"Honorable Mentions"

1.1k · April 3, 2002

How do you feel about having an "Honorable Mention" list, where people could nominate caches that they have particularly enjoyed, and feel others might also enjoy? The main Geocaching page could display the last 10 or so (along with the names of the people who nominated them) followed by a link to a list of all the previous nominees.

I see this serving three purposes:

a) To give a token of recognition to those cachers who've worked hard to come up with an especially creative, or otherwise enjoyable, cache.

To serve as an "idea sparker" for new people (or even 'old timers' ) who want to place a cache, but aren't sure what makes a 'good' one.

c) To give us all a chance to read (and enjoy vicariously) caches that aren't in our own local areas, that we might not otherwise have had the occasion to be aware of.

__________________

What do you think?

April 3, 2002

I like the idea....though perhaps they should be listed by region.

ummmm....not sure what to say here....so ummm, well errrr, uhhhh, well I guess that's it.

6.5k · April 4, 2002

i picked good idea, but i think before you get this going you need to come up with rules/guidelines for this. maybe ones dealing with:

1How many you can nominate, but this might cause problems for some who finds several caches they think are deserving

2What is required to be nominated? does it have to be an actual cache? can multiy leg caches be nominated? what qualities must the cache have to be nominated?

3who can nominate?do you have to find a number of caches first to use as bench marks?

4Can you nominate your own cache? i know you say the nominater(sp?) is going to be listed, but what if someone thinks a cache is really good, and noone seems to notice, can they nominate themselves?

1.1k · April 4, 2002

We could do it however the majority (and Jeremy, obviously) wanted to. But they way I envision it is as follows:

1How many you can nominate: (Originally I was thinking it would be cool to have a “contest” where people could nominated, and then everyone vote on. But it was brought to my attention that it might be difficult to come up with equitable voting guidelines so that all nominees had a fair chance of winning. (Caches in heavily populated areas might be more likely to get votes, just because more people would be able to visit them, and have an opinion.) On top of that, I got to thinking that it would be difficult to have a ‘contest’ be an ongoing thing…plus it seems that there would be too much potential for hurt feelings, etc.) So then the idea developed into just an “Honorable Mention” list. I was picturing an ongoing “rolling” list, kind of like the ones where you see the most recent travel bug activity, etc. I think we should let people nominate as many as they want to. My thought of putting the name there was two-fold: It would keep people a little more “honest” about which caches they choose to nominate, plus it allows the cache owner to know who appreciates their work. Another benefit would be for those following the reviews. Since what makes a cache ‘great’ is such a subjective thing, there really no way to make a simple ‘rating’ system. But, similar to movie critics, etc., I think many of us get a feel for who’s opinions and tastes tend to most closely match our own. So if I see a cache that “GeoBob” (or whoever) nominated, I’ll know that’s one I’m likely to want to check out.

While in the beginning, the list would likely turn over very quickly…since we all know of same really great caches that deserve nomination…once we’ve caught up to date, I imagine the turnover would slow down dramatically. The point would be to highlight particularly outstanding caches…and do we really run across those on a terribly frequent basis? (Plus, if the archive list got really big…maybe we could add a sortability feature, to filter by cache owner, nominator, a specific state, or within certain distance of a zipcode, etc., like on the main ‘Find’ page.)

2What is required to be nominated? ANY currently approved cache could be nominated. Multi, virtual, ‘moving’, etc. I was picturing a “Nominate this cache for an Honorable Mention” button on each cache page. (As for the ‘qualities’ of the cache: Just that YOU like it enough that you’re not ashamed to have yourself listed as its nominee.) I was toying with whether we should have a place to leave a few comments as to why we like it, or if that would get too complicated. (What do you think?)

3who can nominate? Anybody with a Geocaching ID. If you can post a log, then you can nominate a cache. (I was going to say that I don’t think that there should be a minimum number finds before you can nominate. But what do you think? Would the list get loaded full of ‘common’ average caches, since the new people are still excited about ANY cache find?)

4Can you nominate your own cache? Sure. If it’s a really great cache, nobody should fault you for patting your own self on the back. If you continually nominate your own trash caches, just for the 'publicity', everyone will start laughing at you behind your back, and avoid clicking on those links.

