+Marcie/Eric Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 (edited) Why not just copy what Terracaching.com has done? ^ puke... I see one problem with this: Someone who hates a cache will always log a low number (0/1), or negative review. A positive caching experience may not always yield a 10 or positive review. Point is: when someone is unhappy, they usually take all avenues, sometimes at an extreme, to discourage other peoples use or possible disappointment. Someone who comes away with a positive experience may not, usually rarely indicate how great it was, or as enthusiatically. This usually ends up with a lopside of negative reports. I must agree that the logs should do this for you. A averaged rating system may be nice. But I think it's overkill. Just my inexperienced 2cents. Edited May 17, 2005 by Marcie/Eric Link to comment
+norpan Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I was redirected here from another thread. How hard would it be to implement and try out a very simple rating system like this: When entering a found log, you are asked to fill in this radio button: Was this cache worth the visit? [ ] Well worth the visit [ ] Worth the visit [ ] Not worth the visit or something like that. I'm not looking for a good rating system, I'm just looking for something that enables you to filter out the caches most likely to be of good quality when deciding among the hundreds of potential caches you can go visit. Because if a cache on average has ten logs and I have a hundred potential candidates that means reading through a thousand logs. THat means that by the time I'm finished I don't have any time to go out searching for them. Then the cache listing could just give +1 for well worth the visit and -1 for not worth the visit, and I could choose to filter by that score. Of course there are more elaborate rating systems, like on terracaching where the rating system seems to be a very big part of the sport. But this is not what I'm looking for. I don't think the average geocacher can be trusted to make that refined a judgement. But chosing among these three should be possible. Link to comment
+Glenn Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 How would a system like you describe help you deside which caches to find and which not to find? You won't know why someone clicked on Well worth the visit or Not worth the visit. I don't read all the logs word for word on caches that I plan on visiting. I skim through the logs and look for key words. It takes a lot less time and you get the same information. Link to comment
+Miragee Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I was redirected here from another thread. How hard would it be to implement and try out a very simple rating system like this: When entering a found log, you are asked to fill in this radio button: Was this cache worth the visit? [ ] Well worth the visit [ ] Worth the visit [ ] Not worth the visit or something like that. I'm not looking for a good rating system, I'm just looking for something that enables you to filter out the caches most likely to be of good quality when deciding among the hundreds of potential caches you can go visit. Because if a cache on average has ten logs and I have a hundred potential candidates that means reading through a thousand logs. THat means that by the time I'm finished I don't have any time to go out searching for them. Then the cache listing could just give +1 for well worth the visit and -1 for not worth the visit, and I could choose to filter by that score. Of course there are more elaborate rating systems, like on terracaching where the rating system seems to be a very big part of the sport. But this is not what I'm looking for. I don't think the average geocacher can be trusted to make that refined a judgement. But chosing among these three should be possible. I'm still new at this, but my feeling is any cache I ultimately find is worth the visit. Link to comment
+norpan Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 How would a system like you describe help you deside which caches to find and which not to find? You won't know why someone clicked on Well worth the visit or Not worth the visit. I don't read all the logs word for word on caches that I plan on visiting. I skim through the logs and look for key words. It takes a lot less time and you get the same information. It would only be a rough estimate of course. When I've filtered out suitable caches I can read the logs for them. I don't know why someone clicked on well worth the visit, but I know more than nothing. Link to comment
+jimmyreno Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Why not just copy what Terracaching.com has done? ^ puke... I see one problem with this: Someone who hates a cache will always log a low number (0/1), or negative review. A positive caching experience may not always yield a 10 or positive review. Point is: when someone is unhappy, they usually take all avenues, sometimes at an extreme, to discourage other peoples use or possible disappointment. Someone who comes away with a positive experience may not, usually rarely indicate how great it was, or as enthusiatically. This usually ends up with a lopside of negative reports. I must agree that the logs should do this for you. A averaged rating system may be nice. But I think it's overkill. Just my inexperienced 2cents. Point is, your point is illogical. If someone hates a cache there is probably a good reason for it, and others probably feel the same way. Would anyone hate a great cache? Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 I can tell that none of you guys read the thread. Rather than bantering about something that isn't going to happen why don't you comment on what Groundspeak will most likely do with this idea? The plan was to simply let each cacher create his own favorites list. Then Groundspeak could combine those lists to create a consensus favorites list. Then if you ever travel to another part of the country or the world you can run a PQ of that area to quickly identify those exceptional caches! Link to comment
