Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
TrailGators

Favorite Cache System

Recommended Posts

You run a PQ for the new area and sort for favorites. If it were Jeremy or Evergreenhiker, they would sort the PQ for > 4 terrain levels. Then they' read the the cache logs and click on some cachers names to open their profiles to view their local favorites list!    :)

Not sure I understand. I presume your solution above is theoretical - i.e. if and when we all have the ability to list our favorites on our profile pages AND that info is somehow integrated into the database for search purposes, then... one could run a PQ for a given area, for say... just favorites? Or... all favorites sorted by type (micro vs. multi vs. mystery, etc.) and/or terrain?

 

That sounds great. No matter what the system, to me the key is to be able to easily glean a list of favorites in a given area - without having to click on random profile pages of folks I don't know.

 

Then again, it would also be great if the list of sorted favorites could be prioritized by... how many favorites lists the cache appeared on. i.e. some min. number like... 3 or 4 as some of us agreed was min. to be useful.

I gave a hypothetical method that you could use to find the favorites list of another cacher in another part of the country that you were visiting that likes to do the same kind of caches that you like!

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. (One would assume so anyways.)

 

Picture your PQ setup page with cache attributes and lists included in your options.

 

You could say "is listed in someones favorites", "terrain 4.0 or higher", "no poisonous plants". And of course, review it so you would make sure those exist. If you looked for "favorites" , "terrain 4.0 or higher", and "has restrooms available", you wouldn't get very many caches returned at all.

Share this post


Link to post
If you looked for "favorites" , "terrain 4.0 or higher", and "has restrooms available", you wouldn't get very many caches returned at all.

a8df6d8a-1505-4b21-8e50-b00f6f06c6ba.jpg

 

Anyhow, the point was that it would be handy to see others favorite lists. You could even meet a cacher in these forums from a part of the country you are traveling and view his/her favorites so you could chat about them!

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
You could say "is listed in someones favorites"...

Yes thanks MM, I believe I now understand what TG is getting at, and therein lies what I see as the problem (or at least a serious weakness to that system.)

 

If you can only query for those caches that are listed in "someone's" (i.e. anyone's, any SINGLE person's) favorites - you'd likely just end up with a long list of various folk's favorites lists (albeit folks who like the same type of caching as you) - but NOT a list of caches that were listed as favorites by several/many folk. IOW, not the creme de la creme - the aggregate favorite caches for that area which is what I thought we were trying to glean.

 

AIS, no doubt about it - listing one's favorites on one's profile page is surely better than not (and that's what I presently do on mine.) But unless a system is devised that aggregates those individual favorites, I just don't see how useful simply expanding what some of us are already doing would be.

 

Certainly it's a place to start - indeed a prerequisite to devising the aggregate system. But simply listing individual favorites isn't, in itself what I thought we've been striving for here.

Share this post


Link to post
You could say "is listed in someones favorites"...

Yes thanks MM, I believe I now understand what TG is getting at, and therein lies what I see as the problem (or at least a serious weakness to that system.)

 

If you can only query for those caches that are listed in "someone's" (i.e. anyone's, any SINGLE person's) favorites - you'd likely just end up with a long list of various folk's favorites lists (albeit folks who like the same type of caching as you) - but NOT a list of caches that were listed as favorites by several/many folk. IOW, not the creme de la creme - the aggregate favorite caches for that area which is what I thought we were trying to glean.

 

AIS, no doubt about it - listing one's favorites on one's profile page is surely better than not (and that's what I presently do on mine.) But unless a system is devised that aggregates those individual favorites, I just don't see how useful simply expanding what some of us are already doing would be.

 

Certainly it's a place to start - indeed a prerequisite to devising the aggregate system. But simply listing individual favorites isn't, in itself what I thought we've been striving for here.

 

Globalgirl you will be able do either!!! You can search all people's favorites or just one persons favorites! We were simply discussing the second option!

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
But... what about a total stranger 'round here, visiting from another place, or a noobie just getting started? How would they know which profiles to look at? How would they know which folks had cache druthers similar to theirs?

They wouldn't. It is another way to view the data, not the only way to view it. Data is data and can be viewed many ways. Through aggregate scoring (This cache has been rated top 10% of caches by x users) or by listing (Here is x user's favorite caches).

 

At second glance, it looks like I may be able to implement this as part of the idea of lists instead of creating a whole new system. I'll just create two list types - ignore list and top 10% list - and apply rules to them. This doesn't mean much to some but it does mean that I may be able to get to do this sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
But... what about a total stranger 'round here, visiting from another place, or a noobie just getting started?  How would they know which profiles to look at?  How would they know which folks had cache druthers similar to theirs?

