Cache Finder Ratings

[MIBugTroop]

Sorry if this has been suggested elsewhere. Looked but couldn't find it.

 

What I would like to see is a rating system for the cache finders. Especially with the density of caches in some areas increasing, I find it hard to hit very many when traveling. I would like to go to the best. Nothing against walking through some local park to find a cache off a plain Jane trail, (I hit them all in my local area), but if I unknowingly missed a fastastic vista because I didn't have the time then that is disappointing. Mapping out caches is a major part of vacation planning for me and is frustrating because I know I will only be able to get to a small percentage. The logs help somewhat but they also can spoil it by giving to much away.

 

What I suggest, along with the terrain and difficulty rating assigned by the cache owner, would be an average rating of say, cache quality, experience, location, ..? What do you think?

 

PA Bug Troop

[+The Hornet]

Excellent idea, I kept meaning to suggest it myself but never got round to it.

 

It would have to be subjective and should include finders' thoughts on content, effort required, originality and location.

 

I agree that an average of everyone's rating would be the fairest way of doing it. A scale of 1 to 5 stars like the other ratings would suit just fine.

 

If it did nothing else it would encourage cache setters to aim high (quality, not altitude) thus enhancing the sport.

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PA Bug Troop:

Sorry if this has been suggested elsewhere. Looked but couldn't find it.

 

What I would like to see is a rating system for the cache finders. Especially with the density of caches in some areas increasing, I find it hard to hit very many when traveling. I would like to go to the best. Nothing against walking through some local park to find a cache off a plain Jane trail, (I hit them all in my local area), but if I unknowingly missed a fastastic vista because I didn't have the time then that is disappointing. Mapping out caches is a major part of vacation planning for me and is frustrating because I know I will only be able to get to a small percentage. The logs help somewhat but they also can spoil it by giving to much away.

 

What I suggest, along with the terrain and difficulty rating assigned by the cache owner, would be an average rating of say, cache quality, experience, location, ..? What do you think?

 

PA Bug Troop

---

 

Sometimes I just read the logs to get a feel for what the cache may be like. Problem with this is that there are so many "emotionless" log entries that sometimes you really can't get a sense of what the cache is like. I think your idea is good, especially if you are time limited in researching caches.

 

On the other hand, there is some attractiveness about not knowing exactly what a cache may be like before you visit.

 

Smoochnme

 

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

 

Ralph Abele

[+LarsThorwald]

I went down the road of proposing something like this a while ago; I think it's a fine idea - much like rating topics in the forums - but others feel the subjectivity of the system would be its downfall. Seems to me it wouldn't hurt just to have your cache rated 1 - 5 stars by someone who logged it. Why not? (he says, opening the floodgates).

 

By the way, this has been suggested in the forums many times...

 

Charlie

 

"One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction."

[+Jamie Z]

I like the idea of some sort of objective cache ratings by finders, but I think there are too many flaws to make it work.

 

If you use a 1-5 star rating (or something similar), people tend to exagerate, and the cache would end up with mostly 1's or 5's. Look at e-Bay and all those silly feedbacks with "A++++++++++" in them. Nobody on eBay ever gets a B.

 

I think the simplest solution is to read the logs, but as Smooth pointed out, many people don't bother to write much. I've seen cachers post the exact same log for more than one cache. I don't understand that, but I'm not about to ask anyone to get wordy, though... there's enough folks who don't log online at all.

 

If a cache has been around long enough, and is very good, the logs will indicate it.

 

Jamie

[+BruceS]

I would discourage this. Subjectiveness of ratings is one reason but also the potential impact on new cachers placing their first cache. What impact would a low rating on their first cache have on discouraging a cacher to place another. Remember when a cacher places a cache the location they picked, what they put in the cache, and how they hid the cache were with good intentions based on their level of experiance etc. I have found several hundred caches out of my "home area" and base my "must finds" on logs enties, cache descriptions, and location. Never is it based even on the current rating for difficulty or terrain (except if special equipment is required)

[+Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats]

Wow, started out thinkin'...GREAT IDEA.

