's caches, and I can change it whenever I want.


 

This system would not "dis" anyone's cache either. It would break my heart if the system turned into that.

 

quote:

As a database geek, that was the "cumbersome" I was talking about. The more conditions you add to a statement (X votes per Y finds, being able to edit your votes at a later date, etc., etc.) the more cumbersome it is on the database administration side - the SERVER side.


 

As a database geek with conciderable time in the web design and automation field, I know that you know this could easily be done.

 

quote:

Visitors? Yes, they're the target. If I'm going to Memphis and I have a limited time to hunt caches, it would be nice to see the good ones (which is why the Chicago Website did their http://www.chicagogeocaching.com/favs/tally.cgi.

 

In the HDC scenario, let's say a brand new cache gets placed 3 days before my hypothetical Memphis trip. Jiminy Z has already found it and thinks that this is the best darn tooting cache on the planet. Three others have found it as well, and have given it HDCVs icon_rolleyes.gif . Unfortunately, with only 4 votes (100% of the possible voters) I won't see that designation, so I won't hunt it - because I'm only looking for Hallmark Caches.


 

Nothing can protect you from bad timing. You should still look at logs, but at least with this system, you can quickly see the best currently out there. It's a poor excuse that failure or omission results from a lack of research.

 

quote:

Isn't it just simpler to write that you really enjoyed the cache in the logs? If individuals want to participate in some top 10% list on their own - fine. If you are travelling to another area, why not find someone in the area through the forums and/or placed caches and ask THEIR opinion?


 

The proposal does not replace the logs. It only lets people doing the search see which caches in the area are a must see.

 

Thanks

DirtRunner.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Because the _idea_ of _personal_ ratings is fine. I've actually liked that for a long time. I'm not "dissing" anyone's caches, and I can change it whenever I want.


 

This system would not "dis" anyone's cache either. It would break my heart if the system turned into that.

 

quote:

As a database geek, that was the "cumbersome" I was talking about. The more conditions you add to a statement (X votes per Y finds, being able to edit your votes at a later date, etc., etc.) the more cumbersome it is on the database administration side - the SERVER side.


 

As a database geek with conciderable time in the web design and automation field, I know that you know this could easily be done.

 

quote:

Visitors? Yes, they're the target. If I'm going to Memphis and I have a limited time to hunt caches, it would be nice to see the good ones (which is why the Chicago Website did their http://www.chicagogeocaching.com/favs/tally.cgi.

 

In the HDC scenario, let's say a brand new cache gets placed 3 days before my hypothetical Memphis trip. Jiminy Z has already found it and thinks that this is the best darn tooting cache on the planet. Three others have found it as well, and have given it HDCVs icon_rolleyes.gif . Unfortunately, with only 4 votes (100% of the possible voters) I won't see that designation, so I won't hunt it - because I'm only looking for Hallmark Caches.


 

Nothing can protect you from bad timing. You should still look at logs, but at least with this system, you can quickly see the best currently out there. It's a poor excuse that failure or omission results from a lack of research.

 

quote:

Isn't it just simpler to write that you really enjoyed the cache in the logs? If individuals want to participate in some top 10% list on their own - fine. If you are travelling to another area, why not find someone in the area through the forums and/or placed caches and ask THEIR opinion?


 

The proposal does not replace the logs. It only lets people doing the search see which caches in the area are a must see.

 

Thanks

DirtRunner.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

HTML Goodies--the book version--is how I started off. Started coding by hand with notepad, then went to an HTML editor, now use DreamerWeaver. WYSIWYG is just plain easier, but it really helps to know the fundamentals.

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

I still disagree. Many times I only really like or dislike a cache after I put it in true perspective a couple of weeks down the road.

 

My Top 10% list is now part of my profile, and I will review it periodically to make sure that the list is indeed what reflects my top 10%.


 

The beast nods in agreement. We like the idea of posting favorites in your profile. We adopted it tonight and noted some of our favorites in our profile. We didn't order them or try to stick with 10%.

Share this post


Link to post

We'll be starting that Idea soon, too.

Great Idea Markwell, I'm on record in the last two threads on this subject as not liking rating systems, but this is different.

I guess if it were "officially adopted" you could have a count at the top "x # of cachers have this cache on their top 10% list" just like the "being watched by" count.

 

Keep yer sail 'igh, 'nd move swiftly,

;) Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats

Share this post


Link to post

disclaimer: this features is for premium members only. that's what we pay extra for, to get cool stuff like this....

 

For every five finds you're allowed to add a cache to your top 10 favorites. once you get 50 finds, you'll hqve maxed out and now be able to have a complete 50 10 personal favorites. Functionlity is simple: a button on the page next to the "log it" watch it buttons. clicking it then brings up a page where you get to decide what # to place it on your list. you must have logged a succesful find on it to be able to rank it.