They wouldn't. It is another way to view the data, not the only way to view it. Data is data and can be viewed many ways. Through aggregate scoring (This cache has been rated top 10% of caches by x users) or by listing (Here is x user's favorite caches).

 

At second glance, it looks like I may be able to implement this as part of the idea of lists instead of creating a whole new system. I'll just create two list types - ignore list and top 10% list - and apply rules to them. This doesn't mean much to some but it does mean that I may be able to get to do this sooner.

So would you simply click on "Add to Favorites" the same way you click on "watch this cache"?

Share this post


Link to post
At second glance, it looks like I may be able to implement this as part of the idea of lists instead of creating a whole new system. I'll just create two list types - ignore list and top 10% list - and apply rules to them. This doesn't mean much to some but it does mean that I may be able to get to do this sooner.

Woa, that sounds great J - glad to hear it!

Share this post


Link to post

This whole idea has evolved into something that is very very useable by very very many people. Not many will be offended (there is bound to be someone out there that will be). I know I will ignore other folks ignore lists, but that's a different issue. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I believe I will add a "public" option for lists so you can decide whether to share them or not. Alternatively we can create levels of privacy so friends can see them too. I'm not sure why someone would want to create a list only their friends can see, but I function in a constant state of amazement over what people do with this web site.

 

Watchlists and ignore lists would be private by default, and top 10% lists would be public by default. Initially this would not be an option you can toggle.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure why someone would want to create a list only their friends can see, but I function in a constant state of amazement over what people do with this web site.

You and me both!

 

Edit: By the way Jeremy, let us know if there are any other issues that we can chew the fat about!

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not sure why someone would want to create a list only their friends can see, but I function in a constant state of amazement over what people do with this web site.

You and me both!

 

Edit: By the way Jeremy, let us know if there are any other issues that we can chew the fat about!

I'll second that, and that, and that too!

Share this post


Link to post
maybe it would be better to only show highly positive ratings so no feelings are hurt.

If people dont know how to place a good cache they should be let know. Nicely, of course. And an ambiguous rating system might be just the key.

 

There needs to be ratings of all caches, because what if there was a cache that had been visited 40 times in a year and it had no rating? Thats the same way of saying, "your cache is garbage and you might as well huck it in your local trash dump."

 

And just so newbs (like me) dont throw out 1's and 10's for every cache they see, you could make it so only exp'd. cachers get to rate other caches. Like only cachers who have found over 50 or 20,000 or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
But... what about a total stranger 'round here, visiting from another place, or a noobie just getting started?  How would they know which profiles to look at?  How would they know which folks had cache druthers similar to theirs?

They wouldn't. It is another way to view the data, not the only way to view it. Data is data and can be viewed many ways. Through aggregate scoring (This cache has been rated top 10% of caches by x users) or by listing (Here is x user's favorite caches).

 

At second glance, it looks like I may be able to implement this as part of the idea of lists instead of creating a whole new system. I'll just create two list types - ignore list and top 10% list - and apply rules to them. This doesn't mean much to some but it does mean that I may be able to get to do this sooner.

So would you simply click on "Add to Favorites" the same way you click on "watch this cache"?

This sounds like way too much trouble. I gotta have information ready and handy, or else I wont go through the trouble.

I really dont even know what the heck you are talking about with this 10% n stuff jargon.

 

How hard would it be to just put a rating system for caches on every cache page?!

 

(yea ok, maybe a lot of trouble for the webmasters, etc, but hey...)

Share this post


Link to post

Well I've read most of this thread, but it is getting pretty long, so I skipped a few a bit here and there (heading to bed...) Anyways, one problem I can see with rating say 1 cache for every hundred you find is a rather regional one. Around here, our local big shots have 777 and 371 caches to their name. I get the impression reading these forums that in some areas these kinds of numbers can be picked up in a weekend (or say a week).

In this area, I would say that if either of these people recommends a cache, it is probably worth doing (regardless of how many they actually recommend, or how many people have done the cache). On the other hand, imagine we have a 'number-puncher' move in to the area, with 3000+ finds to their name. Should this person have more of a vote than the guys who have done pretty much every local cache, who *know* which caches you should go visit?

 

My set up would be something as follows:

1. Each cacher has a 'favorites' list, containing their top ten caches.

2. Each cacher has a 'favorite cachers' list, maybe containing their top three area cachers.

3. Some kind of ability to search for 'top cachers' in an area (maybe based on home coordinates, but you'd have to make it fuzzy enough not to comprimise privacy), having nothing to do with number of finds. Then you could look at their 'favorites' lists if you were heading in to an area. (you might also dissociate this from their actual user profile, if privacy is an issue)

4. You might still want some way to search for on at least n favorites lists

Just a thought anyways.

