AL Ratings Are Meaningless

[+JL_HSTRE]

I have yet to see an AL that had an average of less than 4.5. The vast majority of people seem to rate every AL as 5 stars.

 

This has made me very glad regular geocaches have the Favorite Points system they do.

[+The Leprechauns]

If an Adventure Lab creator has a high enough rating on their Adventure, they can be eligible for a credit to create another Adventure.  So, I am mindful of this before rating anything at less than 4 stars.  I don't want to torpedo future Sdventures in the areas I visit regularly.

 

It's a lot like my Car Dealership's service department, a Doordash delivery guy, a Lyft driver or a Hotel front desk agent.  They beg me to give out the highest ratings on customer surveys, because anything lower can negatively affect their job.  I think that's stupid, but the reality is that anything below 9 out of 10 is a "fail."

 

I like your analogy to Favorite Points.  Further, I like that Favorite Points are a rationed commodity.  A star ratings system on every cache would lead to abuse and/or artificially inflated ratings.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I have yet to see an AL that had an average of less than 4.5. The vast majority of people seem to rate every AL as 5 stars.

 

This has made me very glad regular geocaches have the Favorite Points system they do.

 

Either we're harsher critics here or some of our ALs are exceptionally poor, as there are a few locally with averages of 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4. I started off giving a 4 to most, reserving 5 for something exceptional (either you couldn't give half stars then or I didn't realise you could), but the total lack of any guidance from HQ on what the ratings are meant to mean makes them pretty meaningless. Given the way they're using average ratings to decide on additional credits, though, it seems they're assuming everything is given 5 stars unless there's something wrong with it.

[+Hügh]

I generally give a half-star to every Adventure I complete, because I am a Very Cynical Geocacher and feel immense joy in seeing the average rating score drop. (If you have a problem with this, additional half-stars can be purchased for $25 apiece.)

 

/s

Edited February 27, 2022 by Hügh

[+JL_HSTRE]

I know people on book review sites who give every book they read either 5 stars or 1 star.

 

I agree businesses who aggressively beg for 10/10 or 5/5 ratings don't help people's mindset about this.

 

Some ratings guidelines might help.

 

My system would be something like this:

 

1 = I regret doing this. Bad questions, bad area, or otherwise poorly designed. Recommendation to avoid.

 

2 = Boring. Just not very interesting to me. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

 

3 = Average. I enjoyed it but it wasn't anything special. Mild recommendation. If you're in the area go for it, but not worth going out of your way.

 

4 = Good. Recommended. Deserves a Favorite Point if I could give it.

 

5 = Outstanding. Highly recommended. If this was a normal geocache I would regret having only 1 FP to give.

[+baer2006]

On 2/27/2022 at 2:11 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

My system would be something like this:

 

1 = I regret doing this. Bad questions, bad area, or otherwise poorly designed. Recommendation to avoid.

 

2 = Boring. Just not very interesting to me. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

 

3 = Average. I enjoyed it but it wasn't anything special. Mild recommendation. If you're in the area go for it, but not worth going out of your way.

 

4 = Good. Recommended. Deserves a Favorite Point if I could give it.

 

5 = Outstanding. Highly recommended. If this was a normal geocache I would regret having only 1 FP to give.

That's interesting, because it's more or less exactly the same as my own rating habit. As a result, I rate most AL between 3 and 4, with the occasional 2. 1 and 5 are very rare.

 

Regarding the average ratings of ALs in my area, nearly all of them are in the 4.3 to 4.7 range. Two main factors seem to draw the rating down (4.2 or lower):

- Long distance (i.e., involving a few km of driving) in a mundane environment (as opposed to, say, a stunning landscape)

- Less than the usual 5 locations

- Fixed sequence, when there is no obvious justification for it

I found very few ALs with 4.8+ average.  All of them feature either

- Innovative concept/story/setup, e.g. working with videos and/or a really funny story

- Exceptional locations. The only 4.9 ratings I found (there was no straight 5.0) were hikes in or near the Bavarian alps.

[Moun10Bike]

I've had a lot of complaints about inflated ratings. It makes it really hard to use the ratings to determine Adventure quality, especially as a data guy at HQ trying to present information on quality measurements to the company. Worldwide, the average is 4.50 while the median is 4.67. This breakdown shows just how skewed the data is:

 

 

In a perfect world, that histogram would form a nice bell curve centered on 3.0. People seem reluctant to post ratings lower than 4.0.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

People seem reluctant to post ratings lower than 4.0.