 

virtuals, multi's, letterbox, all are in the same catagory and are compared to one another rating wise, equally. i think locationless should be seperate from all the rest because they are reverse engineered and by their nature thew criteria for rating are different then caches that must be found via the gps.

 

from inside your personal profile you can remove listings or rearrange the order.

 

every state gets a top 5% listing. the top 5% of rated caches will get a little doodad displayed next to it. everyone sees this, even non-paying members. I chose 5% as I felt this gives a fairly decent number of possible winners without being too much or too little.

 

premium members get this added bonus. they can do a search for top rated caches in the area.

 

I also think another neat addition would be hot newcomers. if a cache receives at least 5 votes (of any rank) in the first two months it'll be listed as a hot newcomer. this evens out the fact that a a cache with 10 logs & 5 top ratings is really more highly thought of then a cache with 50 logs & 5 top ratings. this "hot new commer" listing would only remain for the first tow months. after that, it's old enough to not be considered all that new.

 

i think all of this is simple, centralized, provides useful info in a short compact way and allows for users to change their minds as time goes by.

 

quote:
I guess if it were "officially adopted" you could have a count at the top "x # of cachers have this cache on their top 10% list" just like the "being watched by" count.

 

I think this would also be an excellent addition. great idea.

 

what say you all?

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

Can you search for Markwell's Favorites? Not unless you go to my profile. Would you know to go to my profile if you were coming to Chicago? Only if you've read this thread.


 

actuall there was a mechanic to do so. just look at a few caches in the target area, then find a log by someone with a lot of finds. now you can't do this since they stopped posting find #

 

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

But let's take a stab at it from the other side. Who is going to benefit from this Hallmark Designation?

Local Cachers?

 

New Local Cachers?

 

Visitors?


 

actuall i think you left out one catagory: cache placers. i think it would inspire people to place better caches, stock them better, do better jobs of hiding them, etc.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

I still disagree. Many times I only really like or dislike a cache after I put it in true perspective a couple of weeks down the road.

 

My Top 10% list is now part of my profile, and I will review it periodically to make sure that the list is indeed what reflects my top 10%.


 

i also agree. i like you markwell. we think alot alike here. my favorites have now been added to my page. I ranked my favorite hides also.

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

actuall there was a mechanic to do so. just look at a few caches in the target area, then find a log by someone with a lot of finds. now you can't do this since they stopped posting find #


 

For the record, the system still posts found count.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

For the record, the system still posts found count.


 

Not for long, according to Jeremy's post in the admin forum. to quote...

 

"First, you'll notice that the number of caches found has been removed from the logs. The reason behind this is that now the pages are generated whenever there is a change - such as a travel bug added, a new log posted, or the cache itself edited by the owner. As a result, if you log other caches afterwards (or if no activity occurs for the cache after your log), the number found would be incorrect. You can, however, still click on the user's name to see their profile, which contains their find count."

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Share this post


Link to post

No, the admin forum posting is now out-of-date. There was an uproar when the find counts disappeared from the cache pages. Jeremy compromised by restoring the find counts, plus a note that they only update when the cache page regenerates (i.e., when someone else adds or edits a log entry).

 

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

quote:
Jeremy compromised by restoring the find counts, plus a note that they only update when the cache page regenerates (i.e., when someone else adds or edits a log entry).


 

oh. thanks for telling me. nice if that was stated on the above mentioend page. but at least I know (and I was wondering why it hadn't happened after 2+ weeks)

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

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.


 

i wouldnt abuse it either, but:

A. what is/who says abuse

b. how could you regulate the system so ppl dont abuse it? how could you stop them from doing it again?

C. and Look at the complaints about the "archive it" feature, the "found it logs", the fact that you can make as many posts as you want, plus the other abuse complaints i cant think of right now.

Now, tell me again that NO ONE will abuse the system! icon_frown.gif

 

whack.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

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.


 

i wouldnt abuse it either, but:

A. what is/who says abuse

b. how could you regulate the system so ppl dont abuse it? how could you stop them from doing it again?

C. and Look at the complaints about the "archive it" feature, the "found it logs", the fact that you can make as many posts as you want, plus the other abuse complaints i cant think of right now.

