Thought On Cache Rating

[+Criminal]

I have seen a number of ideas proposed for allowing a finder to rate a cache. Right now we have a smiley face for “found” and a frowny for “not found”.

 

How about a varied degree of smile to rate the cache? The standard smiley would be the standard (default) “found it”, there could be a neutral face for a cache you didn’t like so much or one that needs attention, and a super elated face for one that took your breath away or impressed you more than a standard cache.

 

Pretty Good Cache or Needs some work

 

Good cache, had fun

 

WOW! This cache was da bomb!

Edited April 12, 2004 by Criminal

[+Baptist Deacon]

That sounds like a very interesting idea. I would like to see something like this...

[+Renegade Knight]

So you have a way to rate them. Do you present the 'average' smilie next to the cache icon.

 

Means DPM

Edited April 12, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+Team DEMP]

Is your idea to have an overall user rating for the cache, or just keep it at each individual log entry?

 

I think of all the caches I've done, only 1 would be a disappointment. The other 100+ would be good or wow. Maybe I'm the exception, but with 99%+ being good or wow, will the rating real say anything about the cache?

 

Just expressing my thoughts. I can usually tell by the length of the log entries for a cache how much people enjoyed them.

[+Criminal]

When you log your find, it adds the smiley automatically. My proposal would allow you to select any one of three possibles as depicted above. This would appear next to your log on the page. I also would have only a few finds, but would love to have the option of putting a next to caches like Got Fire? Otter Falls. Sorry, can't put the link as the GC site is inop again...

[+flask]

this presents some problems. for instance, a local cacher who hates me (yes, apparently it's possible) usually writes a lot of stuff that has smileys (a LOT of smilies) and makes detailed record of what she took and left, the weather, and all that. she usually closes with ~thanx 4 tha fun!~

 

yesterday she logged one of mine with a simple "found easily. tnln." i'd hate to think that a rating system like this would mean that people who don't like ME would reflect on my cache.

 

i know why her entry was so brief. and she knows why her entry was so brief. another user does not need to know this, nor to have their perception of the cache clouded by subtext. i wouldn't think of asking her to log it another way, and she wouldn't think of boycotting the cache. a generic smilie allows her to snub me in a way that is socially acceptable and does not create concern among others.

 

cold, but civilized.

[+NWscout1]

I guess I do not see the value of this.

I get a pretty good sense of what the cache is like just by reading the logs.

Good caches generate good logs.

Crappy caches generate TNLNSL logs.

I think such a system would likely increase friction between players because cache owners start worrying about smilies (rather than the cache quality).

Let the logs speak for themselves.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

no ratings, they'll be skewed regardless of what system you use. What's the bomb for me probably isn't the bomb for you. Personalities enter into it.

 

I don't like it.

[+Divine]

What the last couple posters said. I prefer showing feelings verbally. Nothing wrong with using the smilies already available either.

[ghOzt]

I would love to see a rating system, whether it's the method outlined by Criminal, or any other method. It would be especially helpful for the site to average out the ratings (after ten ratings have been posted, or whatever) and have this displayed on the cache page, too. There should be a way for the logger to opt out of rating the cache if they so choose, though.

 

A cache-rating system would definitely be a great improvement to the site!!! How 'bout it, J?? Please!?!

[+Stem]

I see how this can be seen as a good idea. However, each cacher has there own set of preferences for what a bad, good, or great cache would be. I am not an urban micro fan, and would tend to rate them lower because of that. I love the caches that are decent hikes through the woods, and those I would tend to rate higher. For someone who prefers an urban setting to the middle of the woods, there rankings could be opposite. Also flask makes a good point concerning vendettas. if a cacher has some enemies, they could bring down the overall rating of a great cache. On paper I think its a good idea, but I think it is something better left alone.

[+PandyBat]

Agreeing with Stem.

 

I like the Found and Not Found rating system as it is. All that really matters is whether you found it or not anyway. Rating caches on their merit will only cause more problems that will have to be discussed to the infinite degree in the forums. There are enough of those type discussions already.

