Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
TrailGators

Favorite Cache System

Recommended Posts

I had this idea that when you log a cache you also rate it on a scale of 1-10. Geocaching.com could keep a rating system that you could sort on to search for the highest rated caches in whatever area you are going to visit! The highest rated caches in each region could receive even some recognition or award from Geocaching.com!

 

I had this idea because I really enjoy doing certain caches. Some guys really go all out and deserve some recognition! So what do you think?

Share this post


Link to post

Well a lot of people had this idea. To make it short: All the geocachers out there have so different opinions on what is a good cache that this idea is useless.

 

Jeremy states something like that one day you can make a list of your top10 caches and on the cachepage it is shown how many cachers have this cache on their top10.

Share this post


Link to post
All the geocachers out there have so different opinions on what is a good cache that this idea is useless.

Trust me, if you get a large enough sample size this idea is not useless! The best caches will rise to the top! We all know what best is because we write about them in our local forums all the time!! :huh:

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

Just out of curiosity, how do you define best?

Personally, my favorite caches are ones that involve a walk in the woods and finding a box of otherwise worthless trinkets and toys. These would automatically rate high to me. A complicated puzzle cache, or a cleverly hidden micro in a small community park that has a high difficulty rating are ones that I won't even try to find anymore.

Edited by RichardMoore

Share this post


Link to post

Rating would be good, but not sure how accurate it could be. We'll all have different ideas about how much fun, what a challenge, etc. each one was. We kind of like the variety of doing the different kinds.

Share this post


Link to post
Just out of curiosity, how do you define best?

Personally, my favorite caches are ones that involve a walk in the woods and finding a box of otherwise worthless trinkets and toys. These would automatically rate high to me. A complicated puzzle cache, or a cleverly hidden micro in a small community park that has a high difficulty rating are ones that I won't even try to find anymore.

If you go read reviews on digital cameras on CNET it is useful to see the consensus rating before you buy one. You don't have to use the rating but it does provide some indication of the quality level! The cache rating idea would be the same concept. If 95/100 cachers don't enjoy finding a cache stuck in a bush in a blah area then that cache would get a lower preference rating. Now thinking about it some more, maybe it would be better to only show highly positive ratings so no feelings are hurt.

 

By the way, if you don't do the difficult puzzle caches than your opinion would be not included on those caches anyhow. The rating would only poll the people that have found the cache!

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy states something like that one day you can make a list of your top10 caches and on the cachepage it is shown how many cachers have this cache on their top10.

Ahhh, I like this idea a lot. Of course there are really good caches which have only had a few visits but I still think this idea would work fine.

MarcB :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

My suggestion from MANY moons ago (Apr of 2002) was to allow cachers a percentage (Top 10%) of their finds to be able to log as favorites. This would not slam any caches, just mark those you thought were the cream of the crop. If you've found less than 10 caches, you don't get to vote (you have only found a few, let's make it meaningful). 10-19 caches = 1 favorite; 20-29 caches found = 2 favorites, etc., etc. Someone finding 2,000 caches would be able to designate 200 favorites caches.

 

You can only list a cache as a favorite on one you've found, not one you own.

 

The cache page itself would only show that it's been marked as a favorite if a critical mass were to say so. For example, it would have to have a minimum of 4 people saying it's in their top 10%. That way caches with only 1 person saying it's in their Top 10% wouldn't show, and people wouldn't know if they got one vote, three votes or no votes.

 

In my vision of this idea, the list is not static, but completely dynamic. When a person goes into the "favorites" area, they can see the ones they've listed as favorites, and see how many they can still add (if they've got 43 found caches and only 2 listed as favorites, then it will say that they can add 2 more).

 

Ideally, the list would also disregard archived caches. Once a cache is archived, it would drop off of the favorites list for those cachers marking it - and therefore make an extra slot available.

 

End result:

*You can query caches that multiple people think is a good cache (not asking for a 1-10 rating, or how good, or why it's good - just that it's "good") - possibly as a feature in a PQ - which would make finding caches along a route MUCH more precise.

*People will not get their feelings in a snit if their cache isn't rated as a Top 10%. It could have been found by a lot of newbies that don't have many votes, or it may have 3 people that really liked it and it's just waiting for a fourth.

