Cache Rating System

[JAR1284]

This topic probably has been dicussed before, but I think this website needs some sort of cache rating system. Caches could b rated by most active and user rating. I think it would make the website a little more interesting. Also check out the "Dowd Multicache".

[+Dave_W6DPS]

If I am totally candid about a cache consisting of a zip-lock baggie in a field of trash, what do you think the response of the dumper, er, HIDER would be? Then the hider's buddies and other defenders of the ideal "HOW can you complain about a cache someone took the trouble to hide for YOU!" would flame me to a crisp.

 

One alternative on another site I enjoy(*) is to have a forum where you can recommend a cache you think is well done and explain why you think it is worth the time and effort of others to visit. This keeps things positive and provides a way to find the better caches in your area.

 

* Southern California Geocachers

 

Dave_W6DPS

 

My two cents worth, refunds available on request. (US funds only)

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The current rating system (from the fill out our online form link) is based on what the hider thinks about the difficulty and terrain. Usually the cache description will provide more details. Right now, the only user feedback from finders is in the logs.

It would be nice to be able to 'rate' caches like we rate forum topics. As you suggested, it should be a rating of how good the cache was done. It should not be a new terrain/difficulty rating as logs or emails to the cache owner can suggest that it needs changing.

 

[+leatherman]

Fundamentally it should be a good idea.

However it could become counter productive.

 

New cachers have different expectations and inexperienced opinions. I used to complain about little discrepancies until I realized that those were to be expected. It took me about 30 caches to now what to expect. My friend was still complaining at 80 caches. In the State of Washington only 250 out 2170 have more than 30 finds. Now I don't care how soon anyone was an expert cacher.

My point is only 11 percent of cachers are experienced enough to know what to expect of a cache. I don't want someone with one or two finds dragging down my rating because they don't know what they're doing.

Complaints already appear in the logs. If your interested in complaints and praise read the logs.

 

I just had a complaint on a one/one cache. They said it was too easy. That's what a one/one is. It's for beginners children and handicapped cachers.

 

Do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

[+briansnat]

I think I read somewhere that Jeremy is considering adding a feature where you can recommend a cache. So at the top of the page it would say something like "5 of 8 finders recommend this cache".

 

I think I read it...may have been a dream though. I find I'm starting to have geocaching dreams lately.

 

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

[+Jamie Z]

I just say what I think in my logs. I'd rather do that than enter some boring number. If you want to know if folks like a cache, read the logs.

 

Jamie

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

I just say what I think in my logs. I'd rather do that than enter some boring number. If you want to know if folks like a cache, read the logs.

---

 

I guess I'm a bit too diplomatic to do this. If I find a totally lame cache, I won't say anything bad about it. No need to offend the owner. Instead I'll just write a short log saying "found it, TNLN, thanks!". With most of my finds, my logs are several paragraphs long. So if your cache has a short, one line log from me, that means I thought it stunk like a dead clam in the hot sun.

 

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

[+Rygel]

Well, I hope I don't see that on my first and still pending cache!!

 

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

[+Ltljon]

Caches (for me) are like beers...never met one I didn't like!

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

If I find a totally lame cache, I won't say anything bad about it. Instead I'll just write a short log...

---

I don't think I've ever said I thought a cache was lame, but like you, I've abbreviated my logs for caches I didn't enjoy as much as others.

 

In a couple of cases I've mentioned that there are some issues that the owner might want to check out. Sometimes I think that info should go in private email, but then I think that other folks would be wise to know my opinion too.

 

Jamie

[+Baron Von TnT]

quote:

---

any cache is a good cache.

---

 

Some caches are more spectaular than others, but, for me, the thrill is the hunt not so much the prey.

[+res2100]

I like the idea of ratings...it just adds to the "funness" factor. just another thing for our enjoyment. Sure there will be experienced cachers and non experienced cachers rating cachers, but in the end it all evens out to an average. If I see a cahce that is rated high, I would be inclined to go hunt it alot sooner.

 

I think it would be fun to look at my 9 caches that I have hidden and see which one has the highest rating. Have the rating oly if you actually found the cache and put the option right on the found it page...and if a user doesn't feel like giving it a rating, have an option of NR or something. Maybe even see how each person rated a cash as part of the logs.

 

Some feature to recommend caches is cool too, or we can just have BOTH! The more variety and features, the better

 

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

[+RichardMoore]

The problem with this type of rating is that it's based on the finder's opinion of what makes a good cache.

Say one cacher likes rough terrain and difficult finds and rates the cache high. Another cacher wants a easy walk and find, and rates it low. One cacher likes longer hikes, one likes quick finds. One likes virtuals of historic value, one likes virtuals of natural areas. I'm not saying that any of these views are right or wrong, just that they are different opinions.

How do you put numbers on this?

If you want to know what other cachers think about a cache, read the logs. You'll get more information that way so you can decide whether or not to go for it.

 

RichardMoore

 

An early morning walk is a blessing for the whole day.

Henry David Thoreau

[+Harrald]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JAR1284:

<> but I think this website needs some sort of cache rating system. Caches could b rated by most active and user rating. I think it would make the website a little more interesting.<>

 

We already have this here.

