Jump to content

Cache Carma


ikobi

Recommended Posts

Cache Carma would be based on the kharma score concept from slashdot or, similarly, the feedback score on ebay. The basic idea is that rather than trying to have a high "rank" based on total finds or total posts, you're carma would rise based on your good deeds AS PERCEIVED BY OTHERS.

 

Thus an interesting thread or post on the Forum would result in good carma, a bad post, negative carma. Trading up at a cache, good carma, trading down and leaving junk, bad carma.

Link to comment

quote:
... and it should be bad karma to he who rates someone elses karma unfavorably.

 

You don't rate the carma (spelling chosen for alliterative purposes but also to distance from the all of the meanings around the word kharma), but rather the thoughtfullness of the post or the action.

 

If you want to be extremely PC, you don't have to penalize for bad and merely only give to good. I think there are some advantages to sticks and carrots, though. For example, just 'cause you were good once doesn't mean that you don't have faults later.

Link to comment

I had the idea once that when you go to the log in page, there would also be a "user star rating" drop down, where the finder could rate the cache. It would just be an overall impression score, taking into account the actual difficulty, how fun/challenging it was to find, how well thought out the cache and its placement was, etc.

 

All these user scores would be averaged together for each cache and displayed along with the difficulty and terrain ratings.

 

It would be a good, quick way to get an impression of whether or not you'd want to go after a cache without having to wade through all the other logs.

 

icon_wigogeocaching.gif

Link to comment

I must be the non-competitive sort. I really have an aversion to being ranked, classed or tagged. I'm in this sport for the fun of it, not to compete against everyone. I also don’t want to read in the forums about how so-and-so is cheating or padding his/her cache count to get a higher ranking. I’ve enjoyed the time spent logging the few caches I’ve found. I believe I’d enjoy it less if I was just racing around trying to up my count. I mean no malice to those who want this sort of system, but as for me I’ll ignore it if it happens.

 

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

What is the price of experience, do men buy it for a song,

Or wisdom for a dance in the street.................

Link to comment

I tend to prefer the most interactive type of virtual cache rating. How does it work? Simple.

  1. Look at the logs on the caches placed by the hider.

  2. If there is still a question, ask in your regional forum or e-mail a finder from geocaching.com.

  3. If you really need to discuss it, come to the chat on Monday nights at 8:30pm CDT in http://gcchat.clayjar.com/. (Bring the URL of the cache.)

  4. If even that doesn't help, well for the love of Pete, go out and try it. If it's good, log it online. If it's bad, log it online. No matter what, log it online. (Then the next person may not even have to go past step 1.)

I know it's far less concise than seeing a nice sanitized "rating", but you're far more likely to get real information from real people. In fact, I would venture to say that "ratings" on the cache pages would be almost equal parts information and disinformation, if I can be so optimistic. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I tend to prefer the most interactive type of virtual cache rating. How does it work? Simple.

  1. Look at the logs on the caches placed by the hider.

  2. If there is still a question, ask in your regional forum or e-mail a finder from geocaching.com.

  3. If you really need to discuss it, come to the chat on Monday nights at 8:30pm CDT in http://gcchat.clayjar.com/. (Bring the URL of the cache.)

  4. If even that doesn't help, well for the love of Pete, go out and try it. If it's good, log it online. If it's bad, log it online. No matter what, log it online. (Then the next person may not even have to go past step 1.)

I know it's far less concise than seeing a nice sanitized "rating", but you're far more likely to get real information from real people. In fact, I would venture to say that "ratings" on the cache pages would be almost equal parts information and disinformation, if I can be so optimistic. icon_wink.gif

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...