Cache rating system needed for found caches

[+Paul Ag]

I know this has come up before. What do people think about the rating of caches after a find? We are a stats society. Maybe a 5 star system?

 

I want to see the top 10, 20, etc of the best caches in an area rank by difficultly. I am the type of geocacher that wants to do only the best. Life is short. We have way too many out there that no one can do them all.

 

What your thoughts about adding rating system to each cache? It would be like ebay. This would create better caches. I would want to be rank high. It is a matter of pride.

 

Jeremy, you can even add this to your premium membership feature to get more people to sign up. Though, I am too cheap to pay.

[MilamberDragon]

Sounds good but wounder if it will work. I think if only premium members where allowed to rate the cache then maybe it would work.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

~Milamber

"Abg nyy gubfr jub jnaqre ner ybfg"

[+bigredmed]

A better version might be to have a check box for listed variable too high or too low. The system in place for rating terrain is very limited. If its more than a few 100 feet from parking its a 2. There needs to be some organized way to vote for or against the stars for a cache you have found.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ag '94:

I know this has come up before. What do people think about the rating of caches after a find? We are a stats society. Maybe a 5 star system?

 

I want to see the top 10, 20, etc of the best caches in an area rank by difficultly. I am the type of geocacher that wants to do only the best. Life is short. We have way too many out there that no one can do them all.

 

What your thoughts about adding rating system to each cache? It would be like ebay. This would create better caches. I would want to be rank high. It is a matter of pride.

 

Jeremy, you can even add this to your premium membership feature to get more people to sign up. Though, I am too cheap to pay.

---

If you already know it came up, then you already know what "people" in general think, and you already know about all the problems with adding such a system. But I'll bite anyway

I think in theory it sounds cool, it practice it would suck and be next to useless. We all have differing opionions of what we like. Anyone who has spent more then 30 minutes here can see that, and see how passionate many of us are about geocaching and our personal opionions. You like locationless caches, so you rate it a 5. I don't like them so I rate it a 1. we end up with a 2.5.

You hate long hikes to find just one cache, so you rate that 5 miler a 1. I love that sorta cache, I rate it a 5. We end up with? 2.5.

Statistically EVERY cache should eventually end up rated a 2.5, unless people create fake accounts to boost the score of caches they like (another problem). Great idea. Don't see it working

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ag '94:

 

I am the type of geocacher that wants to do only the best.

---

And your "best" might be someone else's "worst". It's so subjective that trying to distill it down to some sort of point system would be meaningless. Use the logs - that's what they're for. Rather than giving it a "1" or "5", you can actually describe what you like and don't like about a cache. And other people can read it. Wow! What a concept!

 

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

[+Turtle3863]

A little bit off subject, but I have come up with my own little rating system to give a cacher a little more info before heading out on one of my caches.

 

Turtle Rating: What is this? (See my profile for details)

Minimum time to find: 2 hours

Bug Spray recommended: yes

Hiking Boots recommended: Possible wet and muddy trails

Long pants recommended: Bushwhacking

Children recommended: not recommended, steep terrain, long hike

 

Slow and Steady Wins the Race

[+woodsters]

I agree. Everyone has an butt(used nicer version) and an opinion , but....

 

Brian Wood

Woodsters Outdoors

http://www.woodsters.com

[Cracker.]

I agree, its a nice idea, but not really practical.

I already take the difficulty/terrain ratings with a grain of salt. If I think it might be a difficult or complicated cache, I'll just read the logs, and get a way better feel about the cache.

 

Besides, as a cache hider, (I only have 2 so far), I think I would appreciate detailed logs and compliments much more than any rating number someone gives me.

 

As an example, see Rocky's log on my very first hide cache. There is nothing better than a log like this, coming from a very experienced local cacher to make your head swell as well as inform other cachers whether the cache was liked/disliked.

 

Thanx Rocky!

 

I've been inspired by his log, and have since started leaving similar logs myself. On three caches that I have done since, I have gotten emails from the hider thanking me for a great log, which lead to some chatting about ourselves. What a great way to interact with other local cachers!...Imagine that!...

 

It seems like more and more the logs that show up on my watched caches are boring one sentence entries like: (insert Ben Steins monotone here) "Thank-you-for-a-nice-cache, it-was-well-hidden, we-enjoyed-it, took-something-left something".

I am so disappointed when I read these...I wanna hear something about each cachers unique experience, not figure out some rating number, which really doesnt tell you anything...

 

Art

 

www.yankeetoys.org

www.BudBuilt.com

www.pirate4x4.com

[+Paul Ag]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

Use the logs - that's what they're for. Rather than giving it a "1" or "5", you can actually describe what you like and don't like about a cache. And other people can read it. Wow! What a concept!

---

 

The problem with logs is they can give away too much clues.

 

Also, the rating system would be filled out by all (non member or not) and view only for those who pay. Jeremy is a business man, what a way to get people to pay up to view the ratings.

[+Byron & Anne]

Ratings and scoring.... BAH...

If caches were rated by finders there would be tons of problems and fighting. "You down rated my cache so I'll rate yours lower". There's too much fighting now.

 

Byron

[+briansnat]

One rating system that's been talked about that may work is the "recommended cache" system.

