Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dekaner

Suggestion .... Rating Caches

Recommended Posts

Here is a feature suggestion, when you log a cache - have a drop down box with a rating from 1 to 5. Average these out and add this as a parameter on the cache page.

 

(Obviously make the default something else so that people don't inadvertantly 'vote' without choosing an option.)

 

Here's why:

 

1) In my area, we have the quantity of caches covered, now we need to focus on the quality.

 

2) I see tons of posts from people who will be traveling to a new area (vacation, business, etc.) and want to know the 'best' caches to hit.

 

I think this may help the plague of drive-by caches and finally give some credit where credit is due for people who spend an extra amount of effort to put out a great cache.

 

Thoughts?

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

Share this post


Link to post

Take a search on forum threads on Rating Caches. There's a ton. Basically, a lot has been made about how this could be abused to start flame wars (see "When to delete a log" thread).

 

We're in the process of coming up with a viable solution to the area caches on our Chicago group, but it's not in place yet. If anyone's interested in our solution, I'll post more later.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

Here in LA we have also plenty of caches some of them right out of the freeway icon_cool.gif No need to get out of the car!

It would be interesting to rate the caches to know what we should expect. Chicago will lead the way?

 

www.Legendeo.org still in Beta!

Share this post


Link to post

Here in LA we have also plenty of caches some of them right out of the freeway icon_cool.gif No need to get out of the car!

It would be interesting to rate the caches to know what we should expect. Chicago will lead the way?

 

www.Legendeo.org still in Beta!

Share this post


Link to post

Dekanar,

 

My response to this is to add your thoughts to your log.

 

When you find a fantastic cache, your log should show it... and if it was a cache that did very little for you, there's no reason not to say so.

 

I know as a cache owner, I'd get much better feeling from reading someones praise-filled log entry than having a 2-line entry from that person with a 5-star rating.

 

Same as if I got a log entry that talked about how poorly my cache was thought out, I'd take that a heck of lot more serious that simply receiving a 1-star rating from that same person.

 

Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

I travel around alot and it would be great if I had an idea of what are the best caches around. It wouldn't be a bad idea even for the ones I place, to get a little feedback. It could be done like Ebay with an opportunity to reply to feedback if necessary. icon_razz.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I travel around alot and it would be great if I had an idea of what are the best caches around. It wouldn't be a bad idea even for the ones I place, to get a little feedback. It could be done like Ebay with an opportunity to reply to feedback if necessary. icon_razz.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Dekanar,

 

My response to this is to add your thoughts to your log.

 

When you find a fantastic cache, your log should show it... and if it was a cache that did very little for you, there's no reason not to say so.Jamie


 

Charlie

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Dekanar,

 

My response to this is to add your thoughts to your log.

 

When you find a fantastic cache, your log should show it... and if it was a cache that did very little for you, there's no reason not to say so.Jamie


 

I guess I'm coming around to this philosophy as well. I used to argue for a star system, but after close to a year I've found the obvious: it's all subjective. Some people like a hike and a tough find, others are satisfied with a drive-by in the pile of debris just off the freeway (too many IMHO, in case you couldn't tell)!

 

I feel it's incumbant upon the conscientious cacher to be honest in his log. I've been hesitant in the past to point out aspects of a cache I felt made it one to not recommend; now I think I'll try and tell it like it is.

 

Charlie

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

Share this post


Link to post

The only advantage to having a rating system is then one could search based upon it.

 

For example if I am traveling to a new area, on business perhaps, and only have a limited amount of time - I don't want to spend hours reading through lots of other people's logs trying to guess if the cache is good or not.

 

I want to know right away the top X caches in the area, as those are the ones I want to hit. Would this discrimate against newer caches? Sure - but I'll hunt just about anything locally. It'd be up to those people to visit it first I suppose.

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

We're in the process of coming up with a viable solution to the area caches on our Chicago group, but it's not in place yet. If anyone's interested in our solution, I'll post more later.


 

Since nobody bit, and I've got more time now, I'll detail our plans...

 

The two web designers for the Chicago area are in the process of creating sub-regional favorites. We've divided the Chicago area into 4 regions (NW, NE, SW and SE) and are having registered members vote on their favorite caches in five different areas in each of the regions.

 

Cool Kid's Cache

Cool Quick In-and-Out

Cool Starter Cache

Cool "Rugged" Cache

Must Hit

 

Each registered user has his favorite list that he upkeeps, and s/he can vote in any of the regions and for any of the categories that s/he feels comfortable with.

 

The database will tally the info and produce a list of categories for the regions that are listed as "A Good Starter Cache" "A Good Kids Cache" etc. This does not mean that these are the BEST caches, but ones that had the most votes for each category. A cache can be voted on in more than one category, but not more than one region.

 

That provides some value to visiting people in the area - which is the whole purpose of rating caches, IMHO. This also rewards great caches without bashing bad ones (which I always though was the big drawback of rating caches).

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

I like the notion, Markwell...like the categories, too.

 

As I was driving into work today I was thinking about some caching analog to the Academy Awards. It could be some annual vote by cachers for something like five of their favorite caches found in the past year--perhaps limited to caches that had been placed within the past year. Regionalizing it is a good idea...solves problems of higher cacher populations dominating the vote.

 

It seemed to be it would be a positive (albeit imperfect) way to recognize and draw attention to caches that are popular. Maybe a little blue ribbon icon or something could be a part of the cache listing. No put-down of other caches...heck, I'd be tickled if I got a single vote for a cache of mine.

 

It would be something to do when it's cold and snowy out...

 

max

Just visiting this planet

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like a rating system, too. I'd also like to know if the cache is in a buggy area, a dry area, in a tight area, an open are, etc... The current terrain/difficulty rating is wildy inaccurate. I've hit 4/4 caches that were much easier to find and get to than some of the 1/1 caches out there.

 

Simply put: I'd love to search for caches on a large variety of statistics, such as:

 

User Rating, Newest, Most Recently Hit, Days Since Last Hit, Travel Bugs, Insect Pests, Wet/Dry, Flat/Hilly, Enclosed Space/Open Area, Estimated Distance from Parking, Dog Friendly, Mountain Bike Accessable, etc, etc, etc.... icon_biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like a rating system, too. I'd also like to know if the cache is in a buggy area, a dry area, in a tight area, an open are, etc... The current terrain/difficulty rating is wildy inaccurate. I've hit 4/4 caches that were much easier to find and get to than some of the 1/1 caches out there.

 

Simply put: I'd love to search for caches on a large variety of statistics, such as:

 

User Rating, Newest, Most Recently Hit, Days Since Last Hit, Travel Bugs, Insect Pests, Wet/Dry, Flat/Hilly, Enclosed Space/Open Area, Estimated Distance from Parking, Dog Friendly, Mountain Bike Accessable, etc, etc, etc.... icon_biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yeah... add to my search list: Size

 

(I have a rather large Travel Bug I grabbed from Virginia that I need to find a cache to place it in up here in Syracuse, NY.)

Share this post


Link to post

I know its all been gone through before, but here's my two cents.

 

1) I'm from Sydney where there are tons of caches and I don't think I'll see them all in my lifetime

2) I'd like to be able easily see which caches were highly regarded by other cachers.

3) Rating caches is a good idea.

4) I wouldn't want to put off first-timers with a bad rating would be my only concern, but I personally would be tempted to give a first-timer a couple more stars for effort anyway.

 

An award system would be nicer maybe, but also prone to croneyism, more complex, and less workable. Why not just a "Rate It When You Log It" system - so simple, so obvious, so useful, so why not?

 

I know, I know, many people have reasons why not. Personally I think the benefits outweigh the risks.

 

Blocko (& his 2c)

Share this post


Link to post

Count me in for wanting a rating on caches. If it was just part of logging a find, it'd be easy to see which caches are exceptional and which are there just to place a cache. It would definately help when visiting a new area.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a cut/paste from the discussion thread of August on the subject...

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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!)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Well since then I've hidden some more, hunted some more, travelled through Washington to Portland a few times to hunt some caches...had some 0 star experiences, and some 10 star experiences...IT'S A GAME! Sometimes you lose!

If you want to make sure you don't lose too often...

 

1. When you find a cache by a newbie that is less than perfect, provide positive criticism, directly to the hider via the email system.

 

2. Povide glowing praise in your logs when you find a great one, people will get to know your style and realize if you liked it, so will they, and they will do the same.

 

3. HIDE MORE CACHES that you think are PERFECT! What goes around, comes around.

 

4. Check out the stats of the hider, before you hunt.

 

5. Hunt with some other cachers, even if the cache is brutal...you'll still have some fun!

 

I said it before, I'll say it again...

IT'S A GAME, sometimes you win, sometimes not!

 

Keep yer sail 'igh, 'nd move swiftly,

:D Captain No Beard and the Pi Rats

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...