Rating "found" Caches

[+Teach2Learn]

I think you'll see it if experienced cachers like Markwell and others keep raising the issue. If it was on Jeremy's list as of February 2004, it may be moving toward the top as other issues are being resolved with upgraded server, use of credit cards for membership, etc.

 

And no, it's not rocket science, it's just one more aspect of geocaching that even he noted he'd like to see due to other cachers' past favorite recommendations leading him to some good caches. As the mods and approvers often say, just because you don't see a finished product when waiting for a cache to be approved or another idea for a site upgrade, etc., doesn't mean nothing is happening, as Jeremy's "workin' on it" motto also implies.

 

In the proposed format, it only focuses on favorite caches to avoid spiteful ratings, it allows veteran cachers to list a larger quantity of favorites, and it's not a rating system that anyone has to deal with if they don't want to, just like those who don't like micros can skip them.

Edited July 16, 2004 by Teach2Learn

[+Sparky-Watts]

I think you'll see it if experienced cachers like Markwell and others keep raising the issue. If it was on Jeremy's list as of February 2004, it may be moving toward the top as other issues are being resolved with upgraded server, use of credit cards for membership, etc.

 

And no, it's not rocket science, it's just one more aspect of geocaching that even he noted he'd like to see due to other cachers' past favorite recommendations leading him to some good caches. As the mods and approvers often say, just because you don't see a finished product when waiting for a cache to be approved or another idea for a site upgrade, etc., doesn't mean nothing is happening, as Jeremy's "workin' on it" motto also implies.

 

In the proposed format, it only focuses on favorite caches to avoid spiteful ratings, it allows veteran cachers to list a larger quantity of favorites, and it's not a rating system that anyone has to deal with if they don't want to, just like those who don't like micros can skip them.

Fine, but you missed the point. The "rocket science" comment was aimed at figuring out why you don't see a rating system, which is aimed at the comment that obviously Jeremy does have better things to do with his time.

[+Teach2Learn]

Sparky-Watts stated,

Fine, but you missed the point.  The "rocket science" comment was aimed at figuring out why you don't see a rating system, which is aimed at the comment that obviously Jeremy does have better things to do with his time.

 

Didn't miss it all, just used a different context for the words/phrase.

 

--edited to shorten quote box and for typo that may have caused confusion

Edited July 16, 2004 by Teach2Learn

[+Sparky-Watts]

I think you'll see it if experienced cachers like Markwell and others keep raising the issue. If it was on Jeremy's list as of February 2004, it may be moving toward the top as other issues are being resolved with upgraded server, use of credit cards for membership, etc.

 

And no, it's not rocket science, it's just one more aspect of geocaching that even he noted he'd like to see due to other cachers' past favorite recommendations leading him to some good caches. As the mods and approvers often say, just because you don't see a finished product when waiting for a cache to be approved or another idea for a site upgrade, etc., doesn't mean nothing is happening, as Jeremy's "workin' on it" motto also implies. 

 

In the proposed format, it only focuses on favorite caches to avoid spiteful ratings, it allows veteran cachers to list a larger quantity of favorites, and it's not a rating system that anyone has to deal with if they don't want to, just like those who don't like micros can skip them.

Fine, but you missed the point. The "rocket science" comment was aimed at figuring out why you don't see a rating system, which is aimed at the comment that obviously Jeremy does have better things to do with his time.

Didnt' miss it all, just used a different context for the word.

[+Teach2Learn]

(Sorry if my last statement was confusing--my fingers hit submit before my thoughts were finished.)

 

In other words, for me it's not "rocket science" to see that it could very well be on the drawing board even if Jeremy hasn't stated it. Markwell has taken another step with the idea and positive prodding and thinking (not whining) may be enough to help it become a reality. Even if it doesn't, I can enjoy caching with or without a "favorites" list. I just think it'd be a nice thing like Jeremy previously stated.

 

--edited for explanation

Edited July 17, 2004 by Teach2Learn

[+Cache Viking]

What another ranking request. As said by a famous cacher "I don't want to find caches that suck. I want to find caches that rock." How about a Rock rating system?

[+Teach2Learn]

  What another ranking request.    As said by a famous cacher "I don't want to find caches that suck. I want to find caches that rock."    How about a Rock rating system?   

No, this is not a "rankings request" in the traditional sense.

 

If you wish, read earlier comments in thread by Markwell to see his proposal, primarily concerning caches "that rock" as you stated and his link to Jeremy's earlier comments concerning that type of idea.

Edited July 17, 2004 by Teach2Learn

[RunsOnSumatra]

Why not allow ratings but use a weighing system that weighs ratings from cachers with more caches under their belt higher than cachers who are just starting out? That way, ratings from individuals who have seen more diverse caches will seep to the top of the weighed list.

 

I think a rating system would be wonderful for searching. The logs are helpful, but I can't really search based on positive log responses. :-)

[+Ex nihil]

I don't really want a rating system for every cache for many of the reasons given above but I really would like to see the 'golden caches'. Some caches are just so transcendently superior to the others that they must be visited whatever your personal tastes if only because they are shining examples of their type. In the Northern Territory, Australia we only have 31 caches in the entire State and I've known people to drive 600+kms just to get to one; I myself hired a 4WD out of Alice Springs just to collect a couple and took all day doing it - but will it be worth it? Most cache opportunities for me are brief work related visits to other States, but where to go in the 2 spare hours in Melbourne after that meeting?

I suggest that:

1. You get to nominate a cache as a Gold Cache once every 30 cache logs if you want to.

2. You cannot nominate your own caches.

3. Caches are marked as Gold Caches only for as long as the number of nominations for it exceed 20% of the total finds.

4. No cache can be a Gold Cache until it has at least five finds.

5. It is either a Gold Cache or it isn't, no algorithm more complicated than is Nominations/Total Finds>0.2? and is Total Finds >5?

 

This should result in about one Gold Cache for the entire Northern Territory assuming Territorians are dojng caches at least as good as anyone else, which wouldn't exactly be overdoing it but it might make that 600km 4WD pilgrimage to do the one way out in the desert somewhere a realistic proposition.

Edited November 1, 2004 by Ex nihil

[+Isonzo Karst]

A good indication of a "golden cache" already exists in the form of the number of people watching it. If there nearly as many watchers as there are Found it - you've got a special cache.

[+Ex nihil]

Isonzo has an interesting observation about the number of watchers and this is certainly worth noting and is an indication that something interesting is happening here. However, the example given in Florida, although this is clearly an ace cache, is partly a function of the population density. I have a cache at Top Red Centre but it is in the middle of the Northern Territory of Australia, size of Texas, population 280,000 and I don't think we actually have 12 active cachers in the entire state! We rely on a few backpackers for any kind of traffic at all. Our caches will never get the numbers. I have four watchers even so but I suspect it may be because of the Emergency Unit 911 travel bug that's there now.

Edited November 8, 2004 by Ex nihil