Color Rating Sysytem To Rate Other Caches

[+HikerGene]

Hi, I was thinking how cool it would be to have a star rating system like eBay for the found cashes' numbers. It creates a desire to be a more experienced cacher, by establishing ranks. You might of already thought of this, I thought I would give it a try and see. I think it would make it more interesting as a fellow member to see the fellow cacher and ranks while reading similar cache logs. I am also an eBayer and it is very convenient to be able to see, by color rated star, others' ranking.

Thanks for your time,

Gene Hancock

HikerGene

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It's not about the numbers

[+bons]

To put things in perspective. Team GPSaxophone is but a few finds away from doubling Jeremy's count. Actually, there are people who have found more in a single day than our leader has found since this hobby began.

 

One enjoyable DNF and a quality hide mean more to me than quadruple digit numbers.

[+Semper Questio]

I'm an eBayer too and I ignore the stars. I find it easier to read numbers than to remember what all the little stars mean and the stars are just more clutter on the screen IMHO.

[+mtn-man]

This is not really a topic for the Organized Geocaching forum.

I'm going to move it to the General Geocaching Topic.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I don't want cachers rated anymore than I want caches rated. I think it's a lousy idea.

 

I doubt ratings on this site will ever happen but I promise you this. Add something stupid like ratings and I'm done. I'll pull every cache I have. I just think it's counter productive to an enjoyable hobby. I have not enjoyed changes that have occurred since I began this hobby but I still enjoy myself.

 

The one thing I know is that local cachers enjoy what I put out. I put out all sorts from Lame micros in parking lots to caches that will take you most of the day to complete. If they have a problem with something I do I'd like them to tell me directly or through an email, not through anonymous ratings.

 

Once when I put keenpeople ratings on one of my caches it was found once and rated 10 times. I pulled the ratings as I knew it was garbage.

 

I have lots of hides and lots of finds. That doesn't make me a better cacher than someone with 5 hides and 50 finds. Ratings would be a bad plan.

[+Cache Viking]

It is all perception. My kids love every cache, some of which others would hate. Thus I do not believe a rating system can be created to please all.

[+thennig]

I always wonder if that sort of system (stars for how many you have found, etc) would cause *some* people to inflate their numbers just to get a better star rating- by logging caches they return to as finds each time or by whatever means. I'm sure there are some out there who would. Maybe. I don't know actually.

 

At a different forum that I go to, they switched the software they use and one of the options was to have the post count by your name (like they do here). The admin there took that away the same night he added it because people were posting like crazy- one word posts- just to get their numbers up and get to the next "level".

 

One thing that might be alright though would be an option to rate the caches that we log as finds- like how on ebay you rate the seller. Nothing to do with numbers- just actually more like e-opinions where you could rank caches you found based on a number of factors and that rating would end up on your cache page. Might not work though. And it would have to be so if you delete your Found It log, then your opinion is deleted from the poll- that way one vote per Found it note.

Edited April 30, 2004 by thennig

[+woof n lulu]

Rating...Ranking.....How about just enjoying....

 

Realizing that human nature is competative, how about just competing/challenging yourself in this (what is suppose to be simple) pursuit.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Rating...Ranking.....How about just enjoying....

 

Realizing that human nature is competative, how about just competing/challenging yourself in this (what is suppose to be simple) pursuit.

There ya go

[CoyoteRed]

Stats and rankings are bad news. They foster negative elements of the game.

 

The only ratings/rankings I would support is the ability to add a 10%/1% favorite cache and let those caches wear those badges. While it is still subjective, it makes the finder think about which caches he will grant his votes to as his favorite. Yes, it is still subject to abuse, but my thinking is it would be subject to less abuse than find counts are today.

 

On the flip side, I think if there needs to be competition, then it should be one where hiders try to get high ranking in the 10%/1% lists. This would foster higher quality caches. Plus, if the ranking takes into account the number of finds to number of votes for 10%/1% the seldom visited cache would have a chance to make the list.

 

Almost forgot a major advantage to this: it would create a "must do" cache list for visiting cachers.

Edited April 30, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Renegade Knight]

...

The only ratings/rankings I would support is the ability to add a 10%/1% favorite cache and let those caches wear those badges. While it is still subjective, it makes the finder think about which caches he will grant his votes to as his favorite. Yes, it is still subject to abuse, but my thinking is it would be subject to less abuse than find counts are today.

 

On the flip side, I think if there needs to be competition, then it should be one where hiders try to get high ranking in the 10%/1% lists. This would foster higher quality caches. Plus, if the ranking takes into account the number of finds to number of votes for 10%/1% the seldom visited cache would have a chance to make the list.

 

Almost forgot a major advantage to this: it would create a "must do" cache list for visiting cachers.

Interesting. While I generally disagree almost entirely with CR on stats issues the concept of "best of the best" has one hell of a lot of merit.

 

There is always a local cache that for whatever reason becomes legendary. Were I was passing through Nebraska (does Nebraska even have electricity?) and was anywhere near that legendary cache I'd hunt it.

 

Of course then there would be legendary cache hunters who were competing on that stat.

 

Almost forgot. Another reason I like this is that to do it you have to build the entire stats infrastructure anyway.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Want to have opinions on which caches in an area are best? Just go to the forums from that area and ask which caches are must-do caches. There you can sift through the comments. No need for anomymous ratings, they are always skewed.

 

As I said before I once had ratings on a cache. It was found once but rated 10 times. Think it was even close to be accurate?

[+Seay me]

Please don't feed the trolls.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Please don't feed the trolls.

I hadn't even considered that. Good call.

[CoyoteRed]

As I said before I once had ratings on a cache.

I understand. Those types of ratings/rankings are very prone to abuse and thus inaccuarate. What I'm proposing looks at cache enjoyment from a completely different angle.

 

First, you can only rank caches that you've found.

 

Second, you're only highlighting the ones that you've liked the best.

 

Third, there are two levels of ranking in that you're presenting the ones that you liked at lot and then you're most favorite caches.

 

Fourth, tying your favorites to the the cache itself allows people to search on those rankings.

 

Fifth, you don't have to go to the forums, ask which caches are the best, and hope someone responds. The previous finders don't have to think about which one they've liked. No emails back and forth either.

 

Personally, I feel putting the competition element on the cache and not the cacher may improve the sport. Because really, shouldn't the focus be on providing caches that people enjoy versus "a race to the finish?"

 

It may also address some of the issues presented in LilOtter's thread. That way only the outstanding caches stand out.

[CoyoteRed]

Please don't feed the trolls.

Huh? I see it as a newbie thread, not a trolling.

[+SylvrStorm]

In general I don't think there's any need for additional rating or ranking systems here, but CoyoteRed's idea is a good one. A numeric cache rating system would be unlikely to ever provide any useful information, but this idea of marking your top 10%/1% finds has a lot of merit. It focuses on the relative merits of caches, rather than applying an absolute value. It also doesn't have the stigma or bad feelings that a low numerical cache rating could have, because you're only highlighting the good ones, and you only get to give your 'blessing' to a relatively small subset of the caches you find.

 

Yep - I like it.

 

SylvrStorm

[+Team Flying Dachshund]

The finders should rate the caches that others place.

[+norbu]

it really doesn't matter.

that is what is so nice about the internet.

you can turn it off.

 

Ok, I actually enjoy the internet and I adore this site. I work in online software myself, building new features, fixing mucked up data, designing product pieces, etc. lots of work. so someone doing it for this type of activity, WOW.

This is pretty much the only activity I engage in online at home. (ok, I work at home sometimes, but only because I am technical support 24/7 also) but is my ego tied in? no. Do I care if other people's are? No. Does it matter? I mean really matter? no.

 

So, maybe feeding trolls is OK, kinda like feeding a really hungry stray cat, but don't feed the egos. They are terrors, and we all know what happens when you fatten them up.