Now, tell me again that NO ONE will abuse the system! icon_frown.gif

 

whack.gif

Share this post


Link to post

This idea has evolved past the original concept of a drop down 1 to 5 star rating to a way to recognize outstanding caches. Most the suggestions have been to have a percentage based limit on the number of caches an individual could select as “outstanding.” Under this proposal a user couldn’t use the rating to bash or degrade the cache. I suppose one could abuse the system by giving an “outstanding” rating to a poor cache, but wouldn’t the joke be on the abuser if they did? The potential for abuse of a 1 to 5 star system would be a valid concern, but as the idea has evolved I don’t see any way it could be abused in a detrimental way. If an individual created multiple accounts then logged multiple finds to earn the ability to give a less than outstanding cache (or perhaps their own cache) an “outstanding” rating, what harm would have been caused? icon_confused.gif At worst someone would hunt the cache and be disappointed that it wasn’t what they expected.

 

Everything can be abused, if you mean not used in the intended manner. The potential for abuse of this proposal is not a very strong argument. The amount of work for Groundspeak or the increased load on the servers are much more plausible reasons for not implementing such a system. However, I would rate this right along side the pocket queries as an attractive premium feature. icon_wink.gif

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

This idea has evolved past the original concept of a drop down 1 to 5 star rating to a way to recognize outstanding caches. Most the suggestions have been to have a percentage based limit on the number of caches an individual could select as “outstanding.” Under this proposal a user couldn’t use the rating to bash or degrade the cache. I suppose one could abuse the system by giving an “outstanding” rating to a poor cache, but wouldn’t the joke be on the abuser if they did? The potential for abuse of a 1 to 5 star system would be a valid concern, but as the idea has evolved I don’t see any way it could be abused in a detrimental way. If an individual created multiple accounts then logged multiple finds to earn the ability to give a less than outstanding cache (or perhaps their own cache) an “outstanding” rating, what harm would have been caused? icon_confused.gif At worst someone would hunt the cache and be disappointed that it wasn’t what they expected.

 

Everything can be abused, if you mean not used in the intended manner. The potential for abuse of this proposal is not a very strong argument. The amount of work for Groundspeak or the increased load on the servers are much more plausible reasons for not implementing such a system. However, I would rate this right along side the pocket queries as an attractive premium feature. icon_wink.gif

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

disclaimer: this features is for premium members only. that's what we pay extra for, to get cool stuff like this....

 

For every five finds you're allowed to add a cache to your top 10 favorites. once you get 50 finds, you'll hqve maxed out and now be able to have a complete 50 10 personal favorites. Functionlity is simple: a button on the page next to the "log it" watch it buttons. clicking it then brings up a page where you get to decide what # to place it on your list. you must have logged a succesful find on it to be able to rank it.


 

I like some of your ideas but 10 "specials" after 50 finds is 20% not 5%. 5% of 50 finds would be 2.5 caches. You would get to 10 specials at 5% after 200 finds.

 

But still good ideas out there.

DirtRunner.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Whidbey Walk:

This idea has evolved past the original concept..... /


yes i know, but i still think that abuse can, and most likely will occur.

 

whack.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Can you elaborate on what abuse you think would happen, and why such abuse would mitigate the usefulness (and fun) of recognizing some of the truly outstanding caches out there?

 

You pointed out that abuse already occurs in the logs and with the “archive this cache” features. Would you suggest that those abuses justify doing away with logs all together?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DirtRunner:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

For every five finds you're allowed to add a cache to your top 10 favorites. once you get 50 finds, you'll hqve maxed out and now be able to have a complete 50 10 personal favorites. Functionlity is simple: a button on the page next to the "log it" watch it buttons. clicking it then brings up a page where you get to decide what # to place it on your list. you must have logged a succesful find on it to be able to rank it.


 

I like some of your ideas but 10 "specials" after 50 finds is 20% not 5%. 5% of 50 finds would be 2.5 caches. You would get to 10 specials at 5% after 200 finds.


 

only the top 5% of rated caches get the little "cool cache" icon. so if there are 537 caches in NJ, 27 or so will get the icon. Delaware has 33 so only 2 or 2 get the icon. All that has no relvance to my ability to rating caches highly. after 5 caches found I can add one cache to my personal top 10. at 10 I add another, till I've reached 50 finds, at which point I can now have a fully decked out top 10 list. how many of my favorites actually get displayed as such will depend on a) how other peoplr in the area rate caches, and ;) how many caches can get the nod in that state.

 

no relation between the two.

 

BTW I don't think I said it before but I also think everyone's personal favorites would be displayed on that persons about me page (unless they don't want it to, in which case they can toggle it off)

 

So Come On Admin! Jeremy! Whadaya think of all this stuff? I want new features for premium members! I also want ignore buttons on my search page, I want to be able to use all the coll search criteria in pocket queries, but right now when I hit search, not just in queeries.

