Its time for a cache rating system

[Keystone]

I found it interesting that, in a single post, @GoodSamNurse both asked for something "new" that we're already doing (limiting hiding privileges in appropriate cases, using the Cache Health Score to identify cache maintenance issues, etc.) while also citing an "old" rule that doesn't actually exist (mandatory visits to every cache twice a year).

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 10/18/2023 at 3:47 AM, fizzymagic said:

A well-placed, suitable container can last a long time in perfect condition.  I have 4 caches (all ammo cans) that I hid in 2002 or 2003 and have never revisited

 

I recently found a 2001 ammo can cache with the original container and original logbook.

[+edexter]

    thebruce0 mentioned " https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopFavWilson is one tool for it."  It being "finding highly favorited caches by percentage" and it even includes caches with fewer than ten finds (though it also includes archived caches and does not indicate which is which).  Including a Wilson ranking at some regular interval (assuming "live updating" is impractical) would be helpful.  Perhaps even more helpful would be a simple ranking of CO's based on their output.  You can find this on everyone's profile page which shows the number of caches placed and the number of favorite points awarded.  

     What I have found in my travels is that what I consider to be "good caches" tend to be placed by a small number of COs.  Figuring out who those COs are and checking out the caches they have placed leads to "more fun per cache" which is reason I want to identify "the best stuff" to begin with.  At present, finding the elusive placer of good caches is hit or miss.  I might be someplace for a week and only stumble upon him or her on the last day.  Narrowing the field to identify the local heroes would be extremely helpful.  Aside from looking up each individual cacher, I don't know of any simple way to see something like this:  George Geo has 13,350 finds, has placed 7 caches with 2 favorite points.  or better Harry Hideout has 1,560 finds had placed 22 caches and has 112 favorite points.  It would be nice to tell Harry from George when away from home...More time caching; less time sorting through data bases.

[+NanCycle]

On 5/15/2023 at 10:15 AM, niraD said:

Yep. People award FP for all sorts of reasons: it's a buddy's cache, or they were FTF, or it's a new (to them) hide style, or the weather was nice, or they had a great conversation with a friend on the way to the cache, or any number of other reasons. That's part of why I'd like a "you may also enjoy" feature that takes into account the FPs I have awarded and how they correlate with the FPs others have awarded.

Yep,  I awarded a FP to a basically mediocre cache just because it was a new cache in my home town, and there are so few of those.  In fact, I think I'll go back and give FPs to the other new caches in town.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

thebruce0 mentioned " https://project-gc.com/Statistics/TopFavWilson is one tool for it."  It being "finding highly favorited caches by percentage" and it even includes caches with fewer than ten finds (though it also includes archived caches and does not indicate which is which).

 

With Project GC's Wilson score, you can set a filter to exclude archived caches (as well as disabled and/or premium ones):

 

 

But even without that filter, archived caches appear in the list with a black bar:

 

[+edexter]

Thanks, I'll check it out.  

[+cerberus1]

22 hours ago, NanCycle said:

Yep,  I awarded a FP to a basically mediocre cache just because it was a new cache in my home town, and there are so few of those.  In fact, I think I'll go back and give FPs to the other new caches in town.

 

Similar I guess, I FP a cache last month that wasn't that big a deal, but it's location was a new area with no prior caches.

We joined Geocaching because of the areas we'd never know about if it wasn't for this hobby, and it fit...    

[+brodiebunch]

On 5/15/2023 at 2:15 PM, Bear and Ragged said:

A good cache should get good logs...

You do write a good log on the good caches that you find?

Reading reviews would be difficult nowadays with so many geocache posts being "TNLNSL, TFTH" or an emoji or "Fun" 

You have really search for a post that can actually tell you someone about the experience of the hunt. 

[+MNTA]

The problem with ratings is that time can change the status very quickly.

 

[+thebruce0]

On 4/28/2024 at 8:41 PM, MNTA said:

The problem with ratings is that time can change the status very quickly.

Which is why you tend to put more weight on the most recent logs. THe rest are interesting but not necessarily reflective of the currect state.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

On 4/29/2024 at 10:41 AM, MNTA said:

The problem with ratings is that time can change the status very quickly.

Which is why you tend to put more weight on the most recent logs. THe rest are interesting but not necessarily reflective of the currect state.

 

Yet the Favourite Point Indicators in the app, introduced early last year, do the opposite and almost exclusively show caches more than five years old that have accumulated lots of historical FPs. This is compounded by the modern-day app-only players who have never visited the website and rarely ever award an FP.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 4/28/2024 at 7:20 AM, NanCycle said:

Yep,  I awarded a FP to a basically mediocre cache just because it was a new cache in my home town, and there are so few of those.  In fact, I think I'll go back and give FPs to the other new caches in town.

I once awarded a cache a favourite point for being there. It was maybe 100 kms to the next cache any direction. And it was an awful mintie tin. But it was there.

[+thebruce0]

On 5/1/2024 at 5:21 PM, barefootjeff said:

Yet the Favourite Point Indicators in the app, introduced early last year, do the opposite and almost exclusively show caches more than five years old that have accumulated lots of historical FPs. This is compounded by the modern-day app-only players who have never visited the website and rarely ever award an FP.

I don't treat FPs the same way as I treat logs.

I know FPs are lifetime-contributed, and I know that logs - far more descriptive - are much more temporally relevant. I think most people are capable of grasping that fundamental difference. But sure, I can cede that that's an assumption.