Obviously, this is still a rough enough idea that there’s lots of room for change and fleshing out. That’s why I posted it here…to get feedback, and to hear people’s ideas and suggestions.

April 4, 2002

We’ve talked about this type of thing many times over the past year, but my favorite methodology would be the “favorites list”.

It would work like this:

For each 10 finds, a cacher is allowed to add one cache to their favorites list. (Your own caches could not be placed on the list, however.) For example, I have 90 finds currently. I could therefore place up to 9 caches in my favorite list. For someone with 400 finds, they could place up to 40 caches in their list. This number would be a maximum, not an absolute. If, for example, I only wanted to put 5 in my list, I could do so.

Next, this list would be displayed on the profile page if desired. (A check box could be used titled: “Display My Favorites”.) This way, the list could be displayed if someone desires, but could also be anonymous for those that don’t want their selections displayed.

Also, the cache page itself would have a line on it like this: ”3 cachers added this cache to their favorites.” This would be displayed in a similar fashion to the: “2 watching this cache” line.

If desired, that line could be hot-linked to another page where the names of the cachers that selected this cache are displayed. This page would be, in essence, a list of everyone that really liked this cache. If any anonymous cachers had added it to their favorites list, you would see a line on the bottom of the list like this: “and 3 anonymous cachers.”

Finally, all non-anonymous cachers names would be hot-linked to their profile page so you could see more about the cachers that selected this particular cache.

I perceive that any such “voting” system would be a hefty undertaking on Jeremy’s part. I imagine such a thing would require several changes to the backend DB and quite a bit of code modification. I won’t be holding my breadth that any voting system gets implemented any time soon.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

April 4, 2002

Along with this idea, how about the ability to put a link to your favourite cache in your profile. Each cacher gets to have one favourite cache and those caches with the most "votes" are the highest rated caches.

Every hour spent geocaching is added to the end of your life

1.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
We’ve talked about this type of thing many times over the past year, but my favorite methodology would be the “favorites list”.

Those are good ideas! One thing I'd like to see, though, is some kind of a general summary link that people could easily go to from the main page...just for getting ideas and such.

Yes, it would be cool to see how many votes a cache had, once you opened the page. But I'd like to see a method where we wouldn't have to stumble across a cache by accident to find out that it was really unique or clever. I'd like a way that flags them for us, so we can find them more easily.

Newer users might not think to go to people's profiles to check for Favorites Lists. (Actually, as far as that goes...I have already seen at least one profile where the person shared some of his favorites. Of course, it's just something he did on his own...not a standard option like you're suggesting.) And to get a list of 50 caches, you might have to sort through a dozen or more profiles...meanwhile running into ones that didn't share their list (or have one at all), or duplicates from previous users lists, etc.

Also, a link on the front page to some really well done caches might pique additional interest in new or first time visitors to the site.

Finally, I think a rolling list that simply dumps the link of each new nominee onto a list...without tallying votes, or having to update each cache page with the number of votes, etc...might be a lot less complicated to code. (But, not being a programmer, I could be way off with my guess.)

1.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by boreal jeff:
Along with this idea, how about the ability to put a link to your favourite cache in your profile. Each cacher gets to have one favourite cache and those caches with the most "votes" are the highest rated caches.

Another good idea.

8.9k · April 4, 2002

Just chiming in - I really like the idea of a "favorites" list based on the 10% rule. Let's see I would choose my favorite 6.

But I also see the real downside that there's no quick reference for favorite caches.

If this "favorites" were implemented (Jeremy hasn't shown any inclination toward this yet), I have a suggestion: On the search results page that there's an "fX" field, where "X"=the number of cachers that think this is one of their top 10%.

This would be nothing more than an indication that of the people that found it, (which may be many or few) this number of people think it's in the top 10% of the caches they've found.