*You might even be able to see an individual cacher's Top 10% (similar to what I have on my profile).

 

But as many have said, this has been hashed over

Share this post


Link to post

I really like that idea! You could also do a version of that idea allowing each cacher to maintain his own Top 5 caches. It could be a part of his profile and viewable to others and Geocaching.com could compile the Top 5 of all cachers to show the Top 100 for each region! It would be interesting to see which caches a 1000 or 2000 find cacher would rate in his Top 5!

Share this post


Link to post

Very few have top ten list in thier profile. If a specific list were avaialbe (10 fields in a cacher's profile) then more would do this I am sure. To say "top 10%", then those with 1000 caches would have to maintain a list of 100. That would be tough to drop one out in favor of another. Even at only a top 10 (easier to maintain), there is the possibility that cachers will establish thier top 10, then drop out of geocaching. Thier list will keep tallying thier "vote" for an extended period of time. A cache can los it's appeal due to clear cutting trees in the area or urban sprawl or some other reason.

 

I am still a proponent of a 5 (or 10) point scale that says how much a cacher enjoyed the experience. At the same time I feel cachers should have a few caches under thier belt before they can start rating caches (but can go back and add thier opinions), and that the results should not be available until there were a significant amount of visitors. Perhaps only 5 or 10.

 

As far as "why" it's rated as a good cache, I really don't feel it matters. Whether it because of the SWAG, the area it's in, the container it's in, or the quality of the hide itself. The person who is looking for the most enjoyable caches will likely look it up and read the logs. The goal is to find a way to get a cache to be recocnized as being a very enjoyable cache by many of it's visitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Always somebody wanting to play "judge", eh?

You're totally missing the point!

Read Moose Mobs log, he understands exactly the point!

Share this post


Link to post
Always somebody wanting to play "judge", eh?

You're totally missing the point!

Read Moose Mobs log, he understands exactly the point!

And you are missing the point that its been discussed many times and never flew. Just because you bring it up again does not mean it now makes it a fantastic idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Always somebody wanting to play "judge", eh?

You're totally missing the point!

Read Moose Mobs log, he understands exactly the point!

And you are missing the point that its been discussed many times and never flew. Just because you bring it up again does not mean it now makes it a fantastic idea.

I never said it was a fantastic idea.

 

By the way is there some reason this section is called "Geocaching.com Web Site"? Maybe you should rename it: "Geocaching.com Web Site: But don't dare bring up any ideas that SOME of us have seen before!"

 

Look there will always be newcomers that haven't seen all the topics that have been discussed. So please try making the next newcomer feel a bit more welcome!

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
If you go read reviews on digital cameras on CNET it is useful to see the consensus rating before you buy one. You don't have to use the rating but it does provide some indication of the quality level! The cache rating idea would be the same concept. If 95/100 cachers don't enjoy finding a cache stuck in a bush in a blah area then that cache would get a lower preference rating.

Perhaps it would be better if you compared it to rating new cars. You wouldn't rate a minivan in the same class as a Ferrari, a Wrangler, a full sized pickup, a luxury car, etc. In order for the rating system to be fair it would have to be broken down by cache types.

You would also have to include those who logged DNFs as well as those who found the cache in the rating. (The three cachers who found it may rate it high, I doubt that the twenty who didn't find it would).

Share this post


Link to post
Look there will always be newcomers that haven't seen all the topics that have been discussed. So please try making the next newcomer feel a bit more welcome!

I think I made it quite clear that this has been discussed before with a more or less acceptable solution. If you insist on this topic than we tell that it's not worth to talk about it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
...and never flew.

I think there has never been a consensus that rating caches is a bad idea, nor would there ever likely be.

 

I'm not sure off the top of my head what Jeremy thinks of the idea of the top 10% or even the 1-5 rating scheme. I do know there have been ideas he thought where good, but have "never flew" so that's not an indicator.

 

I've long been an advocate of some form of Top X% scheme, possibly even a multi-tiered one.

 

Thing is, everything moves slow on the site including getting excellent ideas implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
...and never flew.