The topic came up a few times in FB groups here. The postings, which got the most likes, tended to be along the lines of "If you didn't like it, better don't rate at all instead of giving few stars" or "To apply for more AL credits, you need a minimum average on your first ALs. You shouldn't reduce the owners chances for that". Also, there is a share of players who openly say that they always give 5 stars, regardless of how they liked the AL.

In the end, I as a player can adapt my expectations. If an AL has a rating of 4.0 or less, it's most likely not the greatest experience .

[Moun10Bike]

3 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

The topic came up a few times in FB groups here. The postings, which got the most likes, tended to be along the lines of "If you didn't like it, better don't rate at all instead of giving few stars" or "To apply for more AL credits, you need a minimum average on your first ALs. You shouldn't reduce the owners chances for that". Also, there is a share of players who openly say that they always give 5 stars, regardless of how they liked the AL.

In the end, I as a player can adapt my expectations. If an AL has a rating of 4.0 or less, it's most likely not the greatest experience .

 

I could see that having some effect, but the extreme skew was present even prior to awarding new credits based on prior Adventure ratings.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

In a perfect world, that histogram would form a nice bell curve centered on 3.0. People seem reluctant to post ratings lower than 4.0.

 

Maybe it'd be helpful if, in the Help Centre or better yet in the app itself, there was a guide on what the ratings are meant to mean. Something like JL_HSTRE's suggestion would be great. As it currently stands, I'm sure a lot of people see a 5-star rating as "acceptable" and any half-stars less than that are demerit points.

[Moun10Bike]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Maybe it'd be helpful if, in the Help Centre or better yet in the app itself, there was a guide on what the ratings are meant to mean. Something like JL_HSTRE's suggestion would be great. As it currently stands, I'm sure a lot of people see a 5-star rating as "acceptable" and any half-stars less than that are demerit points.

 

To be honest, I have little faith that giving people more guidelines to consider would have any impact. We have very little reach with what is already out there. Behaviors of this magnitude are rarely impacted by text, no matter how well-crafted the language might be. Five-star rating systems are quite ubiquitous and I think people are familiar with how they are supposed to work. One of my beliefs of the factors involved is that we give limited anonymity to users when rating, especially early in a given Adventure's life, and that skews people toward "all-or-nothing" ratings (i.e. five stars or no rating at all). There's certainly more to the story, though, and I'd love to be able to better understand it.

[+Max and 99]

23 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

One of my beliefs of the factors involved is that we give limited anonymity to users when rating, especially early in a given Adventure's life, and that skews people toward "all-or-nothing" ratings (i.e. five stars or no rating at all).

For sure!

[+barefootjeff]

14 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

Five-star rating systems are quite ubiquitous and I think people are familiar with how they are supposed to work.

 

Around here at least, most of the time if you give something less than 5 stars you're then prompted to explain what was unsatisfactory about the goods or service and what you think they should be doing to improve their business model. For me at least, if I'm forced to do one of those dreaded surveys, I'll just give everything 5 to make it go away.

[+dprovan]

13 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

In a perfect world, that histogram would form a nice bell curve centered on 3.0. People seem reluctant to post ratings lower than 4.0.

Why? Are we all supposed to grade on the curve? No, I think if the average was 3.0, everyone would be complaining about the low quality of adventure labs. Isn't GS granting adventure lab credits based on how well they think those COs will be at creating adventure labs? Shouldn't we expect -- in fact, shouldn't we *demand* -- that almost all adventure labs be very good or excellent?

 

[+baer2006]

13 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

There's certainly more to the story, though, and I'd love to be able to better understand it.

I see it similar to barefootjeff: Nowadays, anything less than 5 stars is often regarded as criticism (mild criticism in case of 4.5 stars, but still). And many people don't want to be criticized, and therefore follow the way of not criticizing others - especially, if it's only about a game, where they have zero benefit from awarding less than 5 stars.

 

13 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

One of my beliefs of the factors involved is that we give limited anonymity to users when rating

In fact, players who are not also AL owners often don't know, that an ALO can not see individual ratings from players. Some of these players probably think that if the owner notices that they gave less than 5 stars, the owner might harass them with questions.