 

ratings would feed way too many egos, when that happens they muscle everyone else out. that is sad.

 

so, no ratings! but only so we don't feed the dangerous ego-beasts.

 

norbu

 

edited to add: Oh, btw, not saying that the ego-beasts shouldn't play, that would be just plain mean, just that we keep them slim and trim and quick. hehehee.

Edited May 1, 2004 by norbu

[nobby.nobbs]

i agree no ratings as they are purely subjective. what one person loves another will hate. it would be better if people were a little more accurate/descriptive of their caches. then the people who despise certain types will know which is which and will not go looking and then complain.

 

personally i do most types without preference, with me it's the location more than anything, the cache is a bonus.

 

if someone wants to comment on a cache i've hidden then feel free to send me a message. why should their opinion influence the next person hunting for my cache unless they want to report something dangerous?

 

just my thoughts

[+Volvo Man]

I love stats me,

 

I only wish there was somewhere that world cacher stats were posted, In the UK we have an excellent site with league tables and everything.

 

I don't think that a voting system is entirely appropriate however, as being subjective, it can be unneccesarily hurtful to some placers and may put them off. Also, it would be a realpain to have to rate 30+caches in a day after a major sesion.

 

Stats should be based purely on caches found/placed and difficulty levels on a different table too. The GC:UK site is excellent and has quite a few different measures for the top 50 in the UK.

 

Thanks to finding this site, I have been spurred on to put more into Geocaching, In the last month, I have more than quintupled my finds count (something I'll likely never be able to do again), made a dramatic difference to my fitness, joined 3 geocaching organisations, (Local, Regional & National), broken 2 UK Records, made the top 50, and made a ton of new friends through attending an event.

[CoyoteRed]

...I have been spurred on to put more into Geocaching...

While I'm not saying this would happen to you, but unfortunately, some people who are driven by stats lose focus on a very important element of the hobby--cache integrity.

 

Please, always make sure you are not observed retrieving and replacing the cache, that you are the one to actually find the cache or at ground zero when your group finds the cache, and the cache site is left as if no one had ever been there.

 

With that said, have fun.

Edited May 2, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[TwentySeven]

While I'm not saying this would happen to you, but unfortunately, some people who are driven by stats lose focus on a very important element of the hobby--cache integrity.

 

Please, always make sure you are not observed retrieving and replacing the cache, that you are the one to actually find the cache or at ground zero when your group finds the cache, and the cache site is left as if no one had ever been there.

 

With that said, have fun.

I agree! People Yell I Found It! with muggles abound

 

I could care less about the numbers. Some people need the numbers. They would go to a crappy cache that is a piece of paper taped on a manhole downtown to get 1 more. Some do the quick "me too" or "LOL" in forums at EVERY post without any additional thought to the thread just to get over 2 million posts. My brother, case in point.

 

My personal opinion is this. When you log a find, you are able to rate the difficulty and terrain. Then it can average out with what the hider put. I have been to a 1/1 cache and it was a 3/3 to me. Then there was the opposite. A very easy one to me was rated 2 or 3 stars.

 

One of my current caches I put a 2 1/2 difficulty because if you follow the arrow on the GPS it takes you from the parking lot, across a creek, thru woods, and over a fence. But if you take the bridge that is in front of you when you park, and follow the trail, you will walk right up to it. With me knowing that, I would rate it a 1/1. So it would be nice to find out how others would rate the difficulty and terrain.

 

Now a 1-10 or 100 rating on the cache itself is subjective. For example: Some people love 3 mile walks to a mountain top and would give it a 10. I would give it a 1 because it was too far of a walk. I would give a 10 to a multi that would involve a canoe and 10 miles of river. My wife woud give it a 1. Those are kind of extream, but you know where I'm going.

[+SnowLeopard]

KeenPeople.com has cache and cacher stats on their website which you can transfer to Geocaching.com. I chose to use the cache rating so I can get feedback, but I choose not to use the cacher rating.

I think this is the perfect way - to make it optional.