Started Reading...Hmmm, what about those newbies...How would it affect the hiding ratio of someone who has just hidden for the first time and gets a negative feedback rating.

What about the fact that every hunter is out for a different "fix". Th' Cap'ns Wench loves a great hike more than the great hide, I'm just the opposite...our lives would be hell if we had to agree on the rating for a cache!

The sport lives and breaths on those who hide, and although the current system means that you sometimes get a "dud", at least there are caches out there to hunt for. There aren't enough hiders...almost nobody actually hides at a rate high enough to sustain the sport, in our area a new cache never makes it till sunset untouched, we're all starved for more, even the so-so ones are a chance to practice, get out and cache!

 

We live in a fairly small population base hence fewer cachers...we have our share of so-so hiders, I hope we're not one of them.

 

There are even "in jokes" about some of the cachers hides, we have a whole hunting technique named after one of our local hiders...it involves turning off your GPS, closing your eyes and rolling around on the ground till you bump in to the cache...how would we rate his caches??? Most of us would rate some of them highly, some of them not, if you were to just look up the "rating Stars" you'd think we were all insane.

 

For our part, we work hard to make ours "total experience" caches, and we think we do a great job...maybe we're completely wrong...maybe even though we get lots of positive feedback on our caches, if the first few had been met with less than overwhelming "stars" we might now be in the majority of the cachers who do 20x more hunting than hiding.

I really think that cachers who are doing early hides really need encouraging emails from others, and most would welcome direct emails with positive criticism as I have. A "star" system may stem the tide of this valuable feedback mechanism..."I gave him 2 stars, he'll figure it out"

 

So, although this doesn't help you hunt for "the best" I do think that the needs of the many to have more to hunt for, must outweigh the needs of the few who like to hunt "the best of the best".

So great idea, but greater potential to harm than to help, I'm afraid. I.M.H.O. (OK, so I've never actually been humble in my life...but thar ye go!)

 

Keep yer sail 'igh, 'nd move swiftly,

Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats

 

[This message was edited by Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats on August 05, 2002 at 09:58 PM.]

[BassoonPilot]

I thought, "You mean cache owners are going to have a form or rebuttal ... the ability to rate the efforts (or lack thereof) of those seeking their caches?"

 

Actually, it would probably make for some good reading.

[BassoonPilot]

I thought, "You mean cache owners are going to have a form or rebuttal ... the ability to rate the efforts (or lack thereof) of those seeking their caches?"

 

Actually, it would probably make for some good reading.

[+mrcpu]

So here is another twist (take it or leave it!):

 

Everyone who makes a log gets to chose a score for the cache right, but what if the score, when averaged into the overall rating for the cache, is subjected to a weight modifier so that someone who has been caching for a long time and has a lot of finds would have a greater effect on the average then someone who has only one or two finds?

 

For example if 10 people voted and the average was 8 stars under a simple system. Now if those 10 people voted but their votes were weighted based on experience the person with 1 find who votes 10 stars would not have the same effect as a person with 80 finds who votes 4 stars bringing the overall rating to say 7 stars.

 

I'm still trying to figure out the math behind this so don't flame me!!!!

 

Rob

Mobile Cache Command

[MIBugTroop]

I understand the reluctance about discouraging new cache placers. We recently did our first and waited anxiously for the first finder to log it. Will they like it? Are our coordinates accurate? ect.

 

I would still like some way to sort through multiple listings. How about some sort of categorization by the placer? A standard set of discriptive choices could be selected. As an example, along with terrain difficulty, the placer could also check,

- woods,

- grassy

- rocky

- swamp

- etc

- other

- mystery

 

And/Or maybe a list pertaining to the view/experience at or getting to the cache.

- vista

- woods

- activity

- historic

- water

- geologic

- other

- mystery

 

Any thoughts?

 

The mystery selection in the above for those who simply don't want you to know.

 

PA Bug Troop