[+dprovan]

26 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

I see it similar to barefootjeff: Nowadays, anything less than 5 stars is often regarded as criticism (mild criticism in case of 4.5 stars, but still). And many people don't want to be criticized, and therefore follow the way of not criticizing others - especially, if it's only about a game, where they have zero benefit from awarding less than 5 stars.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I equate the tradition of rating 5 stars to the tradition of applauding enthusiastically at school performances no matter how bad. It's not so much a fear of appearing critical; it's more a desire to be encouraging.

 

28 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

In fact, players who are not also AL owners often don't know, that an ALO can not see individual ratings from players. Some of these players probably think that if the owner notices that they gave less than 5 stars, the owner might harass them with questions.

Let's pretend that scores were more accurate so, for example, ALs at the bottom of the barrel -- for example, technically OK but still not very interesting -- got rated 3. And let's also imagine everyone could see the rating each reviewer gave. Wouldn't it be reasonable for the ALO to expect the log -- oops, I mean "review" -- to provide information so he could improve his AL? You seem to be defending someone that rates the AL down but then doesn't give any explanation to make the rating useful, so the ALO has to ask.

[+baer2006]

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Let's pretend that scores were more accurate so, for example, ALs at the bottom of the barrel -- for example, technically OK but still not very interesting -- got rated 3. And let's also imagine everyone could see the rating each reviewer gave. Wouldn't it be reasonable for the ALO to expect the log -- oops, I mean "review" -- to provide information so he could improve his AL? You seem to be defending someone that rates the AL down but then doesn't give any explanation to make the rating useful, so the ALO has to ask.

For me, a rating of 4 is "quite good" (but not outstanding), while a 3 means "Ok, but nothing remarkable". Therefore, I don't see the need to "explain" that a lot in my review, and wouldn't want to be asked by the ALO why I "rated down" his AL.

[Moun10Bike]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

In fact, players who are not also AL owners often don't know, that an ALO can not see individual ratings from players. Some of these players probably think that if the owner notices that they gave less than 5 stars, the owner might harass them with questions.

 

While an owner cannot directly link a given rating with a given account, they can see the overall ratings right away and deduce what ratings early finders are giving to their Adventure. For example, if you have one finder on your Adventure and you see that the overall rating is a 5, then you know that first finder gave it a five. If a second finder comes along and suddenly your overall rating drops to a 4.5, then you know that second finder gave it a 4. This is why I called this "limited anonymity," and why I have been arguing internally for not showing overall ratings until an Adventure has at least X finders.

[Moun10Bike]

9 hours ago, dprovan said:

Why? Are we all supposed to grade on the curve? No, I think if the average was 3.0, everyone would be complaining about the low quality of adventure labs. Isn't GS granting adventure lab credits based on how well they think those COs will be at creating adventure labs? Shouldn't we expect -- in fact, shouldn't we *demand* -- that almost all adventure labs be very good or excellent?

 

 

I have no interest in getting into the typical "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" arguments common in the forums, but yes, I would say that the distribution should be more like a bell curve than we currently see. Sure, maybe not pegged on 3.0, but there should be more spread of ratings, and Adventures that truly stand out in the playing field should thus also stand out in the ratings. As it currently stands, that Adventure taking you to street signs in an industrial park shows no difference from the one that takes you on an amazingly scenic and historic tour featuring unknown gems.

[+Max and 99]

21 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

This is why I called this "limited anonymity," and why I have been arguing internally for not showing overall ratings until an Adventure has at least X finders.

I approve that improvement idea.

[+ChriBli]

With the FP system used for other types of geocaches, it is possible for the CO to see who favorited and who didn't. Yet there is seldom any (expressed) bad feelings against the ones that that didn't, because there is an understanding of the fact that FP's are limited. When 5-star ratings are unlimited, then why would you not hand them out to everyone? And then the ratings become meaningless.

[+baer2006]

48 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

When 5-star ratings are unlimited, then why would you not hand them out to everyone?

Because not every AL is equally well designed and created. Ratings on consumer portals are also not limited - should I give 5 stars to every product I buy?

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

While an owner cannot directly link a given rating with a given account, they can see the overall ratings right away and deduce what ratings early finders are giving to their Adventure. For example, if you have one finder on your Adventure and you see that the overall rating is a 5, then you know that first finder gave it a five. If a second finder comes along and suddenly your overall rating drops to a 4.5, then you know that second finder gave it a 4. This is why I called this "limited anonymity," and why I have been arguing internally for not showing overall ratings until an Adventure has at least X finders.

