Jump to content

Cache Ratings?


Recommended Posts

What does everything think of the idea of adding a "Rating" field to the cache logs (similar to the ones that were recently added to this discussion forum)? Whenever someone enters a log on the cache, they'd have the opportunity to rate the cache. (Or, if they didn't want to, they could leave the field blank.) Then, on the search results summary page, along with the current information, it would show the average rating for the cache. I understand that it would be completely subjective, and that we all have different things we like/dislike...but I think it would be interesting to get the feedback on the caches I place, and it would be a nice feature for helping to scan available caches, and decide which ones may be more worthwhile to visit.

 

I definitely think it would be more useful to have a rating system on the caches, than on these discussion threads.

Link to comment

with an area for a comment if the person rating the cache wants to explain. For example, we found a cache last weekend that was fun and very well hidden. The only downside, it was awfully close to private property and it was hard to get a good reading in the woods. I could see a problem if people decide to head to the clearing (private property) to get a better reading or if their GPS is pointing them in that direction. For that particular cache, I'd give it a fairly high rating (it was fun and challenging) but not the highest since I think being so close to private property might cause some complaints if people aren't careful where they're walking. It'd be nice to not only rate the cache, but to explain why it was a 4 instead of 5 IMO.

Link to comment

I think its a great idea. Ratings will help me know if my caches need improvement or not. It would also assist in weeding out the poorly done caches. Of course people will get hypersensitive if someone dislikes their cache...but maybe that is what we need, a little honesty. I have taken criticism for caches I have hidden, and I tried to use what was said to improve the cache. We should all be willing to at least hear the thoughts of those who took the time to hunt our caches.

Link to comment

It could be useful in many ways. Suppose you do a good job creating and placing a cache. Finders consistently rate it highly. But then after awhile the average rating starts to sink. Maybe due to the development of a social trail, contents degradation, increase in nearby traffic, etc. Its then that you know it's time to go out and move, repair, update the cache.

 

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by, ...

 

unclerojelio

Link to comment

I think a cache rating system (perhaps 1-5 stars along with the number of respondents) would be interesting and fun, but don't know about the practical implementation of it. People rate books and movies and fine wines, so why not caches? I'm certainly anxious to hear more ideas on this one. icon_smile.gif Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

1132_1200.jpg

 

=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

Link to comment

I think a cache rating system (perhaps 1-5 stars along with the number of respondents) would be interesting and fun, but don't know about the practical implementation of it. People rate books and movies and fine wines, so why not caches? I'm certainly anxious to hear more ideas on this one. icon_smile.gif Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

1132_1200.jpg

 

=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

Link to comment

I don't like it. People would abuse it just to let other people know that their caches suck. Instead of a rating system, maybe people could stop saying 'took nothing, left nothing, thanks' in their logs, and just be more descriptive.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

Link to comment

Why bother? I mean, we already have the logs, which should provide anyone who wants a preview of the experience more concise information than a simple 'star rating' would.

 

Oh, that's right. We're not supposed to put anything even remotely critical in logs.

 

So I guess if such a system is ever implemented, it'll be quite amusing reading all the polite, uncritical logs for caches receiving low 'ratings.' . . . Definitely, an anonymous system would be totally unacceptable.

 

I think that if such a system is implemented, each finder's 'rating' of the cache should appear right next to that finder's name on the header of the log, and the cumulative average would then be displayed on the cache page near the cache owner's suggested difficulty and terrain ratings.

 

Nah, forget about it. In my opinion, the whole thing is just a really bad idea.

Link to comment

I sort of agree with the post above. I think if people want to rate the caches, they can do so in their logs. I will typically read the logs before I go on a hunt to see what people have said about it. I know there is a chance that there may be a hint or two in the logs, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. The beauty of Geocaching is its simplicity. Someone hides, someone hunts. If we start gumming it up with all sorts of details, then we lose the real reason we're looking in the first place.

 

Dark Skies!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by oregone:

...in their logs, and just be more descriptive.

 


 

Oregone... icon_biggrin.gif maybe you should take some of your own advice. Whenever I read one of your logs, you rarely say anything at all about the cache or whether or not you liked it... icon_wink.gif

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by oregone:

...in their logs, and just be more descriptive.

 


 

Oregone... icon_biggrin.gif maybe you should take some of your own advice. Whenever I read one of your logs, you rarely say anything at all about the cache or whether or not you liked it... icon_wink.gif

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

What does everything think of the idea of adding a "Rating" field to the cache logs (similar to the ones that were recently added to this discussion forum)? Whenever someone enters a log on the cache, they'd have the opportunity to rate the cache. (Or, if they didn't want to, they could leave the field blank.) Then, on the search results summary page, along with the current information, it would show the average rating for the cache. I understand that it would be completely subjective, and that we all have different things we like/dislike...but I think it would be interesting to get the feedback on the caches I place, and it would be a nice feature for helping to scan available caches, and decide which ones may be more worthwhile to visit.

 

I definitely think it would be more useful to have a rating system on the caches, than on these discussion threads.


 

Isn't that what the cache logs already are? I mean, don't we put subjective stuff in there as it is? Sure, some may hurt the hider's feelings, but it's a free world (mostly), right?

 

Bluespreacher

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I think that if such a system is implemented, each finder's 'rating' of the cache should appear right next to that finder's name on the header of the log, and the cumulative average would then be displayed on the cache page near the cache owner's suggested difficulty and terrain ratings.


 

I like this idea. It would keep people a little more honest, rather than deliberately going out and slamming someone they happen to have a bone to pick with, for whatever reason.

 

When we are held accountable for our votes and judgments, I believe we think a little more carefully before making them.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by bluespreacher:

 

Isn't that what the cache logs already are? I mean, don't we put subjective stuff in there as it is? Sure, some may hurt the hider's feelings, but it's a free world (mostly), right?


 

Yes, the cache logs are a great place for giving feedback on the cache, but I'm thinking that when someone is scanning a large list of caches to choose from, it would be nice to have a quickie indicator (like the difficulty and terrain ratings) that gives them a feel of the overall reaction to the cache.

 

If someone wants more detail or clarification, they can still choose to peruse the individual posts.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by SirRalanN:

Just my opinion, but terrain and difficulty should be seeker ratable as well as the fun factor.


 

I like this idea. Sometimes, even when using the provided rating system, I'm not sure what's the 'right' rating for a cache I'm placing. For example, should a multi-stage cache automatically be a "3", even if it's only two stages, and they are really simple?

 

If cache finders could rate the terrain/difficulty, it might be useful. (But, in support of the opposition, I can also say first hand that someone has commented in a log that my cache seemed more difficult than I had rated it, and I took their information into review, and re-evaluated the cache rating accordingly.)

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

 

Oregone... icon_biggrin.gif maybe you should take some of your own advice. Whenever I read one of your logs, you rarely say anything at all about the cache or whether or not you liked it... icon_wink.gif

 

Jamie


 

How embarassing! You're totally right! I never thought about it that way. I guess i give myself very good advice but i very seldom follow it.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

 

Oregone... icon_biggrin.gif maybe you should take some of your own advice. Whenever I read one of your logs, you rarely say anything at all about the cache or whether or not you liked it... icon_wink.gif

 

Jamie


 

How embarassing! You're totally right! I never thought about it that way. I guess i give myself very good advice but i very seldom follow it.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

Link to comment

I would prefer to see us be able to rate the difficulty and terrain when we post. That way, if you rate your cache a 1/1 and people think it was much harder than that the folks who have not found it could give their opinion. So you would wind up with a 1/1 as the "main" rating but might wind up with a 3/1 if it was found to be harder than the placer thought. I know I placed a tiny cache that I thought was very easy to find but out of 14 logs, only 9 finds and 5 no founds. I rated it a 1/1 because it's basically a walk up cache in a very easy spot less than half a mile round trip.

 

Just my thought..

Link to comment

I'm definitely for ratings. It would help newbies pick out the best caches and reward people who place better caches by getting more hits.

 

Each finder's rating should be displayed and extreme ratings (good or bad) should get backed up with constructive comment - this way Geocaching will improve.

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...