Downsides to all of this speculation:

It may be that only two people have found it yet but both of them marked it on their F-list. It would only show up as F2.
Beginner cachers wouldn't be able to pick a favorite cache until they found 10. Kinda isn't nice. Also to let people know, I think once you reach 10 finds an e-mail would need to be sent out indicating "You've Got Privledges" to be able to nominate 1 cache as your favorite, and for each additional 10 you find, blah, blah, blah...
(I'm kind torn on this one) I think regular caches have merit, too. If we have a way of seeing which ones are the outstanding caches, would that mean that my decent, but not outstanding cache would be visited less? I know we're trying to encourage great and thoughtful caches, but what about the regular Joe cacher? Should he be penalized because he placed an "average" cache? (please read average to mean what it really means: right in the middle, not "less than good").

No quick solution, just some thoughts...

Markwell

My Geocaching Page

April 4, 2002

Wouldn't it just be easier to allow each finder to rate the cache on the cache page? Then add a search feature to find all 5-star caches, 4-star, etc. The ratings could be averaged (like the ratings on this forum), or they could just be individual cachers' ratings (no calculations required).

April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

One thing I'd like to see, though, is some kind of a general summary link that people could easily go to from the main page...just for getting ideas and such.

I suppose you could list, say, the 10 caches with the most “votes”. The problem is that this will still be heavily weighted towards urban caches in the most heavily populated areas. Because of this, I’m not sure this method, or any other I can think of will give you a true “global” representation of the top caches. Frankly, since we all like different things, I’m not really sure there is such a thing as “top caches” anyway. What you’re going to end up with here is just a really big list of easy-to-do urban caches.

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Yes, it would be cool to see how many votes a cache had, once you opened the page. But I'd like to see a method where we wouldn't have to stumble across a cache by accident to find out that it was really unique or clever. I'd like a way that flags them for us, so we can find them more easily.

Those “sound” like good goals, but the reality is that caching is a local phenomenon. I’m not at all in favor of people voting for any caches they haven’t found, so this means any list of “bests” is going to be a localized thing. I don’t see any way of comparing “our” bests to “yours”, for example. You have not done the cache here, and I have not done the caches there. Any comparisons are moot. Plus, I don’t think because a cache gets lots of votes because it happens to be in a popular area, that it is somehow “more worthy” than one in a less popular place. As an example, my favorite cache is one that has only been found 3 times. It is in a pretty remote area, so this is understandable. Also, the cache listing itself is pretty unremarkable. If you were judging on appearances, this cache would be near the bottom. What made this cache great is the execution. This is not something that can be judged by anyone other than those that have actually found the cache. Unfortunately, a cache like this has no possible way of ever showing up in your lists of “bests”. Even if it did, no one would learn anything from it until they actually hunted the cache.

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

And to get a list of 50 caches, you might have to sort through a dozen or more profiles...meanwhile running into ones that didn't share their list (or have one at all), or duplicates from previous users lists, etc.

Not at all. You’d simply have to look at the caches in your area to see which ones are the most popular. Even then, I think for any meaningful information, you’d need to know who is voting for a particular cache. Without this, it would be hard to know why a cache is popular. Maybe, for example, it’s popular because it is well stocked. If you personally don’t care at all about what is in a cache, this doesn’t mean anything to you. I think researching this information would just be part of the stuff I already evaluate in determining which caches I’m going to hunt.

I suppose, if you want a really quick reference, Jeremy could put something like: “xx Favorites” for each cache on the “nearest caches” page. Overall, I’m not sure how I feel about that as I really think you’d need to know why a cache was voted for to understand a particular score. Again, my fear is that we end up with a list of easy-to-do urban caches as our list of “bests”.

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Also, a link on the front page to some really well done caches might pique additional interest in new or first time visitors to the site.

If this is the goal, I think a better way to handle that would be simply to have a dedicated place here on the forums to nominate caches via polls. Anyone could nominate a cache by setting up a poll. Once listed, forum users could then go and evaluate the listing and vote on whether they think it should be included among the “elite”. I still think it’s not really perfect because I don’t think just reading a listing is truly adequate to evaluate a cache.

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Finally, I think a rolling list that simply dumps the link of each new nominee onto a list...without tallying votes, or having to update each cache page with the number of votes, etc...might be a lot less complicated to code. (But, not being a programmer, I could be way off with my guess.)