[+Team DEMP]

What about a found being what it is today, and a found and loved it being the other option.

 

A "rating" could be based on # found + (2 x # loved).

 

Now a rating isn't a "mine is better then yours" rating since there could be 1 cache with 50 founds and another cache only with 3 finds but all with the 2x rating. It would just be an indication, without reading the logs, of those that are extraordinary without penalizing a less desirable cache.

 

Just a thought.

[+catcher24]

I agree with Stem and the others opposed to any rating system. As Stem, I am not crazy about urban micros - or other micros, for that matter. I do them, but I personally like virtuals - which, for some reason unknown to me, are trying to be phased out by TPTB. I have been introduced to many interesting locations via micros that I otherwise would not have had any idea existed. I also much prefer a good hike in the woods to trying to be inconspicuous while looking for amicro with a lot of people around. Obviously, preferences and personalities would enter into it, and people would start complaining about how so-and-so screwed them on the rating. Leave it alone.

[+Criminal]

No no no no no no no. I'm not saying the rating will add up to anything. The option is for you as a finder to rate the cache using one of three faces, neutral, happy, or ecstatic.

 

This way if a finder looks at a group of caches, he/she/it can scroll down and see the different faces and make a spot judgment about which cache will be given a higher priority in their cache queue.

 

Someone with a vendetta will have little overall effect, as it will be one neutral face in a column of happys or ecstatics.

 

There’s no “bad” rating, only three levels of good.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

No no no no no no no. I'm not saying the rating will add up to anything. The option is for you as a finder to rate the cache using one of three faces, neutral, happy, or ecstatic.

 

This way if a finder looks at a group of caches, he/she/it can scroll down and see the different faces and make a spot judgment about which cache will be given a higher priority in their cache queue.

 

Someone with a vendetta will have little overall effect, as it will be one neutral face in a column of happys or ecstatics.

 

There’s no “bad” rating, only three levels of good.

 

Hey Criminal, you need to type slower so they can understand what you meant.

 

We like the idea of the different faces next to the logs.

 

John & Shirley

[ghOzt]

There’s no “bad” rating, only three levels of good.

The no "bad" rating idea is a nice thought, but it may be unrealistic. Since the three choices are ranked, the bottom one will naturally become a negative (or at least, the least-positive) vote. It won't matter if the three rankings are "fantastic," "super fantastic," and "super-duper fantastic," it will be human nature to wonder why your cache only received a "fantastic" vote instead of one of the more praising choices.

 

I'm still in favor of a ranking system, though. It would obviously have a subjective nature, not necessarily even be an accurate indication of cache quality, and may not be relevant to every cacher, but such is the nature of it. I don't see any of these things causing harm, or being a reason not to have it.

[WH]

Oh just go caching and be happy

[+New England n00b]

Interesting, but what I find 'da bomb' is a good hike, regardless of the cache box. Another person might not really care about getting there, but thrilled with the idea of trying to find an exceptionally difficult hide.

 

I suppose if there were a preponderance of one type of smiley, the cache log browser could then decide to read the written portion of the log for more details, and if it catches their fancy, whatever their fancy is, good.

 

Not a bad idea, Criminal.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

hate it :(

[+Rebel]

OK, so if I don't like your rating and delete your log, what then?

 

Nah, let's not do this.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I have found "Da Bomb" type caches both with 10 feet of a parking space and more than 10 miles from a paved road. Some people, however, think that long hikes are the only was a cache could be "Da Bomb" and would rate the shorter ones much lower. Others prefer short hikes (due to kids, physical limitations, etc) and would rate long hikes lower because the distance takes the fun out of it for them.

 

I prefer reading the logs to get an idea of how good a cache is.

[+Criminal]

It won't matter if the three rankings are "fantastic," "super fantastic," and "super-duper fantastic,"

That made me laugh, I just wish I wasn't drinking a soda at the time.

 

OK, so if I don't like your rating and delete your log, what then?