 

It also might be an idea to have a good for locals vs a good for travelers list, but we might be getting a bit complicated.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I think the number was 1 or 2 per 100, so the cacher with 700 caches found could have 7 or 14 "favorites". The reasoning for a cacher having 3000 finds is that they have found that many, regardless of location. Yes, they get 30 or 60 slots in thier favorites list, but that is only fair since, theoretically, they could have been to that many super duper great caches.

 

Also keep in mind that your favorites are not based on a certain distance from your home coordinates. It is based on caches that you have found, regardless of location.

Share this post


Link to post

This strikes me as an idea to develop a complicated web-based process for which there already is a solution for those who are willing to just take some time to ask questions.

 

When I am planning to travel to a new area (this summer, for example we cached in Amsterdam and Paris), I look at the local caches and find out who has several hides in the area. Then I email them (usually two or three different persons) and ask them what caches in their area are good ones to do. I specify the characteristics I am looking for in the email. For example, this summer I was looking for caches that were very close to major tourist destinations and that would take only a short time to find. The reason was that my wife was along, and she is not interested in geocaching.

 

I doubt you could create an automated system that could get such location and criteria-specific information. Also, this is so easy to do, why spend time on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Well I've read most of this thread, but it is getting pretty long, so I skipped a few a bit here and there (heading to bed...) Anyways, one problem I can see with rating say 1 cache for every hundred you find is a rather regional one. Around here, our local big shots have 777 and 371 caches to their name. I get the impression reading these forums that in some areas these kinds of numbers can be picked up in a weekend (or say a week).

In this area, I would say that if either of these people recommends a cache, it is probably worth doing (regardless of how many they actually recommend, or how many people have done the cache). On the other hand, imagine we have a 'number-puncher' move in to the area, with 3000+ finds to their name. Should this person have more of a vote than the guys who have done pretty much every local cache, who *know* which caches you should go visit?

 

My set up would be something as follows:

1. Each cacher has a 'favorites' list, containing their top ten caches.

2. Each cacher has a 'favorite cachers' list, maybe containing their top three area cachers.

3. Some kind of ability to search for 'top cachers' in an area (maybe based on home coordinates, but you'd have to make it fuzzy enough not to comprimise privacy), having nothing to do with number of finds. Then you could look at their 'favorites' lists if you were heading in to an area. (you might also dissociate this from their actual user profile, if privacy is an issue)

4. You might still want some way to search for on at least n favorites lists

Just a thought anyways.

 

It also might be an idea to have a good for locals vs a good for travelers list, but we might be getting a bit complicated.

Right. There are only 49 caches within 100 miles of me. So I would say that the two locals I know of who have most of them, I would be interested in their favorites.

 

But I would steer away from favorite cachers as that could turn into an ugly popularity contest a bit too easy.

Share this post


Link to post

I flat out do not like this idea. Look, just give some constructive criticism to the cacher whose cache is poor. No need to trash someone. If you have a few favorites, that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Right. There are only 49 caches within 100 miles of me. So I would say that the two locals I know of who have most of them, I would be interested in their favorites.

 

But I would steer away from favorite cachers as that could turn into an ugly popularity contest a bit too easy.

Maybe call is something else then, or maybe keep who chose who as their 'favorites' private (only show agregate listings for a region, or some such thing....) I personally would never expect to be listed among someone's favorite cachers, and I think everyone around here would have roughly the same cachers on their list (barring #3). You could then search a region for top cachers within a certain radius of a point, and look at it that way.

 

Thinking about it, I'm not sure how quick it would turn in to a popularity contest. I don't know about the rest of you, but how many of you know fellow cachers (other than ones you introduced to the sport) through something other than caching? Popularity in this case I would think at least around here would be based their caching 'status' so to speak (or at least how good their favorites list was...) Of course a suitable large group of people (or suitably large number of sock-puppets) could crank up someones 'status' which would somehow have to be address (not quite sure how, any suggestions? All I can think of is a favorite cachers list might be a Members only feature...)

Anyways, just tossing ideas out.

Share this post


Link to post
I personally would never expect to be listed among someone's favorite cachers, and I think everyone around here would have roughly the same cachers on their list

 

Wait - we're talking about favorite CACHES, not favorite CACHERS, right?

Edit: oops, just read the earlier post. I'm not sure the Favorite Cachers is the best idea. See my next post.

 

I flat out do not like this idea. Look, just give some constructive criticism to the cacher whose cache is poor. No need to trash someone. If you have a few favorites, that's fine.

Did you read the suggestion? Read back on this post and this post.

 

There's no way in this suggestion to DIRECTLY to bad-mouth a cacher or cache. The only way someone gets a "bad feeling" is by hearing silence regarding their caches.

 

One of the other detractors in this thread said:

An official appearing opinion would be a very negative thing. The poor cacher that never gets the nice looking icon is bound to feel insulted.
My response is that the poor cacher that never gets one of these needs to either A) Rethink how their hiding caches, or <_< Raise their self-esteem a little so it doesn't hinge upon an icon.

 

I've got 15 active caches in the real world. Even if not a single one is listed as someone's favorite, will that make me quite caching? Probably not. But it might make me try a little harder to place a cache that some people WOULD like.

 

I'd be honored if I did get one, and would probably try to create more like it.

 

My high-school gradutating class had a Top 10% in it. Those students were honored for being ranked highest in their GPA. Should those students not have been honored because it might hurt the feelings of those that were not in the Top 10%?

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post
Anyways, one problem I can see with rating say 1 cache for every hundred you find is a rather regional one. ((snip)) On the other hand, imagine we have a 'number-puncher' move in to the area, with 3000+ finds to their name. Should this person have more of a vote than the guys who have done pretty much every local cache, who *know* which caches you should go visit?

Who's to say that the new local with 3000+ finds is going to choose his 300 caches from ones local to his new area? Of my 28 favorites that I list on my profile, six of them are not "local" to me. I was traveling somewhere else and found a great cache.

 

My set up would be something as follows:

2. Each cacher has a 'favorite cachers' list, maybe containing their top three area cachers.

3. Some kind of ability to search for 'top cachers' in an area (maybe based on home coordinates, but you'd have to make it fuzzy enough not to comprimise privacy), having nothing to do with number of finds. Then you could look at their 'favorites' lists if you were heading in to an area. (you might also dissociate this from their actual user profile, if privacy is an issue)

 

I'm not really too keen on this idea. While it's true that some cachers are consistently thoughtful in their cache placement, design and implementation, I would think even the best cachers have placements of which they're not too proud. I had an e-mail recently from a very conscientious cacher that said "If you're passing through here, don't find caches that start with 'XYZ'. My wife placed those with our account, and their pretty bad."

 

Finding caches by a particular cacher is not necessarily the best way to go, and as others mentioned, I believe it would quickly degenerate into a popularity contest.

Share this post


Link to post
I flat out do not like this idea. Look, just give some constructive criticism to the cacher whose cache is poor. No need to trash someone. If you have a few favorites, that's fine.

This thread is kind of going in circles. If you read the entire thread. The initial idea evolved into a simple favorites list that you keep in your profile. This list would be viewable along with your other profile info to other cachers. However, you would have the option to hide this list. Most were not not sure why people would want to hide this list but Jeremy thought that it might be a wise idea to provide this option.

 

Eventually, these lists could (if there is too much resistance it wouldn't happen) be fed into the central database and the top vote getters in each area could be highlighted like Markwell's idea. I personally love this idea, because I don't have always have time to research as some of you do. A lot of people are very busy out there so we need to think about their needs as well.

 

Finally, the idea also has the benefit of promoting more creative and fun caches! Just like golf needs Championship courses Geocaching also needs great caches. Just like normal caches, normal golf courses are still fun to play! If somebody takes the time and effort to put together an exceptional cache why not recognize that effort? Nobody is getting trashed!

 

Edit: typo

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Edit: oops, just read the earlier post. I'm not sure the Favorite Cachers is the best idea. See my next post.

I'm not too sure either, and it was my suggestion (at least I think it was <_< ). Just trying to find a way to avoid the problem I mentioned as far as numbers of favorite picks allowed/cache finds.

Everyone in a given area knows who the top cachers are (and its not according to the numbers). And who's opinion they would like on what caches to go to. I was trying to figure out a way that a non-local could take advantage of this information.

 

Maybe the calling it 'favorite cachers' wasn't a good idea, but I can't think of another good name.

Share this post


Link to post
Edit: oops, just read the earlier post.  I'm not sure the Favorite Cachers is the best idea.  See my next post.

I'm not too sure either, and it was my suggestion (at least I think it was <_< ). Just trying to find a way to avoid the problem I mentioned as far as numbers of favorite picks allowed/cache finds.

Everyone in a given area knows who the top cachers are (and its not according to the numbers). And who's opinion they would like on what caches to go to. I was trying to figure out a way that a non-local could take advantage of this information.