+Hoppingcrow Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Letting users rate caches is too subjective. The newbie who can't find an ammo can in a hollow stump is going to say it was a "hard one." The old hand who went right to the phony branch 35' up a pine tree is going to say, "Gee, this one was easy." Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 19, 2005 Author Share Posted May 19, 2005 Letting users rate caches is too subjective. The newbie who can't find an ammo can in a hollow stump is going to say it was a "hard one." The old hand who went right to the phony branch 35' up a pine tree is going to say, "Gee, this one was easy." The plan NOW is not to rate the caches but to simply make a favorites list and yes this list is subjective! It would be just like recommending a wine or a restaurant. But the point is that out of all the caches that you've found which ones are special to you. Which caches would you tell an out-of-towner that he should definitely visit? I have already made a favorites list on my profile page because there are some caches that are really cool! Link to comment
Jeremy Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Would anyone hate a great cache? Some would out of spite or dislike of a geocacher. Others would create sock puppet accounts to rank up their listings. Link to comment
Keystone Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The plan NOW is not to rate the caches but to simply make a favorites list and yes this list is subjective! It would be just like recommending a wine or a restaurant. But the point is that out of all the caches that you've found which ones are special to you. Which caches would you tell an out-of-towner that he should definitely visit? I have already made a favorites list on my profile page because there are some caches that are really cool! I would like to thank TrailGators for reminding everyone of the current focus concerning cache ratings, and for being flexible throughout the course of this long thread. For a more detailed summary of the proposed solution, please see Markwell's excellent summary post a little ways back in the thread. Link to comment
+jimmyreno Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Would anyone hate a great cache? Some would out of spite or dislike of a geocacher. Others would create sock puppet accounts to rank up their listings. That sort of thing happens a little at a Photography site, but people quickly learn who the cheaters are. In the short time I've been caching, I've learned who in my area place quality caches and who place dogs. Now I just need to learn the same when I go on a road trip. With the help of the local people I could go for the best ones. Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Something always bothers me when people try to get a "cache rating" system, with the finders rating the cache. The problem!!!! It appears to me that there's a bit of arrogance involved. Can those that want to rate a cache speak for all? Is their opinion of what makes a good or bad cache better than anybody elses? Is the opinion of the person rating more valid than the person hiding? Here's what it sounds like to me. "I know what a good cache should be like, you don't, na na na na na. And you cache is no good". Hmmmmmmm..... Kindergarten playgound stuff, eh? Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 20, 2005 Author Share Posted May 20, 2005 (edited) Something always bothers me when people try to get a "cache rating" system, with the finders rating the cache. The problem!!!! It appears to me that there's a bit of arrogance involved. Can those that want to rate a cache speak for all? Is their opinion of what makes a good or bad cache better than anybody elses? Is the opinion of the person rating more valid than the person hiding? Here's what it sounds like to me. "I know what a good cache should be like, you don't, na na na na na. And you cache is no good". Hmmmmmmm..... Kindergarten playgound stuff, eh? I guess some people can't even expend the energy to read the last 3-5 previous postings.... I guess the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies to thought! So even thought is constantly drifting towards randomness. I wish I had a nickel for everytime somebody has not read the forum to educate themselves and instead has rehashed the now EXTINCT "Rating" idea! Edited May 20, 2005 by TrailGators Link to comment
Jeremy Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 It appears to me that there's a bit of arrogance involved. Heh. I never thought about it that way. "Hey Joe. Have you ever been to the Icon Grill? They have the best macaroni and cheese I have ever had!" "Why Jeremy you arrogant jerk. How do you know I won't hate their macaroni?" "What? Um... I just..." "Forget it Jeremy. Take your ego elsewhere. I have some work to do." Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 It appears to me that there's a bit of arrogance involved. Heh. I never thought about it that way. "Hey Joe. Have you ever been to the Icon Grill? They have the best macaroni and cheese I have ever had!" "Why Jeremy you arrogant jerk. How do you know I won't hate their macaroni?" "What? Um... I just..." "Forget it Jeremy. Take your ego elsewhere. I have some work to do." Ahhhh, Geeeee, I guess it's the same thing to be talking to a small group about a restaurant and blasting somebody over the internet and to their face. "Why Jeremy you arrogant jerk. Could this be a true statement? Link to comment
+Kealia Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 It would seem that sarcasm is lost on some. Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 It would seem that sarcasm is lost on some. Could be. But then again, it's way to railroad a point you don't want to acknowledge as possibly vaid. Particularly true for the arrogrant. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 21, 2005 Author Share Posted May 21, 2005 Ahhhh, Geeeee, I guess it's the same thing to be talking to a small group about a restaurant and blasting somebody over the internet and to their face. Look B&A you started all this with your ignorant remarks. The truth is that Jeremy's retort was right on the mark! There is absolutely nothing arrogant about wanting to share your favorite caches with other cachers! Link to comment
+Geovius Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 (edited) You are correct it is not arrogant, but can't you people understand that everybody has right to his/her opinion. So chill out! Edited May 21, 2005 by TeamMH Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 21, 2005 Author Share Posted May 21, 2005 You are correct it is not arrogant, but can't you people understand that everybody has right to his/her opinion. So chill out! Hey Dude, I'm chilled! Your own favorites list IS your own opinion! Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 #1.... The OP of this topic is "cache rating system", NOT favorite lists. #2.... Your favorite list is entirely different thing than a public rating system as long as it does not include least favorite. #3.... Any attempt to by you (collective you) to publicly rate somebody else's cache is a bit arrogant. You're all assuming that YOUR caches would get a high rating, after all YOU know what a good cache is. Listen to yourselves, that's what many of you sound like. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 #1.... The OP of this topic is "cache rating system", NOT favorite lists. #2.... Your favorite list is entirely different thing than a public rating system as long as it does not include least favorite. #3.... Any attempt to by you (collective you) to publicly rate somebody else's cache is a bit arrogant. You're all assuming that YOUR caches would get a high rating, after all YOU know what a good cache is. Listen to yourselves, that's what many of you sound like. 1) I can't change the name of the topic. Trust me I wish I could because of people like you. 2) Have you actually read the thread and not formed an opinion based on only the title of the thread? Link to comment
+norpan Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 #3.... Any attempt to by you (collective you) to publicly rate somebody else's cache is a bit arrogant. You're all assuming that YOUR caches would get a high rating, after all YOU know what a good cache is. Listen to yourselves, that's what many of you sound like. So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing and we should all assume that everyone has equal skill in determining what a good cache is and that everyone, even total beginners, exercise that skill when placing a cache? I'm arrogantly assuming that my caches would get an above average rating, mostly because I will go to some trouble finding good spots, getting good containers etc. This is something that definitely can't be said of all the caches out there. That's also why I have only hidden three caches. But my assumptions may very well be wrong, and my caches will get a bad rating. So what. If they are bad, they deserve it. Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 #1.... The OP of this topic is "cache rating system", NOT favorite lists. #2.... Your favorite list is entirely different thing than a public rating system as long as it does not include least favorite. #3.... Any attempt to by you (collective you) to publicly rate somebody else's cache is a bit arrogant. You're all assuming that YOUR caches would get a high rating, after all YOU know what a good cache is. Listen to yourselves, that's what many of you sound like. 1) I can't change the name of the topic. Trust me I wish I could because of people like you. 2) Have you actually read the thread and not formed an opinion based on only the title of the thread? Since you can't change the name of topic, maybe a new topic is in order. Link to comment
+Byron & Anne Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 #3.... Any attempt to by you (collective you) to publicly rate somebody else's cache is a bit arrogant. You're all assuming that YOUR caches would get a high rating, after all YOU know what a good cache is. Listen to yourselves, that's what many of you sound like. So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing and we should all assume that everyone has equal skill in determining what a good cache is and that everyone, even total beginners, exercise that skill when placing a cache? I'm arrogantly assuming that my caches would get an above average rating, mostly because I will go to some trouble finding good spots, getting good containers etc. This is something that definitely can't be said of all the caches out there. That's also why I have only hidden three caches. But my assumptions may very well be wrong, and my caches will get a bad rating. So what. If they are bad, they deserve it. Ahhhh,,,, I see your vast experience and years of geocaching gives you the right determine what every cache should be like.... I bow to your superior experience and knowledge... Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 #3.... Any attempt to by you (collective you) to publicly rate somebody else's cache is a bit arrogant. You're all assuming that YOUR caches would get a high rating, after all YOU know what a good cache is. Listen to yourselves, that's what many of you sound like. So what you are saying is that experience is worth nothing and we should all assume that everyone has equal skill in determining what a good cache is and that everyone, even total beginners, exercise that skill when placing a cache? I'm arrogantly assuming that my caches would get an above average rating, mostly because I will go to some trouble finding good spots, getting good containers etc. This is something that definitely can't be said of all the caches out there. That's also why I have only hidden three caches. But my assumptions may very well be wrong, and my caches will get a bad rating. So what. If they are bad, they deserve it. Ahhhh,,,, I see your vast experience and years of geocaching gives you the right determine what every cache should be like.... I bow to your superior experience and knowledge... You still aren't getting it! If you poll all the "opinions" (everyone's favorites lists) then you would get a concensus "opinion". Chances are very high that those caches would be exceptional and worth putting on your watchlist if you happened to visit that part of the country! Also feel free to bow if you want to! Link to comment
Jeremy Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 (edited) "Why Jeremy you arrogant jerk. Could this be a true statement? Most definitely. But that was not relevant with my point. A favorite cache of mine is a way to say to someone else "you should check this out." There's no negative ratings involved and folks can get an idea about the special caches. It's called positive reinforcement. It reminds me of a recent news piece about teachers having to switch from red ink to something less "judgemental." My the delicate egos of the 21st century, and this concept doesn't have any negative ratings! Edited May 23, 2005 by Jeremy Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 My the delicate egos of the 21st century You hit the nail on the head with that one! I think some people's skin these days is measured in sub-microns! Oops, sorry... was that too judgmental Link to comment
+Glenn Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Something always bothers me when people try to get a "cache rating" system, with the finders rating the cache. The problem!!!! It appears to me that there's a bit of arrogance involved. Can those that want to rate a cache speak for all? Is their opinion of what makes a good or bad cache better than anybody elses? Is the opinion of the person rating more valid than the person hiding? Here's what it sounds like to me. "I know what a good cache should be like, you don't, na na na na na. And you cache is no good". Hmmmmmmm..... Kindergarten playgound stuff, eh? I guess some people can't even expend the energy to read the last 3-5 previous postings.... I guess the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies to thought! So even thought is constantly drifting towards randomness. I wish I had a nickel for everytime somebody has not read the forum to educate themselves and instead has rehashed the now EXTINCT "Rating" idea! There is no need to resort to insults. Just close this topic and start a new one. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 Hmmmmmmm..... Kindergarten playgound stuff, eh? There is no need to resort to insults. You are right about no need for insults. But let's just move on...... Link to comment
+norpan Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Ahhhh,,,, I see your vast experience and years of geocaching gives you the right determine what every cache should be like.... I bow to your superior experience and knowledge... Now I do know that you either just don't get it or are in fact trolling. Why is it so bad to let people voice their opinion by voting? If you don't think people can by concensus decide what is a good cache and what is a bad cache, then you are in fact saying that you think that the concept of a good cache does not exist. Or at least that it's impossible to objectively tell a well placed cache from a mass-produced unimaginative piece of litter. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) Ahhhh,,,, I see your vast experience and years of geocaching gives you the right determine what every cache should be like.... I bow to your superior experience and knowledge... It's good to know that B&A have never been so arrogant as to recommend a certain cache or caches to a friend or new geocacher. For that matter I guess they have never recommended geocaching to anyone, or a movie or a restaurant or a piece of equipment. I guess they have never made a recommendation of any type, as it would be arrogant of them to assume that because they a good experience with something, that others would too. But wait, they have. Here they are recommending software. Here they are recommending swag items. Here they are recommending a hiking staff. The umittigated arrogance of them to assume what they enjoy would be suitable for others. Next thing you know they'll be recommending caches. -Mopar (I'm just borrowing BrianSnat's account) Edited May 24, 2005 by briansnat Link to comment
+as77 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I suggest that there be two scores: one for the quality of the hide and one for the environment. Both could go from 1 to 5. Examples: Hide: film canister behind a trashcan: 1 unique, disguised container (e.g. fake stone, etc.): 5 Environment: Walmart parking lot: 1 Niagara Falls: 5 Some people prefer good, original hides and don't care too much where the cache is, while other people could care less about the hide but they want to see interesting places. With this rating system, both types can choose the best caches according to their preferences. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) I suggest that there be two scores: one for the quality of the hide and one for the environment. Both could go from 1 to 5. Examples: Hide: film canister behind a trashcan: 1 unique, disguised container (e.g. fake stone, etc.): 5 Environment: Walmart parking lot: 1 Niagara Falls: 5 Some people prefer good, original hides and don't care too much where the cache is, while other people could care less about the hide but they want to see interesting places. With this rating system, both types can choose the best caches according to their preferences. The idea has evolved from the start of this thread to basically this: 1) Each cacher maintains their own favorites list. This list could be made to be viewable to other cachers or hidden. 2) Groundspeak would gather everyone's favorites list and compile a concensus favorites list that anyone could use as criteria in a PQ (ie. return only favorites). The tricky part is coming up with criteria to make the concensus favorite's list. I like Markwell's ideas but wonder how X would be determined. Any ideas on this? Edited May 24, 2005 by TrailGators Link to comment
