Cache ratings by FINDERS?

[+intense]

I'm fairly new to geocaching. Is there something I'm missing? Surely there must be some built-in method where FINDERS can RATE caches.. So you can sort caches by highest rated in an area.. So you don't waste time finding lame caches? Maybe this is a subscription-only service? I have a hard time believing that such a feature doesn't exist on this website...

[+seneca]

believe it.

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Just leave your rating as a story in the log. A numbering system would be far too limiting to encompass all caches.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

[+Harrald]

There have been numerous threads about this. What you may consider lame someone else may think is fantastic.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Sydney J. Harris

[+Smitherington]

Just relax man. It will be all right. Let the intensity level go down. Relax.

[+Renegade Knight]

There are some rating systems that exist but the cache owner has to implement them on their own cache.

[+TEAM 360]

That would be a cool feature, the finder could rate it, just like a poll, from 1 star (the worst) to 5 stars (awesome). The rating shown could be an average of all of the votes on it. It would be an anonymous way to tell the owner their cache is crap and should be improved upon, or a way to let other cachers know it's a great cache before they even open up the cache page.

[+sept1c_tank]

quote:

---

There are some rating systems that exist but the cache owner has to implement them on their own cache.

---

Check any of my caches. It's up to the owner to implement this system, but it's free and user-friendly. Each of the little boxes has a link where you can set up your own on your caches.

 

 

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

 

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

 

.

[+intense]

Say that I have 3 days in a new city. How can I be certain that I hit some quality geocaches in the area while I'm there?

[+Renegade Knight]

Read the logs. You will get a feel for the cache.

 

If they all are short and polite but say very little. Try a different cache.

 

Or you can hook up with a local willing to show you around. They know the good areas even if they haven't found the cache. Just change your avitar before you send out invitations.

[+intense]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harrald:

There have been numerous threads about this. What you may consider lame someone else may think is fantastic.

---

 

Very true.. But surely an average impression of many geocachers couldn't lie. A truly unbelievably awesome geocache would eventually average a higher mark than a totally lame one after hundreds of opinions are counted.

[+sept1c_tank]

All I can say is research. Read the descriptions and the logs of caches that sound interesting. If you have time, email the local geocaching association, or maybe some cache owners...or finders. Another possibility is to go to the regional forum for that area and post a query there. If you're coming to Indianapolis, I can reccommend a few.

 

 

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

 

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

 

.

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TEAM 360:

That would be a cool feature, the finder could rate it, just like a poll, from 1 star (the worst) to 5 stars (awesome). The rating shown could be an average of all of the votes on it. It would be an anonymous way to tell the owner their cache is crap and should be improved upon, or a way to let other cachers know it's a great cache before they even open up the cache page.

---

 

I thought it was anonymouse right up until I realized I'd be the first time finder and the first person rating the cache.

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by intense321:

Very true.. But surely an average impression of many geocachers couldn't lie. A truly unbelievably awesome geocache would eventually average a higher mark than a totally lame one after hundreds of opinions are counted.

---

Except most caches dont get 100's of finds. Most only get a few dozen a year, or less. Many of the caches I personally would rate a 5 only get a handful of logs a year. On a scale of 1-5, most caches are going avg out to a 3 anyway. Like Harrald said, for every person who thinks a cache hidden 5ft from the side of a road under a piece of rotting plywood is lame, there is another cacher who will think it was a great hide. For every cacher who thinks a cache with a 1/2 mile hike and a 1500ft elevation change is awesome, there will be someone else complaining. Reading the logs will get you a much better feel for the cache.

If you are going to an unknown area, post in the regional forums. Be sure to tell people what your idea of a great cache is (are you looking to hit the most in the short time you're there, or do you want a challenging all day hike? Got young kids? Limited transportation? Don't do virtuals? Stuff like that.) and I'm sure you will get tons of suggestions.

Many local cachers are more then willing to take a visiting cacher out. Several cachers have done it for me (Harrald being one!) and I've returned the favor for others.

 

"This is gc.com, love it or leave it "

[umc]

The problem I would see with someone being able to rate a cache (depending on how it was implemented) is that if they had a bad day or don't like you or who knows they will rate your cache poorly. Think about the useless thread rating system we have here. Look at the threads that have one check vs. five. What happens is the kids don't like a thread for one reason or another or because so-and-so posted to it so they rate it a one. There is no reason to have a thread rating system and the main reason we shouldn't have one is because it doesn't work.

 

Now if that rating is going to be tied to someones username then I think it would be fine with the exception (as mentioned above) that opinions vary.

 

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

[+robert]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sept1c_tank:

All I can say is _research._ Read the descriptions and the logs of caches that sound interesting.

---

 

Definitely. Truly memorable caches stand out by the logs.