Yes, it would be somewhat simpler, but I’m not sure what it accomplishes. Since there are no criteria involved to determine if a cache is really worthy of being called “great”, plenty of not so worthy caches will end up being spotlighted. This seems counter productive to what you are hoping to accomplish. You might as well just have a rolling list of all caches. (Oh, wait! We have that already. It’s called the latest caches list…) This list would seem just as useful toward spreading the word about interesting caches in other areas.

Again, I like the idea of a favorites list because it would help me know which caches I might like to hunt. I don’t think, however such a thing could be used to “spotlight” good caches on a global basis for the reasons outlined above.

Just my opinion.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[This message was edited by Scott Thomason on April 04, 2002 at 11:48 AM.]

April 4, 2002

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that caches are often "great" for different reasons:

"Buckhead" in Atlanta is so cool because you have to go into a hotel to find it... very 'cloak & dagger'ish.

"North Pole" in Phoenix is great because it's a two-step with a simple but often diabolical first step.

"Thor's Quest I & II" are fun because they're excellent themed multi-part caches.

"Oswald Micro-chain/Revisted" is an excellent historical cache.

"Disney California Adventure Cache" out in CA was my favorite virtual, because there were a lot of clues to find, and some of them were quite hard to figure out.

"Microcache" in Philadelphia was the best urban I've seen... on a busy street corner!

You would almost have to have a bunch of different categories. I didn't list any above, but you could also have categories such as "Best Newbie Cache" or "Best Scenic Cache". That way the low-difficulty caches in populated areas wouldn't dominate the single list.

I would also like to see the ability to filter geographically... just as we now list all caches near to a point/zipcode, you could list "Best Newbie Caches within 50 miles of this zip" or "Most Diabolical Caches within 100 miles of my home point". A complete list of "Best Scenic Caches" might be dominated by a bunch in the Rocky Mountains, but that doesn't help me if I live in Key West, Fairbanks, or Buffalo. I'd rather see what (if any) are the best scenic caches nearby.

Just more thoughts.

> Martin (Magellan 330)

Don't have time to program and record your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo!

6.5k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:
I was toying with whether we should have a place to leave a few comments as to why we like it, or if that would get too complicated. (What do you think?)

i think it would complicate things, but since ppl would nominate what THEY like you need some sort of info about why a cache was nominated. maybe there should just be different catorgories, the great view caches, and the very well hidden caches, and the hard to find because of clever hiding meahods/clues caches, etc etc

quote:
(I was going to say that I don’t think that there should be a minimum number finds before you can nominate. But what do you think? Would the list get loaded full of ‘common’ average caches, since the new people are still excited about ANY cache find?)

i think it may get cluttered with common caches anyways. i would leave it open for anyone to nominate, if they feel they know what a deserving cache is, not just a common one then let then nominate. like you said, you will probly get a feel for who thinks like you, and those who dont.

6.5k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:
Wouldn't it just be easier to allow each finder to rate the cache on the cache page? Then add a search feature to find all 5-star caches, 4-star, etc. The ratings could be averaged (like the ratings on this forum), or they could just be individual cachers' ratings (no calculations required).

but i think this going to have the same problem as the voting idea, caches in urban areas or caches that get a lot or action are going to get lots of ppl rating them, and caches in remote places wont get rated often. this may not give the urban caches better ratings, but not every cache is going to be held to the same standards, ratings would just reflect how ppl in that area(the group that found it the most) feel about the cache compared to other caches in the area they have found.

6.5k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
Also, the cache page itself would have a line on it like this: _”3 cachers added this cache to their favorites.”_ This would be displayed in a similar fashion to the: _“2 watching this cache”_ line.

Scott / Brokenwing

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

sounds good, that why when you've found that cache page you can see how many are watching, and how many really liked the cache, but theres no way to find that caceh without knowing something about it in the first place. 50 ppl could have given good ratings on it but there's no way of knowing it w/o just running random shearchs....

April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

but i think this going to have the same problem as the voting idea, caches in urban areas or caches that get a lot or action are going to get lots of ppl rating them, and caches in remote places wont get rated often.

