Rating caches...a new category

August 7, 2002

I would like to see a rating system implemented for the all-around quality and experience of each individual cache. We have two categories now...difficulty and terrain. You know what I think??? I think we should add a third category for "The experience" rating...same scale 1 to 5. A 5 would be a dadgum good geocaching event due to whatever you feel made it good. Such as, the location, the hunt, the approach, the craftiness, the creativity, etc. etc. A 1 may be just too easy, boring, small, whatever.

The difference though, is that the rating would not be by the originator, but a tally made by each person who finds the cache and participates in the experience...a grade report, if you will.

Then, we might start looking for the "higher quality" caches. And if you see there are 3 or 4 caches near the area where you are...and you only have time for one...pick what everyone else says is the best one. It would be helpful especially when travelling and you don't know the areas very well.

What do you guys think?

Stop it, I am trying to think.

August 7, 2002

That's a helluva idea. It's got my vote.

Chip

August 7, 2002

I agree totally with your idea. Sounds like a great addition, especially considering how some areas are becoming so saturated with caches.

If you hide it, they will come.

August 7, 2002

I agree totally with your idea. Sounds like a great addition, especially considering how some areas are becoming so saturated with caches.

If you hide it, they will come.

1.5k · August 7, 2002

Heh - I was just thinking the other day that two ratings were too many.

Perhaps when you find a cache, you could give it a rating yourself - how much you enjoyed the search/find/location... using the familiar 1-5 scale. That'd be interesting, but it'd have potential for abuse.

But I really have a hard time making a terrain rating and an overall rating that much different from one another. I mean, can you have a 1/5 or a 5/1 or a 1.5/4.5?

If the overall difficulty is so hard, it must have sometime to due with the terrain - right? And if the terrain is terribly difficult, it can't be an easy find, eh?

Not that it would bother me if it was changed either way... I kinda just go with the flow, ya see.

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

1.5k · August 7, 2002

Heh - I was just thinking the other day that two ratings were too many.

Perhaps when you find a cache, you could give it a rating yourself - how much you enjoyed the search/find/location... using the familiar 1-5 scale. That'd be interesting, but it'd have potential for abuse.

But I really have a hard time making a terrain rating and an overall rating that much different from one another. I mean, can you have a 1/5 or a 5/1 or a 1.5/4.5?

If the overall difficulty is so hard, it must have sometime to due with the terrain - right? And if the terrain is terribly difficult, it can't be an easy find, eh?

Not that it would bother me if it was changed either way... I kinda just go with the flow, ya see.

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

August 7, 2002

I like the idea but it's been brought up before and shot down. People didn't seem to like the idea of others grading there cache and what not. Like I said I like the idea though, there's to many trash caches out there. Maybe it would force people to work a little on there caches, don't get me wrong, there are tons of people who work hard and place great caches but also to many people who just go throw them out there.

The other problem is each to there own as well.

What I'd like to see is a "user" rating for the difficulty and terrain I've found many mismarked caches and having the cachers rating plus the avg rating from those who found it would be good.

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

1.5k · August 7, 2002

quote:
The difference though, is that the rating would not be by the originator, but a tally made by each person who finds the cache and participates in the experience...a grade report, if you will.

Oh... that IS what you suggested. That'll teach me to skim articles and start posting. heh

But yeah - that idea is nice, but I'd just worry about biased posters. What if I post a new cache, and a couple of lame-os look for it, can't find it, and give it crappy ratings. Other people might skip it.

I dunno - the more that I think about it, the more I'm not liking the "user rated" system.

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

1.5k · August 7, 2002

quote:
The difference though, is that the rating would not be by the originator, but a tally made by each person who finds the cache and participates in the experience...a grade report, if you will.

Oh... that IS what you suggested. That'll teach me to skim articles and start posting. heh

But yeah - that idea is nice, but I'd just worry about biased posters. What if I post a new cache, and a couple of lame-os look for it, can't find it, and give it crappy ratings. Other people might skip it.

I dunno - the more that I think about it, the more I'm not liking the "user rated" system.