Why has a player of an AL need the option to act in complete anonymity? Geocaching is, by definition, a social activity, because you log your finds online, and everyone can read this. Including your opinion on the cache (if you give one), and whether you gave an FP or not. ALs are already too anonymous in my view, given that a player can score the points without leaving any trace for the owner.

 

[Moun10Bike]

13 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Why has a player of an AL need the option to act in complete anonymity?

 

 

Because of the point of this thread - that ratings are inflated to the point of not being useful. I gave my opinion on one issue that may contribute to that.

[+mustakorppi]

My take is, when I hide a cache I don't ask to receive "reviews" and I don't expect or want the cache to be graded. I also don't really see anyone asking for a grade and review system to replace logs and favorite points.

 

I don't see why ALs would be different. I believe AL creators in general don't want to read honest reviews and grades of their ALs. They might enjoy being praised but let's be frank, most AL's aren't "an amazingly scenic and historic tour featuring unknown gems. "

 

I understand that honest reviews and grades might be helpful for finders. But if I have to decide who I'd rather keep happy, well finders can get used to disappointment.

 

For now I'm content not to participate, and tap past the grade/review screen.

[+igator210]

I've had a couple low ratings on my Lab, because it required a little more work. If it takes more than 10 brain cells, labs get lower ratings. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by igator210

[+ChriBli]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Because not every AL is equally well designed and created. Ratings on consumer portals are also not limited - should I give 5 stars to every product I buy?

I meant that from the AL creator's perspective. Since they know 5-star ratings are "free" for you, they might hold it against you if you don't award it. Hence the need for anonymity that is not necessary with the FP system.

 

On a side note, ratings on consumer portals are pretty useless too. A very small fraction of customers provide ratings, and the ones that do mostly use 5 or 1 to indicate love/hate.

[+GeoElmo6000]

4 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

While an owner cannot directly link a given rating with a given account, they can see the overall ratings right away and deduce what ratings early finders are giving to their Adventure. For example, if you have one finder on your Adventure and you see that the overall rating is a 5, then you know that first finder gave it a five. If a second finder comes along and suddenly your overall rating drops to a 4.5, then you know that second finder gave it a 4. This is why I called this "limited anonymity," and why I have been arguing internally for not showing overall ratings until an Adventure has at least X finders.

 

We can see who gives us favorite points on geocaches, so why is privacy of ratings for ALs an issue?

 

OT but is there any future plans to integrate Adventures and lab caches into the current geocaching structure?  I had posted what was a well meaning post but got no response, but I thought it was a good idea. (see below)

 

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

I have no interest in getting into the typical "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" arguments common in the forums...

Can you be a little more specific about what in my response causes you to dismiss it as "angels on a pin"?

 

5 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

...but yes, I would say that the distribution should be more like a bell curve than we currently see. Sure, maybe not pegged on 3.0, but there should be more spread of ratings, and Adventures that truly stand out in the playing field should thus also stand out in the ratings. As it currently stands, that Adventure taking you to street signs in an industrial park shows no difference from the one that takes you on an amazingly scenic and historic tour featuring unknown gems.

Favorite points are the way to make the better ones stand out. I think the problems we're discussing are fundamental to a rating system, not a failure in how people are rating ALs.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

My take is, when I hide a cache I don't ask to receive "reviews" and I don't expect or want the cache to be graded. I also don't really see anyone asking for a grade and review system to replace logs and favorite points.

Well, actually, I do remember some people suggesting that a rating system would improve "cache quality". In fact, I suspect the rating system in ALs may be a response to those suggestions, a way to test how well it works (or, if you're cynical, show that it doesn't work so people will stop asking for it).

 

3 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I don't see why ALs would be different. I believe AL creators in general don't want to read honest reviews and grades of their ALs. They might enjoy being praised but let's be frank, most AL's aren't "an amazingly scenic and historic tour featuring unknown gems. "

 

I understand that honest reviews and grades might be helpful for finders. But if I have to decide who I'd rather keep happy, well finders can get used to disappointment.

I see this a lot differently, but I think we come to the same conclusion. I suspect most AL creators are fine reading honest reviews and probably don't really page attention to the grades, but I don't think they'd miss either much if they weren't there. Don't most of us actually think of the "reviews" as just logs where people can report their experiences? And I'd be astonished to discover that many seekers look at reviews before deciding to tackle an AL. I've never even considered looking at the reviews first. I had to go check just now to make sure you could do that before you completed the AL yourself since that's the only way I ever get to the reviews.