With individual cachers rating the cache in their "Found" log, it doesn't matter how many people have found the cache, or how many people rate them. If ten people have found the cache and six thought it was a 5-star, I'm there! With an urban cache, if sixty found the cache, but only seven thought it was 5-star, you can make your own decision.

quote:
ratings would just reflect how ppl in that area(the group that found it the most) feel about the cache compared to other caches in the area they have found.

And that's fine. It is more important to me to know how other cachers in my area are rating caches. I can relate their rating to the caches that I have found and rated.

Categories can be tricky. "Best Scenic", "Best Hiding Place","Best Puzzle", "Best Use of Tupperware". Way too many categories. And what about that great puzzle cache that had a great hiding place in a scenic area? Post it in all three categories?

My rating may not reflect your rating. So much the better. Ratings will be as individual as our log entries. Allow me to rate the cache when I find it. Eventually I'll know that if 'so-and-so' says it's a 5-star, I'll probably feel it is too, but if "what's-his-name" says it's a 5-star, well, he always says it's a 5-star.

1-star caches will quickly be weeded out, and more effort will go into new caches

1.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

One thing I'd like to see is some kind of a general summary link that people could easily go to from the main page...just for getting ideas and such.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I suppose you could list, say, the 10 caches with the most “votes”. The problem is that this will still be heavily weighted towards urban caches in the most heavily populated areas. Because of this, I’m not sure this method, or any other I can think of will give you a true “global” representation of the top caches. Frankly, since we all like different things, I’m not really sure there is such a thing as “top caches” anyway. What you’re going to end up with here is just a really big list of easy-to-do urban caches.

What I had in mind wasn't something that people would vote on...just a list of honorable mentions (with maybe a quick note of what the nominator enjoyed about it). If I try to nominate a cache that's already on the list, it wouldn't get a 2nd "vote", I'd get a message telling me something like, "Thank you! This cache has already been nominated."

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

I'd like to see a method where we wouldn't have to stumble across a cache by accident to find out that it was really unique or clever. I'd like a way that flags them for us, so we can find them more easily.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
Those “sound” like good goals, but the reality is that caching is a local phenomenon. I’m not at all in favor of people voting for any caches they haven’t found, so this means any list of “bests” is going to be a localized thing. I don’t see any way of comparing “our” bests to “yours”, for example. You have not done the cache here, and I have not done the caches there. Any comparisons are moot. Plus, I don’t think because a cache gets lots of votes because it happens to be in a popular area, that it is somehow “more worthy” than one in a less popular place.

Again, I don't think we should "compare" them...but just have a method for giving public 'atta boys'. If there was a filtering method, so we could narrow the list down to caches by state, zipcode, cache owner, nominator, etc...each person could look for specifics that interested them, rather than having to scroll through the entire list.

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

And to get a list of 50 caches, you might have to sort through a dozen or more profiles...meanwhile running into ones that didn't share their list (or have one at all), or duplicates from previous users lists, etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
Not at all. You’d simply have to look at the caches in your area to see which ones are the most popular. Even then, I think for any meaningful information, you’d need to know who is voting for a particular cache.

My comment above was in reference to looking at specific people's profiles to scan their list of "Favorites"...not in looking at ratings for specific caches.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
I suppose, if you want a really quick reference, Jeremy could put something like: _“xx Favorites”_ for each cache on the “nearest caches” page. Overall, I’m not sure how I feel about that as I really think you’d need to know _why_ a cache was voted for to understand a particular score. Again, my fear is that we end up with a list of easy-to-do urban caches as our list of “bests”.

Again, I wasn't suggesting tallying votes for each cache, but only to allow ONE nomination for each. (My comment about the fact that it would be nice to see the ratings was in response to your suggestion of the idea. And, actually, I did a completely separate poll on cache ratings. I think it's a good idea, but the implemenation would be pretty complicated...and it would definitely be subjective.)

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:
Also, a link on the front page to some really well done caches might pique additional interest in new or first time visitors to the site.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
If this is the goal, I think a better way to handle that would be simply to have a dedicated place here on the forums to nominate caches via polls. Anyone could nominate a cache by setting up a poll.

