Rating of caches on gc.com?

[+Hynz]

I'm just back from a trip through the US and logging my caches.

After posting logs of caches in the state Maryland I was presented the following form on top of the cache description:

 

 

I can't be the only one who is getting this. I'm surprised that this is not discussed here (or have I missed it?)

 

Funfact: GCvote recently stopped working and the maintainer announced on the German forum to quit the project. At this moment the GCvote Homepage is still not up again. Fortunately he could be motivated to fix the problem and GCvote is working again (at least for the moment). But he wrote also that he was contacted by Groundspeak to eventually hand over the collected data. 

[+on4bam]

14 minutes ago, Hynz said:

Funfact: GCvote recently stopped working and the maintainer announced on the German forum to quit the project. At this moment the GCvote Homepage is still not up again. Fortunately he could be motivated to fix the problem and GCvote is working again (at least for the moment). But he wrote also that he was contacted by Groundspeak to eventually hand over the collected data. 

 

If GCvote has user identifiable data (like who rates which cache) it won't happen (GDPR!). And if he does hand it over he might risk a complaint.

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by on4bam

[+L0ne.R]

Wow. This is very interesting. I like the intent of the feature. I especially like the Physical Condition rating.  

As with all features, it may be open to abuse and might be too subjective. This cache was referred to as "cool" by the last finder so I expect they’d give it a lot of stars:

 

 

But I like that they are trying to get more specific feedback and hopefully, if the feature proves to be useful and not abused, finders can use it to find caches in reasonably good shape. I'd love to be able to ignore the mess and spend my time and money on cache experiences I am more likely to appreciate. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by L0ne.R
Clarity and grammar

[+on4bam]

I just noticed, unlike GCvote feedback can only be seen by GC admins. So it's pretty useless as a tool to decide which geocaches are worth doing. It's also a good reason for the owner of GCvote NOT to hand over GCvote data.

 

[+L0ne.R]

27 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I just noticed, unlike GCvote feedback can only be seen by GC admins. So it's pretty useless as a tool to decide which geocaches are worth doing. It's also a good reason for the owner of GCvote NOT to hand over GCvote data.

 

 

 I think I get it now. This is not a new GCHQ feature but rather an old GCVote feature. Correct?

[HiddenGnome]

Hello - this ratings widget is part of a test in a limited number of locations and has been running for the last couple of months. There is no connection between this test and the GCVote website.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Hynz said:

After posting logs of caches in the state Maryland I was presented the following form on top of the cache description:

20 minutes ago, HiddenGnome said:

... this ratings widget is part of a test in a limited number of locations and has been running for the last couple of months.

 

That's unusual.     The "quality" votes on the cache page is too. 

So now a caches "quality" can be "voted on",  but many have seen examples of mediocre caches getting tons of FPs.

 -  Seems like a "rate score" that might replace NM logs.  Maybe for the many who won't log NM , but would log yet-another "like" thing (to me).

I'd be curious to know how many people ever went back to that cache page to even notice it's there, or does it not allow you to "move on" without submitting that rating?.  

[+Hynz]

5 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

That's unusual.     The "quality" votes on the cache page is too. 

 

In case people are confused: The "Quality: x x x x x (0 Votes)" you see on the bottom of my screenshot in my OP is due to the GCvote Greasmonkey Script I'm using and has nothing to do with this new feedback form.

As I see it currently GS is collecting feedback from us and is not (yet?) providing any sort of rating to the owner or to visitors of the listing.

 

13 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I'd be curious to know how many people ever went back to that cache page to even notice it's there, or does it not allow you to "move on" without submitting that rating?.  

 

After sending my log it was presented to me upfront. I'm sure I could have deliberately ignored it or closed the form but I didn't.

You only get to this form after logging a Found. I can not return to the listing now to view or change the feedback I gave.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

My guess is that this is a test of a replacement for the much discussed CHS system. Or, a feedback mechanism for it. GS has said in the past that they are trying to improve cache quality. The best way is to ask directly about the quality of the cache, rather than try to guest what a find or DNF log means with respect to the cache quality.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

My guess is that this is a test of a replacement for the much discussed CHS system. Or, a feedback mechanism for it. GS has said in the past that they are trying to improve cache quality. The best way is to ask directly about the quality of the cache, rather than try to guest what a find or DNF log means with respect to the cache quality.

 

Does this mean we're going to be getting maintenance requests if a cache isn't enough "fun"?

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Does this mean we're going to be getting maintenance requests if a cache isn't enough "fun"?

 

I just now got that automatic warning on several of my caches that they are too low on fun.  Now I have to go check. 

 

"This geocache appears to be excessively boring. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of activities are needed. Please perform a merriment visit to place graphic novels, a selection of electronic games, hire jugglers, or archive the listing if needed."

[+thomfre]

How exactly does this feedback help keep the game fun? Are you going to reject new caches hidden by people with too low "fun rating"?

[+MartyBartfast]

Perhaps:

 

• They're thinking of replacing the Favourite points system with a GCvote like system.
• They're "randomly" throwing this at cachers in order to gauge the sorts of response they will get, at the moment that data is only going to the Admins so they can decide whether or not to progress the idea.
• If/when it does go live then the rating will be shown on the cache as it is/was by GCvote, but even then our individual responses would only be available to the admins, the data presented on the page will be aggregated from all responses.

 

I suggested in one of the feedback polls that Favourite points should be replaced by GCvote so I would support it, but nevertheless I expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and threats to archive all their caches  from some quarters.

[+thomfre]

2 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

I suggested in one of the feedback polls that Favourite points should be replaced by GCvote so I would support it, but nevertheless I expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and threats to archive all their caches  from some quarters.

I've heard those threats already. And some will probably archive when they see that this is actually active now.

[+thomfre]

But if this is being tested on caches owned by European users, Groundspeak might be legally required by GDPR to share the information with the cache owner.

[+Hynz]

16 hours ago, HiddenGnome said:

Hello - this ratings widget is part of a test in a limited number of locations and has been running for the last couple of months. There is no connection between this test and the GCVote website.

Thanks for confirming that GS is working on something.

 

It must be a really limited test that it can run for months without any sighting of a forum user.

 

As with many GS developments I'm a bit skeptic (especially in the actual realization of it ) but since I like GCvote it has definitely potential and I like the separation of condition of the box and the overall experience (as long as this separation will find its way back to the website).

[+on4bam]

1 minute ago, Hynz said:

As with many GS developments I'm a bit skeptic (especially in the actual realization of it ) but since I like GCvote it has definitely potential and I like the separation of condition of the box and the overall experience (as long as this separation will find its way back to the website).

 

I like GCvote too. The main advantage is that 3 stars is "average" or "neutral" so it's possible to give 0.5 or 1 star for a "bad" cache. With the current favorite system it's only possible "not to favorite" which may be because a cache is bad, average, or not really good.

In any case, should a "star system" be deployed, the ratings should be available via the new API too (I never log via the website anyway).

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

I suggested in one of the feedback polls that Favourite points should be replaced by GCvote

 

If that happens,   there would need to be some sort of mechanism for migrating all that favorite data to a meaningful GCvote "score".  Although the FP system has it's flaws there is a lot of useful data that many use to help decide which caches they choose to seek.

[+cerberus1]

4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If that happens,   there would need to be some sort of mechanism for migrating all that favorite data to a meaningful GCvote "score".  Although the FP system has it's flaws there is a lot of useful data that many use to help decide which caches they choose to seek.

Agreed. 

Something as simple as (finally) removing "send to gps" got folks who've never logged into the forums before,  active - at least for "fixes". 

Further changes to searches (like this map thing going on now...), when some are still trying to figure ways to keep caching from earlier changes, doesn't make much sense (to me).   We know a few that search by FPs.  Possible I guess FPs would be in addition to "rate".  

[+noncentric]

22 hours ago, thomfre said:

But if this is being tested on caches owned by European users, Groundspeak might be legally required by GDPR to share the information with the cache owner.

Really?  I thought GDPR was about protecting PII.  How would ratings about a cache be under the purview of GDPR?

[+thomfre]

3 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Really?  I thought GDPR was about protecting PII.  How would ratings about a cache be under the purview of GDPR?

They are collecting data about my cache. My cache is my property. So someone might be able to argue that they have to share the data they collect with them.

This might be taking it a bit too far. But it's certainly not very different from other things they are blocking/changing due to GDPR.

 

If they decide to use this data to make profiles and/or automated decisions, decisions that can affect European users, it will be covered by GDPR.

[+HHL]

14 minutes ago, thomfre said:

My cache is my property

Right, but the logs (and hence the ratings) are the loggers' property.

[+thomfre]

1 minute ago, HHL said:

Right, but the logs (and hence the ratings) are the loggers' property.

That's irrelevant. If they use this for any kind of automatic decision making, we need to be informed about it.

But right now, we don't know very much about this thing. So all of this is just speculations.
The only I know is that it's been hidden on the cache page for a while now (try to inspect the HTML above the cache name), and lots of people have seen it. Some have said they will archive everything, and some probably will.

[+freischneider]

Wenn das ganze an Geocaching.com geht würde es evtl. öfter benutzt werden.

Die Daten zu übergeben finde ich nicht schlimm. Wichtig wäre damit es so weiter betrieben wird.