 

~robert

Notice: Driver carries less than $20 cache.

[+Runaround]

I'm firmly in the anit-rating camp. I've read the various arguments and still don't feel a simple 1 to 5 vote is enough. You have to read the logs. If it says "Found it. TNLNSL", that's a real good sign of lame cache.

 

Our club, the Northeast Ohio Geocachers, NeoGeocachers, have just completed voting on the "Best Caches in Northeast Ohio". The results will be up on our webpage in a few days. This will give out of towners a good hint as to where to go.

 

Now where did I park my car???????

[+DenaliNW]

quote:

---

Our club, the Northeast Ohio Geocachers, NeoGeocachers, have just completed voting on the "Best Caches in Northeast Ohio". The results will be up on our webpage in a few days. This will give out of towners a good hint as to where to go.

---

 

This may be an option if you are traveling to other areas. Many of the regional websites are putting up lists of their favorites. I know the Chicago geocaching site does this. We do this in Portland, OR too.

 

"Where shall the world be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." - T.S. Eliot

[+JMBella]

I've started puting This Rating System on all my caches. It's good, but still the best way is to read the logs.

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

[+roadstr]

A rating system would blow. I've done over 100 caches now and never have found a bad one! They are just uniquely different. Some are easy to find, some difficult.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

If it says "Found it. TNLNSL", that's a real good sign of lame cache.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you never had a mega caching day, with 15 to 30 caches to log? You find that you don't feel like writing long stories at midnight after a day like this.

The true experience of GEO caching is getting out to places you've never been and would probably never get to. With that in mind there is no such thing as a lame cache, just lame cachers who feel what's in the box is more important than the creativity of a hide or the area you found.

[+intense]

I've got to disagree. There are definitely LAME virtual caches. All the good virtuals are taken, so someone decides that they need to get their name on a virtual in some downtown city. So they choose some stupid phone booth or something as their cache. Totally worthless and a waste of time for the finder..

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

I've got to disagree. There are definitely LAME virtual caches. All the good virtuals are taken, so someone decides that they need to get their name on a virtual in some downtown city. So they choose some stupid phone booth or something as their cache. Totally worthless and a waste of time for the finder.

---

 

That's one of the cheif reasons they cracked down on virtuals. Still, a rating system won't work. To some people, any time they can add a find to their counts, it's a 5 to them. And if you're the first person to find a cache, are you going to rate it a 1...esp if the owner is someone you're friendly with? Its just waaauy too subjective.

 

Like most people here said, just read the logs. A bunch of "TNLN's", or short "Found it, thanks!" logs, you can be pretty sure it's a stinker. If you see a lot of longer paragraphs detailing the search, it's probably a good cache.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

[+Xitron]

I agree with researching the logs more then I do a rating system. While I don't oppsose a rating system I would just use it as another tool to select a cache. The logs are a much better way to judge a cach, IMHO, due to the fact that I tend to describe more of my adventure in really good caches. Having said that I was the FTF on one cache,(I'm still a n00b), and it was rated a 3 and 3 by the owner I thought it was a 1 and 1 when I did it. If the peoople who approve the cache were allowed to express their opinion I would have planned many more caches that day other then just the total of 3. So we ended up going home early with alot of daylight left.

 

I see your lips moving but all I hear is blah blah blah

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

quote:

---

Say that I have 3 days in a new city. How can I be certain that I hit some quality geocaches in the area while I'm there?

---

You couldn't be any more certain with a rating system than you could by reading the logs. I have seen people rate threads poorly just because they don't like a particular user. Personally I don't worry about the "quality" of the cache as they are almost all fun. What is quality to you doesn't mean it will be quality to me or vice versa.

 

I would hate a rating system and I'm glad we don't have one.

[+Doc-Dean]

quote:

---

Originally posted by intense321:

I've got to disagree. There are definitely LAME virtual caches. All the good virtuals are taken, so someone decides that they need to get their name on a virtual in some downtown city. So they choose some stupid phone booth or something as their cache. Totally worthless and a waste of time for the finder..

---

HEY!! That was my phone booth virtual!!!

Oh no, wait... it was taken already... I have the public ashtray can virtual...

 

[philosphical wisdom]

Its about the journey, the hunt...

not the destination.

[/philosphical wisdom]

 

---------------------------------------------------

Free your mind and the rest will follow

[+FarSideX]

Everyone likes different types of caches and will rate caches according to what they like. Me, I like all kinds of caches. As far as rating them I could care less what others think. BUT, a rating on the difficulty rated by those that have found it would be cool. Not by those that didn't find it as they would rate it as too difficult. This way I would know which ones to do at night and which ones to do during the day.

 

FarSideX

 

Took tupperware container - Left nothing.