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

August 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:
Heh - I was just thinking the other day that two ratings were too many.

Perhaps when you find a cache, you could give it a rating yourself - how much you enjoyed the search/find/location... using the familiar 1-5 scale. That'd be interesting, but it'd have potential for abuse.

But I really have a hard time making a terrain rating and an overall rating that much different from one another. I mean, can you have a 1/5 or a 5/1 or a 1.5/4.5?

If the overall difficulty is so hard, it must have sometime to due with the terrain - right? And if the terrain is terribly difficult, it can't be an easy find, eh?

Not that it would bother me if it was changed either way... I kinda just go with the flow, ya see.

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

just wondering Do you use the "Clay Jar" system?

Besides that I can think of several ways to have a high diff and low terrain, trivia, puzzle caches etc. Or vice versa diffuculty is usually once your there how tough it is to find regardless of how far you hiked.

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

August 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:
Heh - I was just thinking the other day that two ratings were too many.

Perhaps when you find a cache, you could give it a rating yourself - how much you enjoyed the search/find/location... using the familiar 1-5 scale. That'd be interesting, but it'd have potential for abuse.

But I really have a hard time making a terrain rating and an overall rating that much different from one another. I mean, can you have a 1/5 or a 5/1 or a 1.5/4.5?

If the overall difficulty is so hard, it must have sometime to due with the terrain - right? And if the terrain is terribly difficult, it can't be an easy find, eh?

Not that it would bother me if it was changed either way... I kinda just go with the flow, ya see.

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

just wondering Do you use the "Clay Jar" system?

Besides that I can think of several ways to have a high diff and low terrain, trivia, puzzle caches etc. Or vice versa diffuculty is usually once your there how tough it is to find regardless of how far you hiked.

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

1.5k · August 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mikechim:
What I'd like to see is a "user" rating for the difficulty and terrain I've found many mismarked caches and having the cachers rating plus the avg rating from those who found it would be good.

Ahh, that would be helpful - not necessarily rating a cache based on what you think is good or fun - but instead, if you thought the cache was a little more difficult to find than the hider posted, you could add your perceived rating.

Sounds reasonable.

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

1.5k · August 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by mikechim:
just wondering Do you use the "Clay Jar" system?

Besides that I can think of several ways to have a high diff and low terrain, trivia, puzzle caches etc. Or vice versa diffuculty is usually once your there how tough it is to find regardless of how far you hiked.

Ahh true... most of the caches I have hidden are all single find, non puzzle type caches. Pretty much what you see is what you get. I can see how a multi-cache filled with puzzle clues can be a 5 on the overall difficulty, while if all placed in easy to find areas, the terrain would be 1.

Why don't I realize simple things like that sometimes? heh

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

1.5k · August 7, 2002

Oh, and what is the "clay jar" system?

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

5k · August 7, 2002

Rubbertoe: ClayJar Rating System.

Sniffer,

I like the idea too... but it has been brought up before, and I've come to the conclusion that the easiest way to indicate your experience is... wait a minute... tell about it in your log.

Really, if you had a good time finding the cache, the cache owner, and future hunters of this cache (as well as folks that have already found the thing) will really appreciate a good story.

When I go to a new area to hunt for caches, I read through some of the logs to decide which caches are probably the better ones. People's stories tell it all, and so much more than a few stars ever could.

Jamie

August 7, 2002

Why not simply a single excellence rating for caches that are exceptionally good? When the cache has been found at least 5 times, and 80 percent of the finders log that it is worthy of an award of excellence, then the cache description would be marked with a "Gold Seal of Excellence" which would show up on cache searches. Players would try to achieve the excellence rating and no players would get bummed out because they got a bad rating.

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

1.6k · August 7, 2002

See this thread where this was discussed just last week.

August 7, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:
Why not simply a single excellence rating for caches that are exceptionally good? When the cache has been found at least 5 times, and 80 percent of the finders log that it is worthy of an award of excellence, then the cache description would be marked with a "Gold Seal of Excellence" which would show up on cache searches. Players would try to achieve the excellence rating and no players would get bummed out because they got a bad rating.