That's not a bad idea. I think, instead of a poll, maybe just a forum to share honorable mentions on. (And obviously, we could write as much as we wanted about why we liked it.) I've seen individual threads for caches that people have wanted to tell the community about for one reason or another. But maybe a single thread, where a person could specifically go to browse might be a good idea.

On the down side, it seems that only a small percentage of cachers actually participate here, so I think a lot of people would still be missing out.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
Once listed, forum users could then go and evaluate the listing and vote on whether they think it should be included among the “elite”. I still think it’s not really perfect because I don’t think just reading a listing is truly adequate to evaluate a cache.

I agree with your second statement. In most cases, we can't really judge a cache we haven't visited. Some (like those with clever themes, or puzzles, etc.) are fun to read about, even if we can't visit them ourselves...but those are the exception, not the norm.

Plus, I think if we turn this into a 'contest', it'll lose a lot of its value.

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

Finally, I think a rolling list that simply dumps the link of each new nominee onto a list...without tallying votes, or having to update each cache page with the number of votes, etc...might be a lot less complicated to code.

quote:
Originally posted by Scott Thomason:
Yes, it would be somewhat simpler, but I’m not sure what it accomplishes. Since there are no criteria involved to determine if a cache is really worthy of being called “great”, plenty of not so worthy caches will end up being spotlighted.

Maybe it would be a good idea to limit people's ability to nominate...like at a rate of one nomination per every 10 finds, as you suggested earlier. That would force us to be choosier about which ones we recommended. (As well as forcing newbies to widen their experience with what caches can be like, so they can more easily differentiate the 'awesome' from the 'every day'.)

1.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by martinp13:
Maybe split list into 'categories'?

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that caches are often "great" for different reasons.

There would never be enough categories to keep up with the clever people thinking up new and innovative ideas. Either that, or we'd have whole categories with only one or two caches listed in them. (Unless you're talking about voting, and only showing the "top" cache in each category. As I've mentioned in a couple of other responses, I think turning this into a contest would complicate things too much.)

What I think might be helpful in separating out the different types of nominees would be to have a short 'explanation' field for the nominators to fill in. Perhaps, in addition to being able to filter the list by state, cacher, nominator, etc...we could also be allowed to sort by key word.

1.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:
Wouldn't it just be easier to allow each finder to rate the cache on the cache page? Then add a search feature to find all 5-star caches, 4-star, etc. The ratings could be averaged (like the ratings on this forum), or they could just be individual cachers' ratings (no calculations required).

We did another poll on just that, actually.

1.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

sounds good [showing a tally of how many 'favorite' votes a cache has gotten], that way when you've found that cache page you can see how many are watching, and how many really liked the cache, but theres no way to find that cache without knowing something about it in the first place. 50 ppl could have given good ratings on it but there's no way of knowing it w/o just running random shearchs.

My thoughts exactly!

1.1k · April 4, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:
My rating may not reflect your rating. So much the better. Ratings will be as individual as our log entries. Allow me to rate the cache when I find it. Eventually I'll know that if 'so-and-so' says it's a 5-star, I'll probably feel it is too, but if "what's-his-name" says it's a 5-star, well, he always says it's a 5-star.

I agree. While the ratings are subjective, we'll learn whose votes to watch (just like which movie critics we pay attention to or not). Plus, even if the votes are subjective, and we each have different criteria and tastes...the averages should still be informative.

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:
1-star caches will quickly be weeded out, and more effort will go into new caches

Ah, an excellent point I hadn't considered! While our opinions on 4 and 5 star caches will likely be all over the map, I'm guessing that the 1 stars will be fairly consistent.

I'm sure there will be those who say that we don't want to hurt people's feelings...but is it better to give someone honest feedback, and encourage him to try harder on his next cache...or should we continue to encourage dozens of cachers to hunt the cache, only to feel disappointed that they wasted their time?

(I'm going to put a pointer to this message in the Cache Ratings thread, because I think it's a good summary.)

"Honorable Mentions"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation