Feedback rating on caches?

[+Grynneman]

Hi,

does anybody think that when logging a cache find, you can also rate it in an adjectival way? (Yuk, Easy, Moderate, Difficult, Hard, Severe, Dangerous, Extreme!), and display this on the cache page by the ratings.

I know the above is subjective, but it does give any prospective cache visitors the chance to see other cachers views, without reading the logs.

 

Grynneman

[+briansnat]

It's been discussed and the idea has been rejected by most. It's too subjective. A person who likes long hikes may give a good urban cache a poor grade and someone who prefers to bag quick "drive and dumps" may give a lousy rating to an excellent cache in a remote area.

 

The logs are the best place to provide and look for feedback.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

[+Grynneman]

I agree about the subjectivity, I think that is the whole point.

Then again, what are people who like doing "drive and dumps" doing hiking into the countryside.....

[+benjamin921]

A hard cache for you might be easy for me so I would feel that the best place to "rate" the cache would be in the log.

 

[+Wily Javelina]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grynneman (Liam & Sharon):

 

I know the above is subjective, but it does give any prospective cache visitors the chance to see other cachers views, without reading the logs.

 

Grynneman

---

 

What is wrong with reading the logs? Is it really that time consuming? In my opining that is what a log is for. If you've struggled with a cache and you think it is more difficult that what the ratings reflect, just mention it in a log. Then a person can look up your profile and see that you've only found 10 caches and they are all 1/1's and take you're comment with a grain of salt.

 

-Wily Javelina

[+Grynneman]

Hi,

 

There is nothing wrong with reading logs, I just wondered if another level of feedback would be interesting to include! Obviously the adjectival rating system is a little contentious...A star rating system perhaps.

 

If a star rating system was added and was optional when logging a find, then over time perhaps exceptional caches would become apparent.

I understand that we all have differing views of what we like in a cache but that doesn't mean that an inheritently good cache, whatever the setting or rating, doesn't shine out from the rest.

One persons Citizen Kane is another persons Ernest Saves Christmas (Sorry Ernest), but the opinion is still valid. It would certainly add to the best cache ever debate!

[+Sissy-n-CR]

With a cache rating system, caches can be sorted on the ratings and the crappy caches would filter to the bottom. Judging caches by reading logs is limited at best especially since GPX files are limited to the last 5 logs and there is no way to sort caches by what people say in the logs.

 

BS's comment about the idea being rejected by most is a little misleading. There is quite a large population that will love to be able to rate caches. If we had to go by what "most" people wanted we wouldn't have half the features on this site we do.

 

There are many other arguements for and against ratings, but all of the arguements against have been countered, IMHO.

 

Frankly, I think a rating system would eventually increase the quality of caches and allow us to cut the chaffe.

 

CR

 

[+Mopar]

Actually, I think B'Snat's comments are dead on.

We all agree that different people enjoy different types of caches. No argument there from anyone. Take a moderately hard multicache. Some people will enjoy spending a good portion of the day seeking out 6-8 stages and rate the cache a 5. Others will hate it, and give it a 1.

End result? 3 rating.

Easy park-n-grab cache. Some people love them, rate it a 5. Others hate them, and give it a 1.

End result? 3 rating.

Puzzle caches? Some love, some hate.

Cache in a dog park? Love or hate pets.

Virtual?

Locationless?

End result? 3 rating.

 

Eventually, with enough logs, MOST caches will avg out to a 3 rating, so you will still have to read the logs to get any meaningful information.

 

Worse, I would expect the same type of person who logs finds on missing caches, or caches they never even looked for, will also be the type that will create fake user accounts to manipulate a caches rating.

 

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

[This message edited to correct dumb math mistake Fuzzy pointed out!]

 

[This message was edited by Mopar on August 28, 2003 at 06:09 PM.]

[+parkrrrr]

Mopar, the average of 1 and 5 is 3.

 

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

Mopar, the average of 1 and 5 is 3.

http://parkrrrr.com/News/biggrin.gif

 

http://parkrrrr.com/pirate.cgi.gif

---

DOH!, You are correct! See what working 12-13hrs a day does to ya?

 

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

[+Runaround]

The other thing that a rating system doesn't account for is the experience of the cacher. Not to pick on them, but most newbies make fairly common mistakes.

 

I've seen logs by newbies on easy caches that made it sound like they survived an expedition up Everest just because they left the trail a little early and opted for the straight line approach.

 

If one or more experienced cachers write logs describing a tough hike and/or search, that has a lot more credibilty to me.

 

A rating system washes away the nuances.

 

Now where did I park my car???????