 

So my conclusion is that the existing system isn't particularly interesting to anyone, so I don't see any problem with changing it to a favorite system if we want to.

 

3 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

For now I'm content not to participate, and tap past the grade/review screen.

I just enter a log and don't for a second think of it as a review. And the log is short and superficial because I've got more important things to do in the field than the annoying process of writing a detailed log on a cell phone. For a long time, I didn't notice that I could grade the AL, and now that I know, I never do it, anyway.

[+barefootjeff]

20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I see this a lot differently, but I think we come to the same conclusion. I suspect most AL creators are fine reading honest reviews and probably don't really page attention to the grades, but I don't think they'd miss either much if they weren't there. Don't most of us actually think of the "reviews" as just logs where people can report their experiences? And I'd be astonished to discover that many seekers look at reviews before deciding to tackle an AL. I've never even considered looking at the reviews first. I had to go check just now to make sure you could do that before you completed the AL yourself since that's the only way I ever get to the reviews.

 

I suspect most owners never read the activity logs reviews beyond maybe the first couple since they don't get notified of them. My ALs rarely see any activity now that the locals have done them so it's really only if I get a log on the bonus caches that I know someone's been out there.

 

I really don't like this whole concept of reviews/ratings on principle since my tastes are often different to other cachers and I'd rather experience it for myself and take the risk that I mightn't enjoy it than have my life driven by what other people think.

[+geodarts]

I don’t feel I have to “like” or rate everything I do.  I never look at reviews or favorite points to determine if I want to do something - it the cover photo or the description does not make me want to do a lab or a cache, I don’t see how a review would change my mind.

 

That said, almost every review I have looked at is a quick meaningless note.  My reviews would be better if I could write or edit them at any time after an adventure series is completed.  This would allow time after doing a lab to think about what I want to write and how I would rate a cache.

 

If I could add a photo it would help me interact with the lab all the more.  It’s frustrating not to be able to do this.
 

I decided today that unless editing is added I probably won’t be submitting reviews.  It’s the same reason why I write cache logs after I get home when I have time to think about what I want to say.
 

 

Edited March 3, 2022 by geodarts

[+Max and 99]

2 minutes ago, geodarts said:

I don’t feel I have to “like” or rate everything I do.  I never look at reviews or favorite points to determine if I want to do something - it the cover photo or the description does not make me want to do a lab or a cache, I don’t see how a review would change my mind.

 

That said, almost every review I have looked at is a quick meaningless note.  My reviews would be better if I could write or edit them at any time after an adventure series is completed.  This would allow time after doing a lab to think about what I want to write.

 

If I could add a photo it would help me interact with the lab all the more.  It’s frustrating not to be able to do this.
 

I decided today that unless editing is added I probably won’t be submitting reviews.  It’s the same reason why I write cache logs after I get home when I have time to think about what I want to say.
 

 

You can edit an AL review as much as you want! 

[+geodarts]

Thanks.  I went back and found the secret.   I still would be more likely to write something meaningful if I could add a photo.

Edited March 3, 2022 by geodarts

[+CAVinoGal]

15 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

You can edit an AL review as much as you want! 

But only on the phone - I much prefer to sit at my computer and edit that way.

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, CAVinoGal said:

But only on the phone - I much prefer to sit at my computer and edit that way.

But that's the only way you can play and log an adventure lab!

[+CAVinoGal]

5 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

But that's the only way you can play and log an adventure lab!

I do enjoy playing the Adventure Labs - I just don't like logging on the phone (or writing my review on the phone).  I often use the phone for finding geocaches, too, but always use drafts to timestamp, and make quick notes.  Then log later at home on the computer, usually with a glass of wine beside me to help me write creative logs!!  I don't like trying to compose a decent log on my phone while others are content with a quick "Fun Lab, thanks for the adventure" and are waiting on me because I take too long....

 

I have similar feelings about emails on the phone - I'd rather compose an email on the computer.  I'll do quick texts with the phone, but longer communications, I am much more compfortable with a full keyboard and larger screen. YMMV

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

But that's the only way you can play and log an adventure lab!

It's not being on a phone I don't like, it's writing a log without a keyboard.

[+mustakorppi]

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's not being on a phone I don't like, it's writing a log without a keyboard.

 

17 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

But only on the phone - I much prefer to sit at my computer and edit that way.

