Jump to content

AL Ratings Are Meaningless


JL_HSTRE

Recommended Posts

I really believe it's a matter of how the 'rating' prompt is presented. A 1-5 star 'tap your rating' doesn't really have any context. A rating is left to be interpreted entirely by the player. That's why there's no real basis for reading and interpreting a rating average accurately, let alone consistently across the platform.

 

Many surveys that ask for a 'rating' style response will present it in a gauge from something like 'awful' to 'spectacular' with the middle option being literally average/okay.  In that case, if the "5 star" is presented as overtly and literally "above average", and the "3 star" being the more prominent selection as a starting point, it'll feel more like the crux of the system is balanced in the middle, rather than every single star being a sort of reward to the creator and people not feeling like there's any reason not to simply reward all 5 to be nice. 

 

ie, if the star ratings have meaning, and less focused on quantity, I think they'd be used a lot more accurately. Not perfectly, nothing's ever perfect, but the way I see it, the vagueness of those ratings is why the average rating itself has little to no universal or consistent meaning.

 

Survey rating scales—types and examples

 

 

Edited by thebruce0
minor grammar edit
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
On 2/26/2022 at 6:00 PM, Hügh said:

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

Can you please go back to those adventure lab reviews and see if the half star stuck?

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

I dislike the star rating, I published a adventure lab at a outdoor art display and the very first two stars ratings was from the cacher and his dog account,  was disappointing, I asked the finder why they gave it such a poor review and the answers was because I didn't included a bonus cache.  I probably never publish another adventure lab for this reason considering the time and effort I put in to set up. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Gate Keeper said:

I dislike the star rating, I published a adventure lab at a outdoor art display and the very first two stars ratings was from the cacher and his dog account,  was disappointing, I asked the finder why they gave it such a poor review and the answers was because I didn't included a bonus cache.  I probably never publish another adventure lab for this reason considering the time and effort I put in to set up. 

Well that is disappointing, and in my opinion unfair. The rating should be based on the AL experience.

I hope you showed them the Help Center info on AL bonus geocaches:

 

  • You are allowed to place one Mystery Cache as a bonus cache for your Adventure. However, Geocaching HQ does not encourage this since it creates a confusing experience.
Link to comment
  1. Takes a lot to bring back those ratings when the adventure lab is so young. I’m sure his dog had no opinion but his log was nice walk in the snow from his dog and his was beautiful park. I received a 1/2 star to set that up for him.

    I set this adventure lab up for the kids since a lot of the elementary schools use this area as a day trip for the kids. Most don’t geocache but their parents might and it’s a good safe place to bring kids with strollers .

    The area is small but has many famous outdoor arts display, Robert Batman pictures, the bronze statue of homeless Jesus and such. There is over 150 pieces of famous art here and I was going to add more if awarded more adventure labs.

    I had spoken with the administrator of the park when I set it up and they loved the whole non touch theme and staying on designated paths. We can not place physical caches in our provincial parks because of the wildlife and plants to the area. I already had 4 adventure labs in the park and this was my newest one. I don’t know what he rated the others but they held their own because of the volume of people that visited the adventure labs .

    I have a similar one in Edmonton Alberta with over 60 visitors and it’s at a 4.9 star rating. I also had plans to do several of the ghost towns that still exists in our parts but it’s so slow to get awarded a adventure labs . Lol
 
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Personally, focusing on geocaching, I'm not putting much weight at all on the ratings of the ALs. My intent would be to place the bonus geocache, which means needing to complete the AL that goes with it. In that case, I'm not trying to get the attention of people who "might like the AL experience", but rather people who want to find a geocache. Of course, I'd want to make the AL experience as good as I can for the geocache to be found, but really I only see the ratings as relevant to AL-only experiences. That's not so much my bag.  The one AL I've put out is not an easy one, and so I expect low ratings because of that, mixed with 'hey that was cool' higher ratings (I haven't looked at the rating lately).  The ratings honestly don't mean much when you look at the system that way...

Link to comment

For my first three ALs I included a bonus cache, but it was always tough to come up with somewhere reasonable to put it and it took away a lot of the simplicity of the AL's virtual nature. On the first one, the AL follows a loop track through a national park and I didn't want to go through all the time-consuming hassle of getting a physical cache approved in the park so ended up putting it in a patch of bushland just outside the park boundary. The second and third ones were problematic since both ALs are long non-sequential walks (or drives) and whichever end I put the bonus at would have been the wrong end for some. For the fourth one, which is on an island, most of the land area is private residences with a public bushland reserve on the hill in the middle, but the latter has a lot of Aboriginal sites and I wouldn't have felt comfortable putting a physical cache there. So that one doesn't have a bonus, which is probably why it's hardly had any visits (the FTF, a group from Newcastle and then two others more recently). Its average rating is 4.4, whatever that means.