_You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_

Hmm I actually like that idea. I've been toying around with making my own stamp of approval. A little gif or something to include in my logs on those exceptional caches.

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

38.2k · August 8, 2002

Its not a bad idea. For cachers like me who have limited time to get out to cache, it would be a help. Heck, we rate threads in the forums, why not caches?

There is a recipe website that I frequent that uses this method. People who've made the recipe, rate it on a scale of 1-5 and are asked if they'd make it again. I find this very helpful in choosing what recipes to try, and I would find something similar on this website useful.

Of course these ratings are purely subjective. Someone who doesn't like long, difficult hikes may give a cache in a rugged area a 1, while someone else may give it a 5.

Same goes for the easy "grab & go" caches. Some people prefer these and rate one a 5, while someone who prefers a good hike to a cache may consider it to be a lousy cache.

Other people might give a cache a high rating just to avoid offending the cache owner.

Hmmm, maybe I just talked myself out of this. I'll have to think about it some more.

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on August 08, 2002 at 06:04 AM.]

August 8, 2002

I've suggested the same thing. With the number of caches growing so rapidly, it would be nice to have a peer rating system so I can hunt primarily high quality caches. It's usually pretty clear how much effort went into placing a cache (site location, container preparation, description writing) ... it all adds up to a caches level of quality.

Of course, the logs are a good place for seekers to leave an oppinion of the cache but so many people avoid reading those until after searching for fear of spoilers.

I's also like to see a seeker rating for the difficulties. After all, they have a better idea of the difficulty than the hider.

The need for additional rating was not necessary a year ago when there was one-third as many caches around but it's to the point where we need more ways to screen caches.

1.5k · August 8, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:
Rubbertoe: Clayjar Rating System

Oh - yeah, I've tried that one... but it never really gave me the rating that I thought it should be for the particular cache I was describing. I just didn't realize that it had the name "clayjar" - iirc, that is the page that is linked from the cache submit form, yes?

--== http://www.bigfoot.com/~rbatina ==--

3.1k · August 8, 2002

The Gold Seal idea is great. Just a checkbox when you're entering your log, then some ratio of approvals/logs to give it the seal.

I think with a rating system, you'd never see anything less than a three (in a five star system). Maybe they're out there, but I've yet to see a log entry that said, "Man, was this cache ever disappointing! Why not put some effort into it next time? What a waste!" No one (well, almost no one) wants to say that, and they're similarly not going to rate someone poorly. Ratings would be slightly more anonymous than the logs, but when you get your email notiication of a find and then see your rating went down, it's not hard to figure out.

August 8, 2002

I am about to place my first cache. I have found 15 caches now and 7 benchmarks. I think I'm ready.

My biggest fear is that my cache will be crappy (i.e. too easy to find, boring, etc...). I want it to be challenging. I think that the location I have chosen is exciting, but I am not sure.

With said rating system in place I would know. This rating system would help me become a better cache placer. I like the idea.

Loomis

August 8, 2002

Team Sandrich feels that reading the logs are the best way to raye the experience of any particular 'cache. The other user logs can and do give you a good feel for how the experience is going to be.

August 8, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:
Why not simply a single excellence rating for caches that are exceptionally good? When the cache has been found at least 5 times, and 80 percent of the finders log that it is worthy of an award of excellence, then the cache description would be marked with a "Gold Seal of Excellence" which would show up on cache searches. Players would try to achieve the excellence rating and no players would get bummed out because they got a bad rating.

_You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)_

This is a good idea. It would be easy to implement by adding a field to the log form that defaulted to 'no rating' and gave a 1-5 rating for ok to excellent, for example, similar to the way that various product rating web sites (like amazon and netflix) work.

2.5k · August 8, 2002

The experience the finder had should already be expressed in the text of their logs, ie. "I found the cache after being sprayed by a skunk and sliding down the embankment, thus banging my head on the ammo box. I really enjoyed this one."

I have found from other life experiences that when you ask for feedback using any kind of a form, there are always those who fill out the whole form be answering "good" or "average" down the whole column of the feedback form. I think that because of this reason, the rating may not be representative of the caching experience.