That happens now! What's the difference? What if........ That argument could go on all day.

 

I have found "Da Bomb" type caches both with 10 feet of a parking space and more than 10 miles from a paved road.

Me too! That's what I'm talking about. Yes, there are some ho-hum caches, I have a couple myself. I wouldn't be hurt to see a less than super-duper-face-busting smile on a post, I may be a bit vain but not that much. It's no worse than putting out a cache you think is cool only to have someone come along and post "TNLNSL" and nothing else. Hey, everybody is different. A guy who's sick and has to tote an O2 tank along with him might find my 1.5/1.5 a hella lot of fun.

 

Like I said, the default would be the standard smiley, anyone who forgets to change it or would rather not use a different one would have to do nothing.

[+PandyBat]

Since it won't affect anything other than peoples opinions about the cache, maybe you should just put it in place then and if people want to use it they can. Like you said, it's only one log per person and unless a cache hider has a thousand enemies, it would only be one negative smiley face amongst 999 other positive smiley faces. Me personally, if the regular smiley is default, then that's what I am going to use. Found vs Not Found only for me. I don't care to rate a cache by anything else other than what I say in the log.

[Jeremy]

In a correct statistical average, the one negative rating would be thrown out since it does not reflect the overall opinion of the cache listing. So there is a way to provide a rating system that cannot be adversely affected by one sad sack.

 

I like the concept but I don't like the application in this context. In my opinion the log should remain a log and ratings should be a separate entity - whether it is a smiley or a score.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

No no no no no no no. I'm not saying the rating will add up to anything. The option is for you as a finder to rate the cache using one of three faces, neutral, happy, or ecstatic.

Welcome to the "post-literate age," where everything has to be summed up by a graphic.

 

I don't think we need this; the degree of enjoyment people received from a cache can usually be discerned by reading the log. Perhaps those who post only vanilla "PC" logs should simply write logs that more honestly describe their experience.

[Jeremy]

I semi-agree. But it would be nice if I was in an unfamiliar area and wanted to find a particularly interesting cache, I could see the top rated ones and choose from them.

[+shunra]

Against.

 

Are our verbal skills in your opinion really so poor as to require these smileys?

 

If this should really be the case, I suggest that those who think of their own expressiveness as lacking should add their smileys in the body of their log, or even at the beginning of their logs.

 

I'd also like to say that as a matter of principle, changes that cannot be automatically applied retroactively are problematic, in my eyes.

 

Edited for grammar. Maybe *I* should resort to smileys, too :-|

Edited April 13, 2004 by Shunra

[+leatherman]

I'm neither for nor against rating.

 

I do think that rating should be like voting though. Anonymous.

I do not have a problem expressing negative remarks in a log. However, I believe, most people do have a problem. Believing it's rude. Anonymous rating would allow those "vanilla" loggers to honestly rate a cache without publicly being rude.

[+Lone Duck]

Any sort of rating system in the cache logs would have to be "forced" or required somehow in order for then to have value. Everybody who logs would have to enter a rating value. If it was a choice of smilies, that could be troublesome because one of the smilies would be the "default" smilie and the ratings would get skewed by those who don't bother to pick one.

 

Don't force me to rate the caches that I find.

[ghOzt]

...as a matter of principle, changes that cannot be automatically applied retroactively are

problematic...

Good point... one that I hadn't thought of.

[+Criminal]

OK, maybe "rating" was the wrong word to use. I would just like to see someone's hard work in creating a quality cache be recognized in such a manner that a potential finder could quickly scan through the "found its" and determine that the cache was worth placing it higher on his or her priority list. Then if I thought a cache was really great, but couldn't think of a way to say it without giving away the details and possibly "spoilering" it, I could just click the from the drop-down.

 

Ah well, the game continues nonetheless...

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

If the smilies are a part of the log then the owner can scan the logs and see which of his caches the locals enjoyed the most. He then has the option of doing more caches of that type or trying something totally different from what he has been doing. It also suggests to him what type of cache not to bother with doing.