Keystone Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 At the topic originator's request, I've edited the topic title to be more descriptive of the idea on the table. Link to comment
+as77 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 My idea is better because it actually looks into why people like or dislike a cache. I think the "principal components" of whether people like a cache are the hide and the environment. These are pretty much orthogonal to each other. If you lump the two together and just use favorites then you will have no idea why a cache is on the favorites list of many people. Maybe those people have different preferences than you. Let's say you like great outdoor environments and simple hides, and then you see that a deviously hidden micro in a supermarket parking lot is one of the top favorite caches in your area. Still, you will hate it. On the other hand, if you have the ability to look for caches where the environment is rated high, that will provide you with caches you will like. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 At the topic originator's request, I've edited the topic title to be more descriptive of the idea on the table. Thanks Keystone Approver!! Those that are curious about how the original ratings idea evolved into a more palettable favorites idea should read through the entire thread! Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) My idea is better because it actually looks into why people like or dislike a cache. I think the "principal components" of whether people like a cache are the hide and the environment. These are pretty much orthogonal to each other. If you lump the two together and just use favorites then you will have no idea why a cache is on the favorites list of many people. Maybe those people have different preferences than you. Let's say you like great outdoor environments and simple hides, and then you see that a deviously hidden micro in a supermarket parking lot is one of the top favorite caches in your area. Still, you will hate it. On the other hand, if you have the ability to look for caches where the environment is rated high, that will provide you with caches you will like. All the attributes for favorites caches will still be there. So you can look for Favorites that involve hiking with terrain ratings of 3 or more. You can look for favorties that are drive-bys. You can look for favorite puzzle caches. You can look for anything the same way you do now! The difference is that when you see that a cache is highlighted as a favorite, you'll know that the many cachers found that cache to be exceptional! Edited May 24, 2005 by TrailGators Link to comment
+Moose Mob Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 At the topic originator's request, I've edited the topic title to be more descriptive of the idea on the table. Thanks KA! Hopefully this will avoid a lot of confusion. Link to comment
+as77 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 All the attributes for favorites caches will still be there. So you can look for Favorites that involve hiking with terrain ratings of 3 or more. You can look for favorties that are drive-bys. You can look for favorite puzzle caches. You can look for anything the same way you do now! The difference is that when you see that a cache is highlighted as a favorite, you'll know that the many cachers found that cache to be exceptional! High terrain rating has nothing to do with wether the place is interesting. By the "environment" rating I mean how unique, interesting and remarkable the place itself is. There is no attribute that shows this. Also, there is no attribute telling you whether the hide is something original and creative. These are things people judge for themselves, you can never make them an attribute. BTW this rating system (rate the hide and the environment) has been used for several years on the Hungarian geocaching website and it has been a great success. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work here. Link to comment
+Moose Mob Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Now that the title is changed, and hopefully the angst level will mellow down, this topic can stay on it's path. I still feel that the simplest approach is best. Just the ability for a finder to say "I liked this cache a lot" would be enough to create some sort of deliniation. Once some sort of criteria is establish, it would enable a traveller to be able to pull up a trimmed down list or PQ (e.g. 50 instead of 500) and they could read cache pages and thier logs to be able to pick out which ones they would like to do. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 Now that the title is changed, and hopefully the angst level will mellow down, this topic can stay on it's path. I still feel that the simplest approach is best. Just the ability for a finder to say "I liked this cache a lot" would be enough to create some sort of deliniation. Once some sort of criteria is establish, it would enable a traveller to be able to pull up a trimmed down list or PQ (e.g. 50 instead of 500) and they could read cache pages and thier logs to be able to pick out which ones they would like to do. Exactly! Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Let me try to summarize some of the criticisms of the proposed cache recommendation (not rating) system. 1) It would be based on favorite lists - as only premium members have bookmark list, would this mean that only premium members get to rate caches? I suppose that it could be setup to allow everyone who has a login account to have a favorites lists. There may be some abuse of this using sock-puppets. 2) The reasons for recommending caches are as varied as cachers: good camouflage, nice location, difficult puzzle, long hike, short hike, kid friendly, handicap accessable, etc. as77 tries to solve this by having separate ratings for the cache hide and for the environment but its easy to see that to please everyone you would need dozens of categories. If a cache is recommended, you will still need to read the cache page and the logs to see if it is a cache you want to do. 3) The number or percent of visits that would constitute a 'consensus' recommendation is arbitrary. I would likely recommend some caches that have only one or two finds. A cache with a hundred finds, even a lightpost hide in a MacDonald's parking lot, is almost certain to have a few recommendations. I would recommend a system which gives a cache one star if it has one or two recommendations, two stars if it has 3 to 5, and three stars if there are more than five recommendations. 4) The will be some competiveness between cachers - more of my caches are recommended than yours. But this may be a good thing as it will tend to improve the quality of caches. In spite of the weaknesses, I like the proposal. It simple says this cache was recommended by other cachers. It doesn't mean that a cache that was not recommended was bad. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 It would be based on favorite lists - as only premium members have bookmark list, would this mean that only premium members get to rate caches? I suppose that it could be setup to allow everyone who has a login account to have a favorites lists. There may be some abuse of this using sock-puppets. It may make sense to offer this to only premium members. That would help solve the sock-puppet issue. Also premium members have more of a stake in making geocaching better. Finally, I think there are enough premium members to get enough data to highlight the favorites so it would still be viable! Link to comment
+as77 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 It may make sense to offer this to only premium members. That would help solve the sock-puppet issue. Also premium members have more of a stake in making geocaching better. Finally, I think there are enough premium members to get enough data to highlight the favorites so it would still be viable! In the USA a significant percentage of cachers are premium members, but in other countries this is not the case: only a small fraction are. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 It may make sense to offer this to only premium members. That would help solve the sock-puppet issue. Also premium members have more of a stake in making geocaching better. Finally, I think there are enough premium members to get enough data to highlight the favorites so it would still be viable! In the USA a significant percentage of cachers are premium members, but in other countries this is not the case: only a small fraction are. Three bucks a month is well worth not havng to print out cache pages! I can load 500 new caches into my Palm and my Geepus in 5-10 minutes and I'm off caching! I bet you they spend more on paper and ink than the membership costs! Anyhow, if the incentives to buy a premium membership keep increasing then more and more people will upgrade and become premium members! Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) Trust me, if you get a large enough sample size this idea is not useless! The best caches will rise to the top! ... The problem is, your sample size will not be large enough. If caches got hundreds of visits, you might have interesting data. Unfortunately, difficult, but awesome, caches get few visits while drive-up micros get loads. You won't help but get horribly skewed data. edit: That KA guy had to go and change the title, thereby foolong me into thinking that this was a new thread. <shakes fist in the air> Edited May 24, 2005 by sbell111 Link to comment
Keystone Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 I wonder what sbell111 thinks of this idea. I never see posts from him anymore. Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 24, 2005 Author Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) Trust me, if you get a large enough sample size this idea is not useless! The best caches will rise to the top! ... The problem is, your sample size will not be large enough. If caches got hundreds of visits, you might have interesting data. Unfortunately, difficult, but awesome, caches get few visits while drive-up micros get loads. You won't help but get horribly skewed data. edit: That KA guy had to go and change the title, thereby foolong me into thinking that this was a new thread. <shakes fist in the air> Favorites would tend to be the caches that "wow" people. Of course that depends on how many favorites each cacher is allowed to put on their favorites list. I do agree that new caches will take some time to become favorites, but if they have the "wow" factor, it won't be too long until they become a favorite! Besides no system is perfect so you have to have some tradeoffs. Edit: By the way, I personally favor keeping the favorites lists to Top 10 for each cacher. This would help keep the focus on "Wow"! Edited May 24, 2005 by TrailGators Link to comment
Recommended Posts