August 8, 2002

The logs are good, but I think a 5-star rating would be good too. Logs are not anonymous, and the rating you give a cache could be made anonymous. I also think that mrcpu hit on a good idea (in the other thread where this same idea is being discussed) where the rating could be weighted based on how many caches you've visited. Someone who says "5-stars" to a cache and they've visited over 300 means more than someone who says "5-stars" and they've only visited 10.

Then again -- that's what the logs are for. People are too nice though (which might be good?) When you see a log that says "Easy find, went right to it, thanks" that may actually mean, "Lame cache, just like so many others, thanks for wasting my time".

There are tons of caches now, and I'm just getting into it. I'd like a rating system to know which 100 caches of the 800+ in Utah I should visit first. If I visit California and only have time for 10 caches -- I want to visit the 5-star caches.

Yada, yada.

Dougc

4.5k · August 8, 2002

We should have penalties too:

3 bad ratings on a cache - you get a warning from the Adminsitrator to clean up your act.

3 more bad ratings on a second cache - no more hides for you for two months.

3 more on another - turn in your GPS for 6 months. That'll teach you!

Let's put a stop to bad caches

Alan

4.5k · August 8, 2002

We should have penalties too:

3 bad ratings on a cache - you get a warning from the Adminsitrator to clean up your act.

3 more bad ratings on a second cache - no more hides for you for two months.

3 more on another - turn in your GPS for 6 months. That'll teach you!

Let's put a stop to bad caches

Alan

August 8, 2002

Why not set up regional geocaching classes; Perhaps after the hunters safety class, or maybe even at the local Y. This way we can teach people to make and place only good caches and never experiment and try new things; we could discourage independent thinking altogether. Then, after placing a bad cache, we can run off a new player with our sarcastic comments and bad rating. Maybe we should certify cache placers and the admins wont accept a cache from those who arent certified. These people would have to attend the classes and pass both a written and practical exam. SHAME ON YOU PEOPLE!

SR and dboggny. Oh man, my mother in law is here

August 8, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by DisQuoi:
I've suggested the same thing. With the number of caches growing so rapidly, it would be nice to have a peer rating system so I can hunt primarily high quality caches. It's usually pretty clear how much effort went into placing a cache (site location, container preparation, description writing) ... it all adds up to a caches level of quality.

This is a key point...this caching is catching on! There is a proliferation of caches. Why not begin differentiating on some simple level. Yes, there will be some abusers, some detractors, but we need to look at improving the system before it becomes a morass of mediocrity. How would a rating system that everyone participates in discourage anyone from participating, unless they are a complete, retro-fitted wimp?

After reading all the posts...I still really like this idea in some form. As was said, rating systems are ubiquitous on the internet. It IS another form of participating and especially - it gives a feeling of gratification when you have done a thorough, masterful job at a cache and are lauded for it. And, you deserve it!

The logs can do that on one level, but with a rating system, you could possibly do a search for 5-star caches...improving your caching experience and your fun time to hours in a day ratio!

When you leave this earth, the cache stays.

August 8, 2002

Here's my vote for Seneca's idea. Good idea!

August 8, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Snifferer:
I would like to see a rating system implemented for the all-around quality and experience of each individual cache.

I mentioned something similar a few days ago in a discussion on ratings.

August 8, 2002

I mean, can you have a 1/5 or a 5/1 or a 1.5/4.5? If the overall difficulty is so hard, it must have sometime to due with the terrain - right? And if the terrain is terribly difficult, it can't be an easy find, eh?

Check out "First Contact" for an easy terrain but high difficulty rating. There are two reasons for the high difficulty -- one is that a puzzle is involved, the other is that the locations are so exposed that it's hard to actually fetch the caches without being conspicuous. Terrain is never a factor, though (we walked all of perhaps fifty feet, all on concrete). An extremely clever or well-camouflaged hide on easy terrain is another instance where I'd expect the two ratings to differ significantly, and that's information I like to have. I'm more than willing to take on a difficult to find cache, but I'm not up to major hiking or climbing.