 

Consider it constructive criticism, but with a flair.

 

Most of us enjoy knowing how well our caches are received and this might help some folks improve the style of caches they place.

 

Just some random thoughts by an old fart.

 

John

[ju66l3r]

Arguing against this idea on the basis of icons replacing literacy is subverting the actual, well-founded reasons and derivative ideas that could come of a system like this.

 

While the perusal of 40 pages of prose will give you the most accurate and precise understanding of all previous cachers' experiences in their expeditions, it is a highly time-consuming procedure and does not present itself well for automated searching. A New England cacher is currently in San Diego and found that there are over 100 caches within 5 miles of his current location. He will only be there a short time and hopes to do the most impressive caches. To read all 100 caches' recent logs will take far too long regardless of his personal literacy level. Using a filter to find the "top-rated" caches quickly (however the rating is calculated) would be the best solution. The rating is not to supplant literacy or expressivity, it is to summarize and sort. Sifting through a Zagat's Restaurant guide for a 4 star restaurant allows me to spend my time reading about the best eateries in town and deciding amongst only those places which are of sufficient quality to appeal to me at the time. Academic papers are given an abstract which allows the reader to determine if the paper will suit their interests prior to delving into the fundamentals of the research. No one is questioning the literacy of hundreds of years of scientists because we provide summaries of our articles or sort journals by their impact values of the research within.

 

Of course, maybe I should have prefaced this post so you didn't have to waste your time to discern my opinion quickly with the following:

 

- A Log/Cache Ranking System

 

- Logical Fallacy: Strawman Arguments about "Post-literate Age"

[+SeventhSon]

How will new caches fit into this "rating" system? If no one has found them yet, there is no rating, and if most in the area start searching by the "5 star" rating system, they will never be found.

 

I guess the FTF's will go to the old school cachers

 

7

[+shunra]

Arguing against this idea on the basis of icons replacing literacy is subverting the actual, well-founded reasons and derivative ideas that could come of a system like this.

I have said nothing in this thread against rating per se. But I am against simpulsory rating by way of having to choose a grade rather than just to file a log.

 

As to rating in general: Preferences differ from person to person, every rating system is a problem. When I go somewhere, I look at a few pages, and when I find a cache that I like, I also flag other caches by the same hider, or I go to the hider's profile page to see what he or she recommends.

 

There is nothing wrong with doing with some research. It's an excellent way to getting to know an area a bit better. Conversely, there is nothing wrong just to go from one cache to the next by way of proximity, and letting yourself be surprised.

 

Your suggestion adds insult to injury: not only do you think that smileys are an OK replacement for writing, but you also suggest that looking at smileys is an OK replacement for reading logs.

 

If that ever happens, why would anyone write about their finds online anymore? Oh right, statistics. Well, I don't think it's worth giving up the excellent character of geocaching as it is, just in order to deprice cachers from reading logs. This is not about illiteracy. I have no problem with illiterates (and they can add their smileys if they want), but I have a problem with superimposing the results of illiteracy on geoacaching as a whole. No thanks.

 

I wouldn't want to miss the wonderful logs, and that's exactly what would disappear if people would no longer assume that they'd be read.

[+yumitori]

Whenever I think of 'consumer' rating systems, the ones that usually come to mind are those like on Amazon.com. There always seems to be someone who absolutely loves the item, and someone who hates it. With enough 'votes' one can often get a more balanced view, but I've often seen ones where the opinions are more or less evenly split.

 

In the end I have to read the comments anyway, so the number ratings end up being superfluous. I think much the same would happen here...

[+Renegade Knight]

The thing about ratings is that they need to be useful and the KISS principal applies. To be useful they need to tell the cache hunter that any particular cache is one that they would enjoy hunting. To comply with the KISS principal the rating system has to be simple and bulletproof.