I think there has never been a consensus that rating caches is a bad idea, nor would there ever likely be.

 

I'm not sure off the top of my head what Jeremy thinks of the idea of the top 10% or even the 1-5 rating scheme. I do know there have been ideas he thought where good, but have "never flew" so that's not an indicator.

 

I've long been an advocate of some form of Top X% scheme, possibly even a multi-tiered one.

 

Thing is, everything moves slow on the site including getting excellent ideas implemented.

It is just a forum so I have no expectations. If something happens great and if nothing does then whatever. I'm still gonna cache! ;)

 

To me it is nice to know which restaurants are the best to eat at when you travel. In the same way I simply thought it would be nice to know which caches are worth a visit!

 

By the way, I think we kind of agreed above (in between the harrassment <_< ) it would be better to only highlight the top rated caches in each area so no feelings are hurt. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I agree completely with you on this issue, TG and C-R. As Markwell suggested and Jeremy long ago stated, listing top caches is a possibility (paraphrase). Others may disagree and certainly have the forum privilege to do so, but this horse isn't dead even if they would like to have it buried. Actually, the more often the issue is respectfully resurrected, the more attention it might receive.

Share this post


Link to post

Here I go, back on the soap box :blink:

 

So, as much as I would enjoy being able to rate caches, I have to concede that a cache would end up with a rating as "average" (or worse) can demoralize a new cacher. This is a great hobby, I would hate to lose players because of this. After all, we are looking at the far upper crust, not to belittle anyone not up there with a gold star.

 

Perhaps the score could be hidden if it's not averaged 4 out of 5 or higher? (or 8 out of 10). If any of my cache placements were lame (score 1.5 of 5), I would want to know. It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit. It may have when I placed my first couple caches.

 

Perhaps the top ten would be better, but this still leaves a question... how much influence does a top 10 cache list have from someone who has only found 11 caches? Or a person who has found 1000?

 

I would think minimum 50 or 100 finds and 1 month of membership would be good place to start that debate when it comes up. And their own caches don't count. Another question... does the cache need to be on more than one account's top ten? Should it be Members only? Lot's of stuff for Jeremy and TPTB to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
how much influence does a top 10 cache list have from someone who has only found 11 caches? Or a person who has found 1000?

Cacher A has found 1000 caches in the LA area. He travels to DC on business. He checks the top rated caches list for DC and hits a couple of the best caches in the area.

 

Cacher B has found 10 caches in the KC area. He travels to Boston on business. He checks the top rated caches list for Boston and hits a couple of the best caches in the area.

 

It doesn't matter how many caches that someone has found!

 

Are you starting to see the value-add?

Share this post


Link to post
how much influence does a top 10 cache list have from someone who has only found 11 caches?  Or a person who has found 1000?

Cacher A has found 1000 caches in the LA area. He travels to DC on business. He checks the top rated caches list for DC and hits a couple of the best caches in the area.

 

Cacher B has found 10 caches in the KC area. He travels to Boston on business. He checks the top rated caches list for Boston and hits a couple of the best caches in the area.

 

It doesn't matter how many caches that someone has found!

 

Are you starting to see the value-add?

Cacher B found only 10 caches in KC. All 10 are on his top ten list. This includes the busted tupperware container in a drainage ditch, water logged, and a homeless person living nearby. Because it is on his top ten, Cacher A is visiting from DC and thinks they are looking for a great cache.

 

The question is... how many "top ten" lists would a cache need to be on before it would show up in my PQ when am planning on a visit to the area?

Edited by Moose Mob

Share this post


Link to post

This should solve that problem: Cachers would only get to pick one favorite cache for every 100 they find! Then you tally the votes for each area and post the top 5-10.

Share this post


Link to post

That 1% sounds good. Even 2%. Every 50 caches, you get to add another favorite.

 

The next question... Top 5-10 for where? a block? a mile? a city? a zip code?

 

I'm still thinking that if a cache is on the "Favorite Caches" list for 5 different cachers, I want to look at it. There could be 50 in LA, or 1 in Elko Nevada. If I know where I am going to be staying, or what routes I will be taking, I can hone in on which caches I am going to do.