One of the first caches we did was on difficult terrain (an almost nonexistent path, very steep and rocky, but luckily it was short. And, okay, I'm a wuss -- I think it actually only rated a 2 or so) but the cache was actually sitting out in plain sight a few feet off the trail (nobody but a cacher would've reached that point anyway, and you had to look in the right direction, but there was absolutely no camouflage).

In most instances, the difficulty/terrain are somewhat intertwined, and they often do become blurred, whether for the reasons you describe or because people don't interpret the two scores correctly (like in one cache we investigated where the description said 'we added another star to the difficulty because of the thousand-foot elevation gain'...). Generally, I pay a lot of attention to terrain ratings, but only use difficulty ratings as a sort of hint as to how long I expect the hunt to take once we reach the coordinates. I pay more attention to the description than to either rating, but the ratings help when I'm looking at a long list and picking a few caches to investigate.

August 9, 2002

Why must everything be rated?

Read the logs and trust the comments of the cachers you know and respect based on your experience.

Gary // Team Grayrun

In a split second, all your priorities change.

August 9, 2002

The ratings sure make it easier when it comes to Pocket Queries. It would be really tough to code something like "If BassoonPilot says 'great' then download."

It also is helpful to the terminally indecisive. After a whole day of herding a small child, my brain is sometimes so fried that I look at my list of unfound caches, and have trouble deciding which one to do.

You're right that the logs do help, and I'm learning that there are several local cachers who do consistently great caches.

But as a means to cut down a lot of data into a manageable pile of choices, ratings can really help.

Shannah

August 9, 2002

The ratings sure make it easier when it comes to Pocket Queries. It would be really tough to code something like "If BassoonPilot says 'great' then download."

It also is helpful to the terminally indecisive. After a whole day of herding a small child, my brain is sometimes so fried that I look at my list of unfound caches, and have trouble deciding which one to do.

You're right that the logs do help, and I'm learning that there are several local cachers who do consistently great caches.

But as a means to cut down a lot of data into a manageable pile of choices, ratings can really help.

Shannah

August 9, 2002

Suppose I go on a fantastic hike and the cache is crap. Is that a good experience or a bad one?

What if it's the reverse? Great cache, poor trail.

Difficult to express with a number. Easy to explain in a log.

August 9, 2002

I'm against it. Too subjective. Too open to abuse. Besides, people are already rating the cache in their logs ie."nice view", "rating not accurate", etc. etc.

.

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

August 9, 2002

I'm against it. Too subjective. Too open to abuse. Besides, people are already rating the cache in their logs ie."nice view", "rating not accurate", etc. etc.

.

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

August 9, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Rigour:
Suppose I go on a fantastic hike and the cache is crap. Is that a good experience or a bad one?

What if it's the reverse? Great cache, poor trail.

Difficult to express with a number. Easy to explain in a log.

Point taken. But the idea is to have a quick overview of the cache quality without having to wade through the logs which are often not very useful (“...nice day, on our way to the lake, traded a...“). It's the principle of providing levels of information for different needs. I'd use it.

3.1k · August 9, 2002

How about we just place and find caches. I tell you.... some of you people just amaze me. We have to rate this, some caches suck, some caches are crappy. Lets's make more rules!!! Give me a break. I have never complained about a single cache I've found. Know why? Because it's fun looking for the darn things. Well I've complained about caches I can't find.

Let's just have some fun. If a cache isn't up to your standards sooooo whattttt????? Maybe the guy placing it isn't an expert. Thank them for hiding it so you have something to do and maybe offer constructive critism, if you really have a need.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

August 9, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
How about we just place and find caches. I tell you.... some of you people just amaze me. We have to rate this, some caches suck, some caches are crappy. Lets's make more rules!!! Give me a break. I have never complained about a single cache I've found. Know why? Because it's fun looking for the darn things. Well I've complained about caches I can't find.