 

The simple systems tend to blend together the community vote on a cache. Thus you end up with a rating for the cache that tells you what the broader community thinks and nothing about how it stacks up against your own personal wow factors. Criminal's works around this problem by summarizing a logs 'enjoyment essence' into a quick icon. In other words we don't need to read the log anymore but we still don't have a clue whether or not we will enjoy the cache based on our own preferences.

 

The complex systems account for every nuance but are too much work to log your own opinion on, let alone pull useful information from. If it's so complex that you can't translate into whether or not this is your kind of cache, the system is worse than having no system at all.

 

So far every rating system I've seen proposed at best creates as many problems as it solves. Normally they create more work and problems than any benefit gained. I still like the idea of a system so we can focus on the caches that we as individuals prefer doing, and I remain hopeful that someone will find the right mix.

[ju66l3r]

Your suggestion adds insult to injury: not only do you think that smileys are an OK replacement for writing, but you also suggest that looking at smileys is an OK replacement for reading logs.

You have prescribed me a stance that I did not take. I even wrote that I would search for the 4-star reviews so that I can then *read* only those reviews to determine where I wanted to eat.

 

Your entire argument is based on the disgust of smilies *replacing* writing or reading and in no way does my post advocate that. I even very clearly pointed out their strengths of summary and sortability. A summary is not a valid *replacement* for the full subject material. It *is* a valid descriptor and as such is a useful tool. Sortability has nothing to do with replacement and actually means the introduction of *more* information content to the written log, because we are not able to automatically parse a written log for the quality of the cache, in terms of building a quality-search tool.

 

You have simply replaced one straw-man for another and in this case you built him out of thin air because my post does not claim smilies to be valid replacements for reading/writing. I even go so far as to defend the actual reading/writing of the full article for use *after* filtering an entire list of items by their summary (both in the case of restaurants and scientific articles).

 

Beyond that, there is no proof that having a ranking system will give the notion that logs are not actually read and thereby mean the effort of those who write logs will be lost due to apathy. In fact, the watchlist is evidence that people are interested in receiving the logs of specific caches and owners must receive every log on their caches. Even still, nothing at this point forces anyone to read a cache's logs and yet interesting logs are still written. All of this together means that regardless of any additional rating system, people will continue to post the wonderful logs you look forward to.

[+shunra]

Sorry, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I did not say that you advocate certain things, but I did say that they are inevitable results thereof.

Edited April 14, 2004 by Shunra

[+shunra]

The thing about ratings is that they need to be useful and the KISS principal applies. To be useful they need to tell the cache hunter that any particular cache is one that they would enjoy hunting. To comply with the KISS principal the rating system has to be simple and bulletproof.

 

The simple systems tend to blend together the community vote on a cache. Thus you end up with a rating for the cache that tells you what the broader community thinks and nothing about how it stacks up against your own personal wow factors. Criminal's works around this problem by summarizing a logs 'enjoyment essence' into a quick icon. In other words we don't need to read the log anymore but we still don't have a clue whether or not we will enjoy the cache based on our own preferences.

 

The complex systems account for every nuance but are too much work to log your own opinion on, let alone pull useful information from. If it's so complex that you can't translate into whether or not this is your kind of cache, the system is worse than having no system at all.

 

So far every rating system I've seen proposed at best creates as many problems as it solves. Normally they create more work and problems than any benefit gained. I still like the idea of a system so we can focus on the caches that we as individuals prefer doing, and I remain hopeful that someone will find the right mix.

Bingo. Couldn't have phrased it better.

 

I wish there would be a bullet-proof system to tell me which caches I would enjoy on my upcoming trip to Europe, but that won't happen, either.

[+PandyBat]

Is it about time for a poll yet?

[+shunra]

Whenever I think of 'consumer' rating systems, the ones that usually come to mind are those like on Amazon.com. There always seems to be someone who absolutely loves the item, and someone who hates it. With enough 'votes' one can often get a more balanced view, but I've often seen ones where the opinions are more or less evenly split.

 

In the end I have to read the comments anyway, so the number ratings end up being superfluous. I think much the same would happen here...

There's an idea.

 

Adapting the Amazon system, I could imagine a system where people would volunteeer to describe a cache (there should be a minimum requirement of - say - 100 words). This would be anonymous and voluntary, and entirely separate from the logging process. Cache owners would not be able to delete evaluations if they don't like them, but admins could, if the evaluations are obviously unfounded, or made by someone who hadn't first logged the cache on-line. Evaluators could then add a rating number, and a cache page would show how many people thought the cache worth of the trouble of rating it, and what the average opinion was.

 

This way we'd have a rating system that does not replace, but actually enhance, descriptions, and yet allow searches.

Edited April 14, 2004 by Shunra

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

The thing about ratings is that they need to be useful and the KISS principal applies. To be useful they need to tell the cache hunter that any particular cache is one that they would enjoy hunting. To comply with the KISS principal the rating system has to be simple and bulletproof.

 

The simple systems tend to blend together the community vote on a cache. Thus you end up with a rating for the cache that tells you what the broader community thinks and nothing about how it stacks up against your own personal wow factors. Criminal's works around this problem by summarizing a logs 'enjoyment essence' into a quick icon. In other words we don't need to read the log anymore but we still don't have a clue whether or not we will enjoy the cache based on our own preferences.

 

The complex systems account for every nuance but are too much work to log your own opinion on, let alone pull useful information from. If it's so complex that you can't translate into whether or not this is your kind of cache, the system is worse than having no system at all.

 

So far every rating system I've seen proposed at best creates as many problems as it solves. Normally they create more work and problems than any benefit gained. I still like the idea of a system so we can focus on the caches that we as individuals prefer doing, and I remain hopeful that someone will find the right mix.

 

The 3 smilies is about as simple as you can get and pretty much 'bulletproof'.

 

When you call up a cache page you look at the D/T rating, the description of the cache (you do look don't you?), and you look at the last 5 logs posted.

 

If the D/T is one you chose not to do (whether it's 1/1 or 5/5 or what ever) then you goto the next cache page.

 

If it is one that falls in the range you're looking for the you scan down to the general description. Here again, you decide if it is worth your time. If not, on to the next one. If this one sounds good you look at the log to see if others enjoyed it or not.

 

All the smilies do is give you an icon to see if you want to keep reading the logs. If 4 out of 5 give it a minimum rating you might decide to pass on it, or go ahead and read the logs to find out what they thought the problem is with this cache.

 

If 4 out of 5 give it the highest rating chances are pretty good that you will enjoy the cache (it has already past all the other criteria needed to perk up your ears.).

 

There is one last thing about the smilies that will work for everyone and that is you can just ignore them if you so choose.

 

My $.02

 

John

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Arguing against this idea on the basis of icons replacing literacy is subverting the actual, well-founded reasons and derivative ideas that could come of a system like this.

Rather than expounding upon their cache experience in detail, the increased choice of graphics would more likely cause even more people to post logs of the "Found it - TNLNSL - thanks" variety with their choice of pretty graphic.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Arguing against this idea on the basis of icons replacing literacy is subverting the actual, well-founded reasons and derivative ideas that could come of a system like this.

Rather than expounding upon their cache experience in detail, the increased choice of graphics would more likely cause even more people to post logs of the "Found it - TNLNSL - thanks" variety with their choice of pretty graphic.

 

I know I shouldn't say this, but I just can't help myself. Do you know of any women who can avoid being verbose?

 

John

 

(Just a note....Who writes more on the forums??? John or me & just who is more verbose??? Hmmmmmm????)

 

Shirley

[+Criminal]

Well, we have "what if's" and "it mights" all imparting concepts that I did not intend. What I was proposing was simple and voluntary. It appears to have been construed as something far more complex.

 

It sort of reminds me of ORI* Rule #1, "Make the simple complex, and then overreact to it.”

 

If someone wants to discuss developing a highly detailed multi level convoluted algorithm to rate a cache, start a thread along those lines. This one’s dead.

 

*ORI= Operational Readiness Inspection, an Air Force readiness exercise and evaluation.