+Team Shuey Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Shuey and Scott (Scooby-Doo-Croo) was discussing today during our InfoChallenge North adventure a few things, and this is what we came up with: Everyone seems to look at caches differently depending on the number of stars that rate it. EXAMPLE: *=EASY / *****=VERY HARD. What does everyone think if the star-rating system was also included in our STATS page? EXAMPLE: We could set it up to give the cacher an AVERAGE star rating. This would be possible if you took the total number of caches fould, and them DIVIDED that number by the TOTAL number of stars associated with each cache. I just think that this would also set cachers apart, not for bragging rights, but it will show the difference between the cachers that look for the easier caches, and those who search for the higher rated caches as well. This would also make people look at some cachers in a different way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXAMPLE: Let's say: Team Shuey 100 caches: 30 caches are 1 star 30 caches are 2 star 20 caches are 3 star 15 caches are 4 star 5 caches are 5 stars This would make the total number of stars for Team Shuey to be: 235 STARS This would mean that Team Shuey's star rating would be 2.35 STARS This would seem that it would be more interesting because over time it would give everyone a STAR AVERAGE. I think it would be pretty cool!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ANOTHER EXAMPLE: (JUST AN EXAMPLE! ) People would look at you differently if this were the case: TEAM SHUEY has 222 caches, but is rated as a 3.1 STARS OR REEFRATS has 222 caches, but is rated as a 1.7 STARS Eventhough we have the same amout of caches we would be rated differently due to the degree of diffuculty for each cache! What do you think? Team Shuey Riverview, Florida Favorite Quote: What should you do if you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant? Shuey's Web Site Buy CamelBaks CLICK HERE Link to comment
+Jamie Z Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 Part of me sort of likes that idea, but mostly I wouldn't care to see something like that implemented on gc.com (nor do I have any concern that it will). The flaw I see is that probably half of all caches (at least ones I've searched for) are mis-rated in either terrain, difficulty, or both. I've hunted numerous so-called 1/1 caches only to have to traverse a narrow dirt path and then search around for 30 minutes for a well-hidden micro. In one case I hunted for a 4/5 cache that was merely a long bushwack and the cache was sitting out in the open when I got there. Tough, but clearly over-rated. In theory, if most/all folks followed the cache rating guidelines, something like this could be implemented. That's not the case, so I think even if someone put together an off-site stat page, I doubt the numbers would be reliable. Jamie Link to comment
+LarsThorwald Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Never gonna happen. People have been suggesting a rating system since this site went up - myself included, at one time - but the consensus has always been negative. Reason: too subjective. I rate this response 5 stars. How about you? Charlie "One should never begin a journey by heading in the wrong direction." Link to comment
+Cachetrotters Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Other variables would have to be considered. What if someone had to drive 202 miles just to get to a 5, but there were 300 1's, 2's, and 3's within 65 miles. Five's sometimes need special equipment. Should it be punative that some cachers don't have, or have access to, needed equipment? With proper weighting it could be done, but as Jamie and Lars indicate, the foundation of all is the subjective rating of the caches themselves. Plus, it's elitist. The haves vs. the have-nots. The proletariat, canaille, dregs, masses, mob, ragtag and bobtail, riffraff, scum, trash, and unwashed vs. you guys. Spokesman for the unwashed masses... Link to comment
+Sissy-n-CR Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Improper ratings and hyper lame don't-even-have-stop virts will always throw a kink into the works. Numbers are just that, and have no real meaning beyond the number caches you've been able to log. Nothing more. Nothing less. CR Link to comment
Recommended Posts