Let's just have some fun. If a cache isn't up to your standards sooooo whattttt????? Maybe the guy placing it isn't an expert. Thank them for hiding it so you have something to do and maybe offer constructive critism, if you really have a need.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

I will agree with you that there is no need to bash anyones cache's or give them a low rating. I don't complain about caches I find or don't find either. HOWEVER, while the idea of a 1 to 5 rating probably isn't good for reasons already stated. Seneca's idea of a Gold Seal or something is pretty sweet. It's a good way of knowing right off the bat what the best caches in an area are. When I travelled the US I would have loved something like this. When your only in an area for a limited time hitting the best would be nice. Plus it should draw more people to those higher quality caches that invovled more time and thought to set up, sort of an extra reward for the cacher who does take that extra time. I agree I have fun on just about every cache, and I'll hit all of them near me. But for those travelling this feature would be nice.

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

August 9, 2002

Why does it have to be something official? If you want to rate someones cache, then just do it, And why have a numbering system when you can tell them in your log. If the cache stinks, let them know. Don't sugar coat it with a number.

August 9, 2002

reason for the system is so others can quickly see how good the cache is without reading the logs. OFten times spoilers are in the logs so many people don't read them til after they find the cache. A gold seal of approval or something would take care of that problem, I do agree that the number system probably isn't a good way to go. I honestly see no reason to bash a cache unless it really truly deserves it. IE it is a shoe out in the woods or something.

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

3.1k · August 10, 2002

Naw I don't buy it. Gold Seal? Soo, what makes a cache good for 10 other people might not work for you. Then there are guys like me that will screw that system up because I'd give every cache I visit the high score. There are some that would ***** about every cache they visit.

Read the logs, that should tell you all you need to know.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

August 10, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
Naw I don't buy it. Gold Seal? Soo, what makes a cache good for 10 other people might not work for you. [/Qoute]

You are 100% completely right on this issue. However, it is still something to go one, like consumer reports, or online reviews of backpacking gear.

[QOUTE]

Then there are guys like me that will screw that system up because I'd give every cache I visit the high score. There are some that would ***** about every cache they visit. [/Qoute]

Not really, on the 1 to 5 scale your right (but that's not what Seneca proposed) a simple yes or no to a gold seal. If your the only one that posts yes and the cut off is 80% then it won't get one.

[QOUTE]

Read the logs, that should tell you all you need to know.

The problem is the logs often tell you much more then you'd like to know.

But all it all it's probably a mute issue I think Jeremy et. al have a bunch of stuff on their hands as it is.

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

2.5k · August 10, 2002

I went looking for a cache that a lot of people described as being really good in our local group. I was dissapointed to find it full of trash, and an easy find,out in the open.

I doubt my rating of this cache would be the same as someone elses. I noted my experience in my log and if someone reads my log then they will know what my experience was.

Let's say there is a nice cache and 99 people rate it highly using a system being proposed here. Now if the cache turns crappy, it would take another 99 crappy ratings just to make the total rating "average".

Read the logs, that's your best indicator.

1.1k · August 10, 2002

I like the idea of having user ratings of caches. (I think Seneca's Gold Seal idea is a great compromise for those that want an easy flag for popular caches, and those who don't want to subject any caches to receiving a 'poor' rating.)

But, contrary to what a lot of people have suggested, I think it would be better to have the ratings NOT made anonymous. I'd like to see an averaged rating at the top of the cache page, but to see who rated it how. As has been pointed out, this kind of rating would be very subject, based on your personal preferences. I'd like to be able to see who voted how, so I can learn that if Bob123 rated it high, I'll probably enjoy the cache, but that if TomCat rated it high, it'll probably be a cache-n-dash that I'll find too boring.

Besides, being 'accountable' for our votes should reduce the likelihood of someone deliberately rating so-n-so's caches as poor, as a means of getting revenge; or of someone rating a friend's caches as super (even if they are plain jane), just to boost the ratings. If our log shows our rating, we'll know that our reputation will be standing behind our vote.

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

August 10, 2002

Too many people mess up the "ratings" as it is with only two, and you want to add a third? Knowing how good a cache is would be nice but is that what the LOG is for?

(Sorry for being blunt but I am on limited time to night. Got called into work EARLY..)

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

Rating caches...a new category

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

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

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment