Jump to content

Rating of caches on gc.com?


Hynz
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

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:

 

gc_rating.thumb.png.7a9d5cc16c50e4a44e4b28feb897d19b.png

 

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. :unsure:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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:unsure:

 

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 by on4bam
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

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:

 

6ecd9878dc0f3cc96062a9bf693dd94e.jpg.892752e47f25ac763530589dcbfbee28.jpg

 

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 by L0ne.R
Clarity and grammar
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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?.  

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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"? :wacko:

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

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

 

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.  :mad:

 

"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."

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 4
Link to comment

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
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).

Link to comment
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).

 

Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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".  :)

Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...