Link to comment

That's another good way of using an AL to provide an experience where you may not be able to place a physical cache, and placing the bonus somewhere it can be placed to found after having the experience (I wouldn't be super upset if the bonus wasn't also in the park with the AL, knowing its restrictions).  And apart from the AL construction, I think the whole thing could be less work to actually make than a multi-stage virtual or info-multi.

 

 

And to add my prior post, I also generally don't add reviews to ALs especially if they have a bonus. My 'review' (aka Log) would go there. :omnomnom:

Link to comment
On 2/8/2023 at 6:09 PM, Gate Keeper said:

I asked the finder why they gave it such a poor review and the answers was because I didn't included a bonus cache.

 

A numbers hound pissy they're only getting 5 Finds for 1 cache instead of 6? Good grief.

 

I did not hide a bonus cache with any of my three ALs. If I ever hide any future ALs they will not include ALs either.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 2/22/2023 at 7:00 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

 

A numbers hound pissy they're only getting 5 Finds for 1 cache instead of 6? Good grief.

 

I did not hide a bonus cache with any of my three ALs. If I ever hide any future ALs they will not include ALs either.

 

While I totally agree with you, from a purist cacher's perspective it is 1 find vs. 0 because ALs are not geocaches.

 

I was that way for a while but then I stopped caring (I am not a numbers cacher)!   ALs have a place when one is bored at the airport or while waiting on a significant other to do shopping.  For those situations a bonus doesn't make sense.

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

While I totally agree with you, from a purist cacher's perspective it is 1 find vs. 0 because ALs are not geocaches.

 

I was that way for a while but then I stopped caring (I am not a numbers cacher)!   ALs have a place when one is bored at the airport or while waiting on a significant other to do shopping.  For those situations a bonus doesn't make sense.

 

ALs are geocaches where you like them or not. They add to you Found total.

 

The only ALs one finds at an airport are ones that violate the Guidelines by not requiring a visit to the spot. So if you're a "purist" who completes those you're also a hypocrite. 

 

Of my 3 ALs, two were in cemeteries and one was in a small park where muggle activity and a lack of cover means even a Micro cache won't last there. They could have been done as Wherigo or an tour-style Multi, but I would have had to find an unrelated (and probably lame) nearby location to host the physical cache. Thus an AL was perfect for the location. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

ALs are geocaches where you like them or not. They add to you Found total.

Oh man, this has been explained ad nauseum.  They're not geocaches in any way shape or form. They are sometimes called that because it's just easier to say it that way when it comes to the exceptions made to graft them into the front-end experience. That's all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

They're not geocaches in any way shape or form.

 

They require a special app. So do Wherigos.

 

They don't have containers. Neither do Virtuals, Earthcaches, Events, or Locationless.

 

Automated answer checkers have been suggested for Virtuals and are used by some puzzle caches (and for puzzles using Certitude the checker isn't optional).

 

They add to your Find count on geocaching.com.

 

You can argue their Find count should be completely separate; I would have no objection if that change was made. You can argue an AL should be +1 not +5; I have argued for this since they were introduced and it would deinventize abuse by number hounds.

 

But until they are truly separated they are de facto geocaches with a different interface.

 

Edited by JL_HSTRE
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

They require a special app. So do Wherigos.

Wherigo cartridges are loaded in a separate app.  Wherigo geocaches are listed as an explicit cache type on geocaching.com.

 

16 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

They don't have containers. Neither do Virtuals, Earthcaches, Events, or Locationless.

Virtuals, Earthcaches, and Locationless caches are listed as explicit cache types on geocaching.com.

 

17 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

They add to your Find count on geocaching.com.

They have been grafted in with exception code to include the "Lab Cache" find count in addition to geocache finds on geocaching.com.  Benchmarks also show a count in your statistics. They are not a geocache type either.

 

18 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

You can argue their Find count should be completely separate

That's an entirely different subject. This is about Adventures and Lab Caches not being literal geocache types on geocaching.com

 

19 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

But until they are truly separated they are de facto geocaches with a different interface.

In other words, as I said, considered, or "called" a cache type in very specific and limited visual contexts for the sake of parts of the front end user experience. In every other manner, functionally and especially fundamentally, they are not a "geocache type" on geocaching.com.

 

There is Geocaching proper. And there is the Adventure Lab app (and the lab editor). There are strands of specialized code that graft certain aspects of ALs to Geocaching for the sake of statistics, branding, and accessibility.  This has already been explained.

 

 

Call'em caches if you want. Really, do it if you want. But they are not equivalent in concept and functionality to Traditionals, Multis, Virtuals, Earthcaches, Events, and the rest, and calling them cache types to that extent confuses the issue.  Novice: "Why can't I search for them in the search filters?" -- because they're not geocache types and have very different and specific code in an entirely separate framework.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There is Geocaching proper.

 

What is "Geocaching proper"?