 

It's called the Online logs

 

This is Geocaching. Not a popularity contest.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[+wimseyguy]

what is inside these cache containers when you finally find them?

quote:

---

I think I read it...may have been a dream though. I find I'm starting to have geocaching dreams lately

---

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

I read the logs before deciding to find a particular cache. I have been disappointed in many cases. It is clear that finders will post glowing, positive logs when the cache is really cool, but will not say it is lame, and a waste of gas and time. If pe ople would nicely comment on the lameness of caches, we may have fewer of them.°

 

Like BrianSnat mentioned, I keep my entries short on caches that are lame (IMHO). After all, there isn't much to say about the search for garbage 30 feet from a trail in the middle of a briar patch!

 

[This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on March 27, 2003 at 08:35 AM.]

[SE7EN]

Length of log doesn't denote quality of cache. Some of us are fairly curt with our logs.

 

Ratings will always be subjective as is the rating of most things, but that doesn't stop us from trying. I've found movie critics so often disagree with my findings that I've simply don't go by what they have to say. Same goes by boxoffice earnings--it doesn't always jive with how I like a movie.

 

The same will go with caches. Only problem is the sampling is so small. One person can have a much more dramatic influence on the overall rating of a cache.

 

That being said. I would be in favor of a well thought rating or recommendation system. It would be better than nothing.

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SE7EN:

Length of log doesn't denote quality of cache. Some of us are fairly curt with our logs.

 

MIDDLE OF POST OMITTED

 

That being said. I would be in favor of a well thought rating or recommendation system. It would be better than nothing.

---

 

I agree that legnth does not imply quality. What I was saying (and I think Brian was too) is that lack of detail "Easy find, TNLN, thanks for the hunt" implies that the cache may not be a good one, considering the same cacher writes quite a bit more when logging good caches.

 

I have been in favor of a star rating system for "fun factor", or a "favorite cache" listing. Perhaps you would be able to designate up to 10% of your finds as "favorite caches"

 

My Bottom Line...There needs to be some clear way to recognize good caches and discourage trash in the briars. The finder's log can be one way to do this, but would it hurt to try something else??

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I leave short logs when I don't have much to say. There have been few occasions where I have felt like writing a long log. The most recent was popping 8 bike tires getting to a cache by following the suggested trail. I don't always have a story to tell about my hunt.

 

[SE7EN]

If one doesn't know a particular finder's logging style one wouldn't be able to read anything into the log at all--as it relates to length.

 

Besides, you can't search on a "glowing logs" attribute. You can browse logs--and there are some beauts--but that's it. Wading through a few hundred logs to find a few caches that people in the area like is time consuming and makes for more preparation to go into an area than I care to spend.

 

I would be in favor of some kind of system that you could search on.

 

The ability to add to a top 10 list would work. Being able to search for caches were the logs indicate 25% of finders have placed that cache on their top 10 list would certainly be one to go for.

 

Plus, in a PQ only the last 5 logs are displayed. These slots could be eaten up by DNFs and notes. This does not allow a PQ to tell the whole story in respect to the finders' opinion of the cache.

[+The Commissar!]

I like to do the cache myself and form my own opinion. I try not to post a negative comment but will generally post a longer log for a better adventure which may or may not reflect the quality of the cache...

 

Reading the logs is part of the fun for me.

[+Team OUTSID4EVR]

I would love to be able to weed out poor caches by using a search tool. I am all for any system that allows finders to rate caches on their opinion of the experience they had in finding it. If they're into the cache itself (contents), they can base their decision on that. If they like the journey to the cache, that could be the basis for the rating.

 

It would be subjective, but could help to point me in the direction of good caches. I have been geocaching for two years now. In the beginning, I went after every cache that existed (and there were fewer of them). Now, there are more caches than could be found by any single user (except CCCooperAgency and BruceS) I try to be more selective. I don't want to spend my time looking for lame ones.

 

The logs help, but they aren't enough.?¿

 

[This message was edited by OUTSID4EVR on March 27, 2003 at 11:42 AM.]

[+res2100]

I think I have to agree with OUTSID4EVR. By adding a rating or whatever other additional features, it just adds to the FUN FACTOR of the whole geocaching sport. It can't hurt afterall. So what if people have different factors as to what determines a good cache or not. In the end it comes down to how enjoyable their entire experience was for a certain cache hunt. I had my best cache hunt EVER this past Saturday, and my son agreed with me. But before I did it, I alomst had second thoughts of doing it...I am glad I did though.

 

With ratings, no matter what criteria people have for good or bad caches, they will all average out over time.

 

Fun Factor...that's what I am looking for. Plus with logs, most people (especially the experienced ones) do NOT write anything negative as they do not want to offend other cachers.

 

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

[+Harrald]

Deleted.

 

I should read before I post.

 

[This message was edited by Harrald on March 27, 2003 at 01:32 PM.]

[+Sandrich]

I disagree with the idea of a "funness" rating for caches. Fun is an intangible that doesnt easily translate from one person to the next. And yes, even reading the logs might not give you a clear indication either. But oh yeah, thats why we go out there ourselves, DUH!

 

[+res2100]

I think what I was trying to say is that the process of rating a cache and see how others rated is, is FUN...adds to the fun of geocaching. Sorry if I mistakingly implied that the rating was to represent how fun the cache was.

 

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html