I mean, you guys could connect a bluetooth keyboard to the phone for logging. Or write the log on a tablet, or on your computer with the app running in an emulator…

 

But I think the idea is not to write much at all.

[+CAVinoGal]

3 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

I mean, you guys could connect a bluetooth keyboard to the phone for logging. Or write the log on a tablet, or on your computer with the app running in an emulator…

In the field?!?  Yeah, right!

 

4 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

But I think the idea is not to write much at all.

Since even the CO doesn't get notified of the logs/reviews, you may be right.  

[+barefootjeff]

16 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

But I think the idea is not to write much at all.

 

Even if you want to you can't, because activitity logs reviews are limited to 400 characters.

[+mustakorppi]

20 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

In the field?!?  Yeah, right!

At home with a glass of wine if you prefer. You don’t have to write a review in the field upon completion. If you don’t, simply go to the ALs reviews later and you’ll see a ”Rate and review” link right at the top. Or if you’ve already written a review, you’ll see a pen icon which takes you to edit your review/rating.

[+CAVinoGal]

3 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

3 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

In the field?!?  Yeah, right!

At home with a glass of wine if you prefer. You don’t have to write a review in the field upon completion.

Ahh, OK, I see what you are saying.  Still, I prefer to do my logs on a real keyboard, and I don't have a bluetooth one or an emulator... I'll just write something in the app for the relatively few labs I do.  

[+dprovan]

On 3/3/2022 at 11:49 AM, mustakorppi said:

I mean, you guys could connect a bluetooth keyboard to the phone for logging. Or write the log on a tablet, or on your computer with the app running in an emulator…

 

But I think the idea is not to write much at all.

Or I could go home and write a decent log on my desktop, which is what I do for geocaches but can't do for ALs.

[+mustakorppi]

3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Or I could go home and write a decent log on my desktop, which is what I do for geocaches but can't do for ALs.

You literally quoted text explaining how you can write a review for AL at home on your computer. I’m not saying you should, just that you can if you want to and it’s not particularly hard.

[+dprovan]

11 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

You literally quoted text explaining how you can write a review for AL at home on your computer. I’m not saying you should, just that you can if you want to and it’s not particularly hard.

Not particularly hard, but not part of ALs, either. The fact that I could, if I cared, work around it is off the point. I'm not so much complaining that I can't write a decent log but rather explaining why almost no one writes decent logs. I write extensive logs for geocaches, so implying that I'm looking for excuses not to write them for ALs is laughable.

[+TommyGator]

Perhaps a better question to ask is whether anyone (other than GS) actually uses the ratings to make decisions.

 

I pretty much decide which ALs to do by looking at a map full of pins (the default screen).  If I look further, it is usually to see whether or not the AL requires lots of driving.  I'll usually pass on a long-driver (unless I happen to be going in that direction anyway) in favor of an AL that I can complete in the same area, without regard for rating---but that's just me.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, TommyGator said:

Perhaps a better question to ask is whether anyone (other than GS) actually uses the ratings to make decisions.

 

I pretty much decide which ALs to do by looking at a map full of pins (the default screen).  If I look further, it is usually to see whether or not the AL requires lots of driving.  I'll usually pass on a long-driver (unless I happen to be going in that direction anyway) in favor of an AL that I can complete in the same area, without regard for rating---but that's just me.

 

If I turn off completed ALs, all I see when I look at the app is my own three on an otherwise empty map, and just occasionally, once in the last 15 months, a new one appears. About the only time I can do any ALs now is when travelling far from home, then if I see one close to where I am and it doesn't involve too much travelling between locations (hard to tell in an unfamiliar area since the map doesn't have a scale) I'll take it on. So no, I never look at ratings when picking ALs to do, that would be about the last thing I'd consider.

[+Max and 99]

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

that would be about the last thing I'd consider.

👍

[+fizzymagic]

I have done 6 ALs, I think. 5 of them were truly horrible, and didn't even deserve a half star.  But the sixth was quite good, actually. So I know good ALs exist.  They seem to be quite rare in my area, though. Sadly, those poorly-designed and poorly-implemented ALs tend to get many stars when they are rated, making the rating system pretty useless.

 

IMO, this is a natural evolution of the "say only nice things in cache logs" convention that started in geocaching.  I frequently do not say what I think about a lousy cache, figuring that it's not worth the effort.  I would expect that the same thing goes for ALs.