Edited by Moose Mob

Share this post


Link to post
The next question... Top 5-10 for where? a block? a mile? a city? a zip code?

You could list them by postal code, state and country since those areas are already in the database. 1/50 would be fine too! I just thought it would be better to get the top 1-2% of what everybody feels are the best caches they have done. This also provides an incentive for those highly spirited (competitive) cachers to come up with some super cache ideas, which would steer the sport in the direction of quality and not quantity!

Share this post


Link to post
The next question... Top 5-10 for where?  a block? a mile? a city? a zip code?

You could list them by postal code, state and country since those areas are already in the database.

I don't believe that was his question.

 

I take that to mean the top 10 within 100 miles of their house or the top 10 they've ever done or the top 10 in their state or what.

 

Personally, I'm in favor of a top list, too. I think that we as human beings have too many biasses to make any other sort of ratings system work. You don't like cacher x? Then their cache probably sucks by default. Etc...

 

The other people that said this are right... Our opinions on what makes a good cache vary too much. If we were doing a ratings system, we'd have to have micros be rated separately, small caches rated separately, etc, which would just create a ton of problems.

There are too many other issues with doing that even. So you do it separately because, lets face it, A Little Stray Cache isn't even remotely in the same category as Quantum Leap would be, but then, say the top however many show in each category, but in the small cache category, Tiptoe Through The Tulips only has four votes, but it makes it because there aren't that many small caches rated. You're then listing mediocre caches in the best of lists because they're the only ones rated.

 

How about limiting it to something like 10 caches if you've found 100-500, and 25 for every 1000 you've found? If you find 10,000 you can list as many as you'd like. For most of us, that wouldn't be too massive a list for us to maintain. (Okay, CCCooper might have trouble with it, but most of us won't.)

Share this post


Link to post
How about limiting it to something like 10 caches if you've found 100-500, and 25 for every 1000 you've found?

That's exactly what we said above! You get one pick one favorite for every 50 or 100 caches that you find.

 

By the way when I think back on what I've found already picking out 3-6 favorites would be very easy for me to do. Whether it's a micro or an ammo box would have almost no bearing on my decision. I'm looking at sheer enjoyment factor. The fun to me is in the adventure or "wow" factor!!

Share this post


Link to post

My .02...

 

I too think some sort of rating system would be very useful. And at first I too thought most any system devised would end up waxing mediocre. But a top 10 rating system might just work. But... only if you set up the numbers right.

 

i.e. yes, high standards (1 in 100 found) are ideal, but... think about the numbers if that were the case. First of all in some areas there aren't all that many folks with 100+ finds and precious few caches. Regardless, even in places where you have lots of caches and thus plenty of folks over 100, or 500, or even 1000 - what are the chances that each of those folks in say... even in an area the size of the entire state of WA - what are the chances that any (much less several) caches would show up more than once or twice on anybody's top 10 list?

 

Hard to explain, and I might well be way off base here, but just seems to me that what you'd want is a system that somehow generates only caches that show up on at least... a handful of individual folks' top 10 list.

 

Thus... metheenks maybe best to lower the standard somewhat. Perhaps each cacher gets to choose 1 favorite in 50 - that might work. Or even 1 in 20... At least it would likely generate a goodly list of repeat favorites and thus - better than no system at all.

 

Hard to say, dunno the stats for this area, much less locales with way few caches... Don't want the standard too low, but low enough to generate clusters of favorite caches that appear at least a few times on many top 10 lists...

 

or... maybe I'm just over-thinking this (been known to happen...) :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Cool. I think we are all on the same page here. It would be great to have a way to let others know that these are great caches. We would like to know what other folks think also (especialy when visiting other towns).

 

Summarizing (mostly for my own sake here)

- Using the "WOW factor" cache list approach sounds great.

- The more caches a person/team does, the more they can have on thier "WOW cache" list.

- I have mixed feeleings about members only voting, although it would keep most sock puppets out of the loop for getting a cache on the list.

- A cache should be on more than one "WOW list".

Share this post


Link to post
How about limiting it to something like 10 caches if you've found 100-500, and 25 for every 1000 you've found?

That's exactly what we said above! You get one pick one favorite for every 50 or 100 caches that you find.

 

By the way when I think back on what I've found already picking out 3-6 favorites would be very easy for me to do. Whether it's a micro or an ammo box would have almost no bearing on my decision. I'm looking at sheer enjoyment factor. The fun to me is in the adventure or "wow" factor!!

You must have learned math somewhere other than where I did. 1 cache per 100 is 10 for 1000 finds, not 25.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,

 

I've stayed out of this for a while, but actually feel that I have some lucid thoughts about the thread now.

 

I think the term being used may stand in the way of this happening. "Rating" a cache sounds like we are going to add another category like terrain and difficulty.

 

How about if cachers who have found a large number (100, 300, 500, 1000, 2000, etc.) get to name five caches they have visited as "Great Caches", and TPTB put a star someplace towards the top of the cache listing of all caches that have been given 5 or more "Great Caches" recognition by experienced cachers.

 

You could rate another 5 "Great Caches" each time you reach another "finds" milestone. I would be very tempted to drive an extra hour out of my way to visit a cache that a bunch of the most experienced caches in the Northeast thought was one of the "Great Caches".

 

nfa-jamie

Share this post


Link to post
Hi,

 

I've stayed out of this for a while, but actually feel that I have some lucid thoughts about the thread now.

 

I think the term being used may stand in the way of this happening.  "Rating" a cache sounds like we are going to add another category like terrain and difficulty. 

 

How about if cachers who have found a large number (100, 300, 500, 1000, 2000, etc.) get to name five caches they have visited as "Great Caches", and TPTB put a star someplace towards the top of the cache listing of all caches that have been given 5 or more "Great Caches" recognition by experienced cachers.

 

You could rate another 5 "Great Caches" each time you reach another "finds" milestone.  I would be very tempted to drive an extra hour out of my way to visit a cache that a bunch of the most experienced caches in the Northeast thought was one of the "Great Caches".

 

nfa-jamie

That's exactly it NFA! :blink:

 

So when you go look at the map of nearest caches of an area that you are going to visit, you could simply highlight "Only show Favorite caches" and view the local cachers favorite ones in that area!

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
... and TPTB put a star someplace towards the top of the cache listing ....

Hmmm... Gold Star Caches.... I believe that's been said before.

Share this post


Link to post

this is possibly the first rating idea that doesn't give me the heebie-jeebies.

 

i wouldn't mind giving my "short list", and i wouldn't mind seeing which caches are on a lot of "short list"s.

 

what about caches in my area, though? if my short list includes caches that are far away from my home area, does that mean some of my local caches will be rated more poorly?

 

and what about the cacher whose caches i don't go to? some people like 'em a lot. they don't appear on any list of mine, which might make other nearby caches come up rated higher.

Share this post


Link to post
I believe that's been said before.

If I had a nickel everytime somebody in these forums said "that's been said before" I'd be a millionaire! :(

 

C'mon guys lighten up! :(

Share this post


Link to post
I believe that's been said before.

If I had a nickel everytime somebody in these forums said "that's been said before" I'd be a millionaire! :(

 

C'mon guys lighten up! :(

My apologies for not being clear. I meant it in a good way. I agree with having big gold stars on a cache page. Perhaps 1 star for every 5 or 10 occurances of that cache in a "WOW Cache" list. That way, a person could filter for even higher rated caches in a cache dense area.

Share this post


Link to post
what about caches in my area, though? if my short list includes caches that are far away from my home area, does that mean some of my local caches will be rated more poorly?

There would be no "bad" rating. This was intended to allow people to vote for their favorite 1-2% of caches wherever they may be. I was assuming that local cachers would rate some of the local caches as favorites so all areas would have a short list of favorite caches! However, if some areas are lacking it would open the door to creativity and the opportunity for a cacher to create a favorite cache in his area!

Share this post


Link to post
My apologies for not being clear. I meant it in a good way. I agree with having big gold stars on a cache page. Perhaps 1 star for every 5 or 10 occurances of that cache in a "WOW Cache" list. That way, a person could filter for even higher rated caches in a cache dense area.

Sorry back! After hearing it the bad way most of the time, I guess it was a bit of a sore spot with me. Just trying to keep the fun on track! :(

Share this post


Link to post

There is no such thing as "rated poorly". Like NFA said, the term "rating" should be changed. Let's just say those caches aren't on very many people's favorites list. It doesn't mean they are bad. (no more than a school grade of B means a person is stupid). In a twon like that, it would not be hard to get a cache that's easy to get to with a great view. A clever hide. A cool container. Cash offerings. There are ways to get local caches on enough "Favorites" lists to get it a gold star.

Share this post


Link to post
My apologies for not being clear. I meant it in a good way.  I agree with having big gold stars on a cache page.  Perhaps 1 star for every 5 or 10 occurances of that cache in a "WOW Cache" list.  That way, a person could filter for even higher rated caches in a cache dense area.

Sorry back! After hearing it the bad way most of the time, I guess it was a bit of a sore spot with me. Just trying to keep the fun on track! :(

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Does anyone know can I change the title of this topic from "Cache Rating System" to "Favorite Cache System"? Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that no cache would be insulted is why I like the system I posted about earlier. It allows caches to be listed if they're thought to be exceptional by at least X cachers. Other caches might be good, mediocre, bad, or just plain awful - no one would know. The just would all be lumped together as "not the cream of the crop."

 

But if I can do a PQ of an area (100 miles of a spot that I'm going to) and have it show me only the "Gold Star Caches" - then I've got a list of good caches in the area. It tells me quickly which ones I'd like to investigate hitting before I get there.

 

For non-pocket queries, I came up with some graphical representations a while ago -

Something like this could appear on the cache page (forgive the spelling error)

1d5a93b3-4698-4400-8c7c-9222a63d56c0.jpg

 

...and something like this could be on the search results

7c1cb782-3cc0-4b32-9c7c-4910455c5819.jpg

 

 

The heart of the problem is that there are too many caches out there - and many are incredibly lame. In the Chicagoland area, we have about 1,100 caches. Even my own home in the far SW suburbs has 180 caches within 10 miles of my house. I can't read through all the logs and find out which are the best. Asking regional forums is iffy at best, as you'll get maybe one or two responses.

 

Adding something like this would really help this site be useful to travelers and newcomers.

Share this post


Link to post
1d5a93b3-4698-4400-8c7c-9222a63d56c0.jpg

 

In the Chicagoland area, we have about 1,100 caches. Even my own home in the far SW suburbs has 180 caches within 10 miles of my house. I can't read through all the logs and find out which are the best. Asking regional forums is iffy at best, as you'll get maybe one or two responses.

 

Adding something like this would really help this site be useful to travelers and newcomers.

I really like that icon!

 

There are over 4000 caches within a 100 miles of where I live! I could imagine a visitor trying to wade through all those!

 

When I'm on vacation I'd love to be able to visit the primo caches in the area because geocahcing had a feature like this!

Share this post


Link to post

I think a simple box that says "Would you recommend this cache to others? Y/N" on the log your cache page would work. Then the page could say something like:

 

"14 of 17 finders recommend this cache"

Share this post


Link to post
I think a simple box that says "Would you recommend this cache to others? Y/N" on the log your cache page would work. Then the page could say something like:

 

"14 of 17 finders recommend this cache"

Workable idea but I'm a little leery that too many caches would be recommended. We were trying to only allow people to pick one favorite for every 50 or 100 caches they find to make sure they put some thought into selecting a really good one! The other approach would even allow the website to display each cachers favorite caches on their profile page!

 

By the way, Brian, if I made a post every 5 minutes it would take me over 35 days to post as many posts as you have! :(

Share this post


Link to post

No disrepect intended, but.... I would recommend 99.99% of the caches that I have found. It would also lead to insults such as "1 of 47" cachers recommend this cache.

 

I would think that we are looking for Valedictorian eligible caches.

Share this post


Link to post
1d5a93b3-4698-4400-8c7c-9222a63d56c0.jpg

 

...and something like this could be on the search results

7c1cb782-3cc0-4b32-9c7c-4910455c5819.jpg

 

 

Purty!!!! Any cacher would be proud to have that appear on thier cache page!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...