 

Who are you to assert that your definition of "Geocaching" is "proper"?

 

For me, Geocaching is a game that can bring me to interesting places, teach me about the local history, and connect me with amazing friends. Adventure Lab Caches accomplish exactly that, albeit with a slightly different experience than a Traditional. Ergo, a geocache type.

 

If it were not for Geocaching, I'd probably be spending most of my time studying in a dimly-lit dorm room. It's fun to look at a map of southern Ontario, with all my smileys and checkmarks, and reflect on all the fun I've had here.

Edited by Hügh
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I don't disagree with anything you said Hugh.

 

I'm simply frustrated by some people constantly saying that Adventure Labs are Geocache Types. You of all people should know that they aren't ;)

 

What you said is what I agreed with - they are often considered a type of geocache on the front end - in specific and limited contexts. But they are fundamentally not a literal "geocache type".

And if you really need 'geocaching proper' to be explained, then just look up the list of official geocache types when it comes to scripting or programming or searching on geocaching.com. There's one example.

 

Ultimately it's arguing semantics when talking to laypeople. But that's the point - the functions are so different in their primary uses that claiming they are literally the same thing in every way just causes confusion! If people understand the differences between actual geocache types and what we know as Adventures, there'd be a lot less chance for confusion or misunderstandings.  Why can't I do this? Or why can't I do that?  Well, because they aren't geocaches like on geocaching.com. They are Adventures and you can track their stats within your geocaching profile.

Link to comment

I'm don't think I'm claiming that "they are literally the same thing," but I can absolutely see how referring to an "Adventure Lab" as a "geocache type" can cause confusion to due wildly differing technical implementation.

 

("How on earth did you manage to guess that I entirely separate table for Adventure Labs in my My Finds database? :D")

 

In that light, maybe it's best to say something fancy like "Adventure Labs are part of the greater Geocaching ecosystem."

Link to comment

I'm not going to take sides because there are good points made by several of you. I agree it should be 1 find for a completed AL not 1 per stop. I agree it isn't a "real" geocache (explained below). I don't like the star rating system at all

Here's why I would tend to side with "not a real geocache" - they are not reviewed by anyone. No one is checking the content or locations or basically ANYTHING. The only option - if it happens to be inappropriate or not work right - is to report it. I have reported one that didn't work and nothing happened. So IMHO "real" (not my word choice but I haven't got a better one) caches are those reviewed by a volunteer reviewer. Virtuals, locationless, events, earthcaches ... they ALL have to pass minimum standards. ALs have no minimum standards. And utterly ridiculously they allow for something like up to 100,000mi or km(??) as a geofence, ie no fence. That just seems pointless. I did several based in NYC recently without being there. I got find credits for answering multiple choice questions that were literally a joke (and I won't make a comment about the CO on that... hooooo boy, DM me if curious). Not to mention you can go to CT (& who knows where else) and sit in a rest area and answer a bunch of wide fenced ALs and get a ridiculous number of finds. SMDH... I find all that pretty pointless. No one need agree but you do have to agree that there is a vast difference between something anyone can set out / set up with no review, ie quality check of any kind, and ones that go through a review process with rules and guidelines.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Benchmarks also show a count in your statistics.

 

Benchmarks are listed in there, but never counted towards your total Finds.

 

While you can't run a PQ for them, they do show up on the map in the official Groundspeak geocaching app.

 

Edited by JL_HSTRE
Link to comment

I said "count in your statistics", not "towards your total finds", intentionally. They are an example of a not-a-geocache-type that was grafted into the front end visual statistics engine, just as Adventures and Lab Caches, and just as Geocaching Challenges were years ago - about which so many complained having those count towards finds (ironically, just as ALs do today) but because they were littered with other issues they scrapped them.

 

Why did they scrap Geocaching Challenges so easily? Because they weren't geocache types and were programmed with their own framework, grafted into geocaching framework on the front end. Just like ALs are. But ALs either haven't been up against the same level of criticism, or it was developed better so as to be less invasively grafted into the existing geocaching front end. 

 

Adventure locations appear in Cachly on the map as well. NOT because they are actual geocache types, but because the API was explicitly programmed to allow inclusion of AL locations, insomuch as the (minimal amount of) information can overlay the geocaching framework. This is also what they did in the official app. Tell me, how are ALs shown in the filter list?

 

79606976-B778-453F-8BA1-7F9AE9936963.thumb.jpeg.29a23cc9fc132caa39c244b161e4cc72.jpeg

 

And it's not simply the word "type" that's relevant - that is what I'm trying to get across. It's functionally how they are presented and incorporated into the geocaching framework. They do not share the same functionality as any other cache type. I'm not making a point about linguistics and word use.  The point is that using words that mean other things too often can lead to confusion if people don't understand why they aren't the same things as other things that use the same terms.

Edited by thebruce0
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...
×
×
  • Create New...