At the bottom of box where you log your find would be a check box that says "would you recommend this cache to others?"

 

Then on the cache page there would be something like "7 of 9 finders recommend this cache"

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

[+Prime Suspect]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ag '94:

 

The problem with logs is they can give away too much clues.

---

A few do, but most don't. It wouldn't be any different than it is now.

 

quote:

---

Also, the rating system would be filled out by all (non member or not) and view only for those who pay. Jeremy is a business man, what a way to get people to pay up to view the ratings.

---

Why would non-premium members bother to fill this out if they're not going to get any benefit from it? And if you force them to do it, well, I'm sure you'll get really good responses that way.

 

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

[+astrojr1&GGGal]

For a while now, we have been volunteering our own 'rating' in our logs. We still go on to say why we liked it so much. If the cache 'rates' a 2.5 or better, we say so. I thought it would be cool to rate caches on logs, and I don't think everyone would rate it a 1 or a 5, but I understand how it could create passionate debate and all those undesirable things. As far as 'practical'? C'mon, what are we all doing here in the first place?

 

We will continue to say things like 'Wow, this one rates a 3 on our enjoyment scale' and feel good about it. We go back to those cache pagess occaisionally and remember the goodnesses...

 

Our 2 cents, thanks,

astrojr1&G-O-GardenerGal

[runner_one]

I agree, I would like to see a rating system but it think it should be anonymous and only display a rating after a certain number of people have posted a rating.

For example imdb.com only rates a movie after it has 5 votes and what each rater voted is kept anonymous. Using the same system here would enable you to rate a cache and not have to worry about reprisals for a giving bad rating.

Something like this shouldn’t be too hard to implement.

[+rickrich]

I think a rating system, properly implemented, would work very well to separate the really excellent caches from the really lousy ones. So what if there is also a large middle class of caches?

 

Any rating system would obviously have to be anonymous, as runner_one points out. I agree, it would not be hard to implement.

 

I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue against a system that solves many issues in a democratic way.

[+Breaktrack]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

One rating system that's been talked about that may work is the "recommended cache" system.

At the bottom of box where you log your find would be a check box that says "would you recommend this cache to others?"

 

Then on the cache page there would be something like "7 of 9 finders recommend this cache"

 

_"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry_

---

 

That's the one I thought I remembered from previous conversations in here. I agree, that might be the way to go. Kind of like the forum post/topic ratings in here.

 

"Trade up, trade even, or don't trade!!!" My philosophy of life.

[Pantalaimon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

 

... Statistically EVERY cache should eventually end up rated a 2.5, unless people create fake accounts to boost the score of caches they like (another problem). Great idea. Don't see it working...

 

---

 

I disagree. I suggested this a while ago through email to Jeremy when I first began caching, and I still think it would work.

 

I don't think that every cache would eventually average out to a 2.5, in fact, I asked people to rate, in their log, the last cache I created, using a 1 to 10 scale.

 

So far four out of the six finders rated the cache for me, and the average of the four ratings is a 8.5.

 

I never really thought, until right now, whether DNFs would give a rating (although they would most probably always give a 0). Maybe giving a rating should be limited to finders.

 

Also, I think each log should show what the person rated the cache. That way the sour grapes would probably stick out a bit more.

 

I'd like to see it implimented. Although, I'd also like to see who's watching my cache... and we know where the vote on that went.

 

Pan

 

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

[+southdeltan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

One rating system that's been talked about that may work is the "recommended cache" system.

At the bottom of box where you log your find would be a check box that says "would you recommend this cache to others?"

 

Then on the cache page there would be something like "7 of 9 finders recommend this cache"

 

_"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry_

---

 

This is a fine idea. It doesn't go into unneccesary details (This cache has an average rating of 2.43343).

 

I've seen this used on a lot of other websites that were non-geocaching and it was useful. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than nothing - Heck yea.

 

sd

 

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

[+sept1c_tank]

Instead of creating a new system (and more space on the computer @ Groundspeak), why not just use the one we have. It could be used by the cache hider and the finder. A simple "rate this cache" section incorporated into the log pages would allow all the finders to rate the cache the way they see it. Then the owner and anyone else interested could compare all the ratings.

 

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

 

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

 

.

[+CoronaKid]

I think the best solution is to modify your profile page to include your top ten favorite caches to date like many cachers have already done. To figure out the best caches, just find a few top ten lists from some local geocachers and look for the caches mentioned most often.

 

I'm in the process of completing mine and it should be up shortly. An actual rating system just wouldn't work as many have stated.

 

--CoronaKid

[Pantalaimon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CoronaKid:

... An actual rating system just wouldn't work as many have stated...

---

 

Whoops. I didn't notice that some people said it wouldn't work.

 

"What was I thinking when I disagreed?" Pantalaimon said to himself rhetorically...

 

Pan

 

"The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there."

[+BlueDeuce]

I have found 8 traditional caches so how would I know what make a good cache? I simply don't have the experience. I might THINK I do and can certainly identify a truly bad cache and I know what I enjoy, but I would still rather see a review from an experienced objective cacher. When I want a movie review I don't read every critic, I find one that tends to like the same things I do. Other than that, the logs tend to show if it's a good one or not.