Rating caches...a new category

[Rigour]

I don't allow unencrypted spoilers in the logs of my caches. I understand that some people don't like to take a chance with the logs, but that to me is the reason, to make it safe for those who want to check the logs.

[Will_302]

I think the idea is great. Not only would it help people in deciding which cache to find, I would love to see what people think of my cache. It would help me improve how I place them.

[Will_302]

I think the idea is great. Not only would it help people in deciding which cache to find, I would love to see what people think of my cache. It would help me improve how I place them.

[+sbell111]

I don't believe this is necessary. We already can get a feal for what people think of our caches by reading the logs.

[+tophat]

I was thinking about suggesting this with a 1-5 star rating. Just as well I did a search before starting a new thread.

[Pantalaimon]

I talked briefly about this with Jeremy once I believe. It was a while back. I suggested a 1 to 10 scale.

 

He said that they were looking into it...

 

It's been a while of "looking in" though...

 

Taz

[+Bluespreacher]

I've read through all the posts so far and I'm convinced that a new rating system is not an idea I would agree with.

 

Many have remarked that these ratings would be too subjective, and that's right. Not only that, but a cache may deteriorate over time. Only the logs could tell you that.

 

When I check out a cache page I notice many things. First, the hider. Who is she? Do I know what kind of caches she places? There are some hiders that always hide 'high quality' caches. Sadly, there are some hiders that I will avoid comepletly. Also, I like to read what others have said on their logs. There are finders in my area that I have grown to trust. They give a complete account of their search (with out 'spoiling' my hunt). By then I have an idea if the cache interests me.

 

Some have said that they don't read the logs, they don't want their search spoiled. Of course, that's their choice, but that makes geocaching a whole diferent game from what I play, so I can't comment.

 

Just my .02, and worth every bit!

 

Bluespreacher

 

"We've got the hardware and the software, the plans and the maps ..." -- Citizen Wayne Kramer

[+Bluespreacher]

I've read through all the posts so far and I'm convinced that a new rating system is not an idea I would agree with.

 

Many have remarked that these ratings would be too subjective, and that's right. Not only that, but a cache may deteriorate over time. Only the logs could tell you that.

 

When I check out a cache page I notice many things. First, the hider. Who is she? Do I know what kind of caches she places? There are some hiders that always hide 'high quality' caches. Sadly, there are some hiders that I will avoid comepletly. Also, I like to read what others have said on their logs. There are finders in my area that I have grown to trust. They give a complete account of their search (with out 'spoiling' my hunt). By then I have an idea if the cache interests me.

 

Some have said that they don't read the logs, they don't want their search spoiled. Of course, that's their choice, but that makes geocaching a whole diferent game from what I play, so I can't comment.

 

Just my .02, and worth every bit!

 

Bluespreacher

 

"We've got the hardware and the software, the plans and the maps ..." -- Citizen Wayne Kramer

[+georgeandmary]

How do you sum up a cache experience by placing it on a 1 to 10 scale. What does 6 mean anyway? Logs let you go into detail and share you experience far more clearly than a number. Say little may say a lot about the cache.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.