[+Sissy-n-CR]

Well, you know, the same thing can be said of a lot of things; movies, music, art, whatever.

 

If there were only few movies to watch, you'd probably end up watching all of them. If someone asked you to rate the movies you watched, you'd rate the ones you liked well and the one you didn't like, poorly.

 

However, with so many movies out there you can only watch a select few. Take for instance, I like action movies, Jackie Chan, Arnold, Jet Li; those movies I'll watch. I can't stand Woody Allen or Rosie O'Donald, so those movies I wouldn't watch.

 

Now, if I don't like, or watch, Woody Allen movies, I don't rate them. They are spared my negative ratings.

 

Conversely, I will watch most any Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, or Harrison Ford movie. Will I give all of the movies made by the above high marks? Absolutely not! I mean, come on, Arnold's Red Heat, Junior, and Jingle All the Way? Stinkers! Hey, some people didn't like "Last Action Hero," but I like puns so for me the whole movie was a hoot!

 

So, you see, as areas get more saturated people will start getting more selective, especially visitors to the area. They will do only certain caches, be it a certain type or by a certain author. They will also avoid other caches. People will start seeing the setting the cache is in, the number of visitors, and the ratings those visitors have placed on that cache and make a decision to visit the cache based on that. The rest will fall to the wayside. Lessor authors will either quit placing or figure out a way to better their caches.

 

Plus, with all due respect, I find idea that all caches will average out to be the same ludicrous and very short sighted. The star caches, no matter the type, will stand out while the trash will fall below average.

 

I am absolutely not saying that everyone will like a cache that has been rated highly. Nor am I saying the poorly rated cache can not be enjoyed by someone. What I am saying is with enough of a sample most people will be able to better gauge how they will enjoy a cache with ratings than without.

 

CR

 

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Runaround:

A rating system washes away the nuances.

---

 

Who said anything about getting rid of logs (the nuances)?

 

Besides one newbie isn't going to effect the rating sufficiently enough if you have enough data. Use at least 7 votes and toss out the high and the low. Give more weight to more experienced finders. Whatever. You can easily toss the flyers.

 

Using the newbie excuse for not having rating is just that, an excuse. BLAME THE NEWBIE!!! Besides, why would a newbie's voice have less weight? Maybe the next hunter is a newbie, too! Maybe most are newbies. So what a newbie gives an odd rating if the cache is geared toward newbies.

 

Geocaching isn't the realm of only the more experienced cacher.

 

CR

 

[+Grynneman]

This is the point that I was trying to make.

 

If you do a cache that strikes you as mundane or just downright boring, then you don't rate it. Only the exceptional caches get rated.

 

A newbie (a term I dislike, at what point do you stop being a newbie? 1 year, 2 years, 25/50/75/100+ caches found!) may initially think all caches are BRILLIANT, but then why not allow us to go back and rerate the cache at a later date, with the added benefit of hindsight (as you can with your log entries). Look at Amazon that use a rating system driven by their customers.

 

I've found plenty of bog standard caches that are of the "oh here it is" standard, that I would not rate, and a couple that would warrant a 1 or 2. I've yet to find a 3, Something that would truly knock me for 6 ( or 7 ).

 

As for creating users to artificially up the cache rating, the same could be said of falsely logging caches as found just to up their place on a leaderboard (lets not go there!).

It would give people who like stats something more to play with!

[+Sissy-n-CR]

Actually, there had been talk about what I thought was a better solution. It was allowing finders to place 10% of their finds on a "best of" list.

 

The beauty of this system is:

• There are no negative ratings.
• Can go back and change what they feel are their best finds and thus eliminate "newbie syndrom."
• Searchers can sort on "star" caches. A much better marker for visiting cachers than the incomplete logs in their PDA.

 

So when you've been searching for more difficult mircos in an urban area and you only have time for a few, you see a few with stars, that's the ones you're going to go after. You see one where half the finders have placed it on their list, that's one you really want to go after.

 

For the argument about people signing up multiple times to place caches on their list, simply make the system available to paying members. Another arguement is eliminated by not allowing placers to put their own caches on their list.

 

Of course there are down sides. It woudn't tell you the really crappy ones and new caches can be passed by.

 

Telling the crappy caches is hard as the cache owner has all of the power. Say you look for a cache in a swampy area filled with trash, used condoms, and discarded drug trash. What do you do, claim the find and trash the cache in the log? Nope, the owner is likely to delete your log, so not only have you've done nothing, but you've created an enemy and denied yourself a find. There are many caches out there that you don't give negative log for fear of same.

 

Personally, I think a rating or star system is more beneficial than harmful and would be a worthwhile addition to the site.

 

CR