 

Dirtwell commented about abuse although I couldn't find it, the thread was too long and I searched it 2x) but I get the gist of it. My system only allows people who have experience to rate caches this way. How many jack***s do you know with 50+ finds. Yeah there are some but jerks like geobuddy would be able to do anything because a) he only would have had 1 vote at his peak, and :) he can't rate anything badly, my system only allows outstanding caches to get a spotlight. so yeah, two people could conspire "I'll highly rate your caches, you highly rate mine" but come on, most cachers wouldn't do something like that. and remember, just because 2 individuals conspire to mess with things, it won't matter unless others join in with them. it'll take a fair amopunt of votes to get something into the top 5%

 

William

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

only the top 5% of rated caches get the little "cool cache" icon. so if there are 537 caches in NJ, 27 or so will get the icon. Delaware has 33 so only 2 or 2 get the icon. All that has no relvance to my ability to rating caches highly.


 

OK, now I understand what you were getting at, but one more question;

 

How would you determine NJ's top 27 caches ? If it goes on number of votes, then there is the very real possibility that the top 5% of caches will have some tied votes. This will result in, say, 35 or ever 50 caches meeting the requirement of the top 5%. Where would the line be dropped then ?

 

Thanks

DirtRunner.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

…..it'll take a fair amopunt of votes to get something into the top 5%


The problem I see with this system is that it could prevent more remote or difficult caches from making the list. For example, lets suppose that a really good cache is found 50 times and 10 people put it on their top 10 list. Then you have a great cache that has only been found 5 times but all 5 finders add it to their list. By only recognizing the top vote getters the results would end up skewed towards the most frequently found caches and likely clustered around population centers.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

"...could prevent more remote or difficult caches from making the list. "

 

that's why I'm more in favor of a system puts a star next to the cache if anyone has put it on their top 10% list. This way you can filter out the ones that haven't made it onto anyone's list.

 

True a downside is a new great cache would be filtered out until someone visits and puts it on their list.

 

What I see is the "Gold Star" being the best in a particular area.

 

Say you're going a couple hundred miles away for a weekend of hunting. You can't get all of the caches, but if you filter on the Gold Stars you can get the what people have voted on as being the best one's in the area. That is what I think is the point of the rating system, a faster way to filter out the chaffe than having to wade through a couple hundred logs.

 

CR

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Whidbey Walk:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

…..it'll take a fair amopunt of votes to get something into the top 5%


The problem I see with this system is that it could prevent more remote or difficult caches from making the list. For example, lets suppose that a really good cache is found 50 times and 10 people put it on their top 10 list. Then you have a great cache that has only been found 5 times but all 5 finders add it to their list. By only recognizing the top vote getters the results would end up skewed towards the most frequently found caches and likely clustered around population centers.

 

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

 

quote:
How would you determine NJ's top 27 caches ? If it goes on number of votes, then there is the very real possibility that the top 5% of caches will have some tied votes. This will result in, say, 35 or ever 50 caches meeting the requirement of the top 5%. Where would the line be dropped then ?

 

I don't there's too much risk. What I meant by "a fair amount" is more then just 1 or 2. Perhaps you just list all those that tied for 10th. Better yet though, why not just use percentages as the tiebreakers. Let say 3 caches are tied for the last spot on the list. they all have 5 votes, but cache one has 50 finds, cache 25 and cache 3 6 finds. well I'd say cache 3 is a hhelluva lot ighly thought of just based on the ratings to logs ratio. This ties in with my next paragraph.... Don't forget though if we do this whole top 10 thing, I've felt that it should be points based, sorta like elimination heats. a #1 rating gets you 10 points whereas a a 10 rating gets you one point. I doubt ties will be much of an issue personally.

 

as for a cache being rated 5x out of 5 logs, thats a really good point. In response, I was thinking of modifying what I said earlier about "upcoming new commers" and just remove the 2 month time table. remember upcoming newcommers isn't exactly the same as a top 10 cache. it reflects a lot of top votes among only a handful of logs. different icon, but same basic thing. maybe it would need a different name then. This way if a cache only gets a handful of logs the first year, and they all are raves, then this would get it the recognition it clerly deserves. alternately maybe they could be some sorta mathmathical formula to give weight to caches with fewer logs, but then we get really technical. Not sure if that would be a good idea, because what's the right "weight"?

 

Just to add something new to the discussion I was also thinking that something else new I'd like to see at the site is statistics and things. I can't recall which one because it was a while ago but some group of geocachers had a really cool website which gave all sorta statistics on caches in their state: most frequently sought, frequently found, travel bugs placed in them, all sorts cool stats. Somewhat useless, but very cool.

 

alt.gif

 

www.gpswnj.com

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...