 

Maybe the calling it 'favorite cachers' wasn't a good idea, but I can't think of another good name.

I know what you mean and I don't really care for the favorite cacher idea either. What is a top cacher anyhow? Everybody has opinions and I don't think that one persons opinion should have any more weight than another's. All cachers are created equal! <_<

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I remain quite content to await Jeremy's introduction of the cache lists concept, as he described earlier in this topic. My list of favorites has now outgrown the space allocated on my profile page! I began by listing my Top 10%, then cut it to my Top 5%, and I still maxed out at 40-something caches. I either need to build a personal website to tell everyone about my favorites, or build a list here on the site using a better tool than the profile page, which was intended for more basic informational purposes.

 

Incidentally, fully one-half of my all time Top 5% favorite caches are outside my "home area" (50 miles from home coordinates).

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not really too keen on this idea.  While it's true that some cachers are consistently thoughtful in their cache placement, design and implementation, I would think even the best cachers have placements of which they're not too proud.

 

I think maybe I wasn't too clear on what I meant the purpose of a favorite cacher list to be. Rather than saying that you should find caches by a 'favorite cacher' it says that you might want to find caches that a 'favorite cacher' suggests. I know I have a couple of hides which I wouldn't recommend to anybody from out of town, (GCK5KQ and GCKRF2). They really are quite pathetic, but they serve a different purpose.

GCK5KQ I keep to drop travel bugs in when I can't move them on right away (otherwise my cache closest to home is about 5+km away). Its hidden under some grass beside a bush about 300m from my front door.

GCKRF2 Is around because they kept taking away the Dog Poop bags in that dog park, and I kept forgeting to bring some. Its hidden under a log and some dead fall about 100m from the parking lot.

I also have some hides that I would expect to see appear on *someone's* favorites list, but I wouldn't expect myself to appear on anyone's 'favorite cachers' list.

 

Who's to say that the new local with 3000+ finds is going to choose his 300 caches from ones local to his new area?

 

He probably won't its just a hypothetical situation. But maybe he wants to have his favorites be all ones he's found recently. To anyone non-local looking at him, the guy with 3000+ finds would be the one to follow, whereas the true people who know the area are the ones with far less finds.

Share this post


Link to post
Hey Leprechauns, your avatar would make a great TB! <_< Maybe we could have a favorite TB list too! <_<

Sorry, but I've soured on the whole idea of cute items as travel bugs, after my daughter's first hamster travel bug was held hostage by a local cacher for well over a year. There are too many mean-spirited people in this game, as in the rest of the world. To keep this post on-topic, the same comment holds true for cache ratings. The same person who kidnapped my travel bug would likely give my best multicache a terrible rating if we adopted a system that rated all caches, rather than just naming personal favorites. This is because he *could not find it.* And that is also why he sought revenge by kidnapping my travel bug.

 

Any rating system needs to be jerk-proof or I'd rather not have one at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Hey Leprechauns, your avatar would make a great TB!  <_<  Maybe we could have a favorite TB list too!  <_<

Sorry, but I've soured on the whole idea of cute items as travel bugs, after my daughter's first hamster travel bug was held hostage by a local cacher for well over a year. There are too many mean-spirited people in this game, as in the rest of the world. To keep this post on-topic, the same comment holds true for cache ratings. The same person who kidnapped my travel bug would likely give my best multicache a terrible rating if we adopted a system that rated all caches, rather than just naming personal favorites. This is because he *could not find it.* And that is also why he sought revenge by kidnapping my travel bug.

 

Any rating system needs to be jerk-proof or I'd rather not have one at all.

The system could not rate all caches because there are so many issues with doing so as previously mentioned. I think the majority of cachers are not jerks so your multi-cache could get put on their favorites lists!

Share this post


Link to post

Been thinking,

What about a self moderation system for caches? When you submit a cache, give the owner the option to say who this cache is intended for? Is it an 'extreme' cache? Is it a walk in the woods? Is it a drive-up cache? Is it a cool location? Are you proud of the hide? Would you reccomend it to others? Who were you targeting when you placed the cache? How long do you expect the hunt to take? Maybe we should collectively be including these things in our cache descriptions? It would be nice though if the website provided some minimal help there though, to make it more easily searchable (actually the more I think about it, the more it sounds like the cache attributes idea).

 

Anyways, I think generally we're our own best judge.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this could work, it is called "Distance willing to travel" or DWTT

 

A ) with a "found it" log , ask this question "now you have found it, how many kilometers (or miles) would you be willing to travel [solely] to find [such] a cache?"

B ) publish the MEDIAN of the collected numbers as the rating for the cache

 

About A )

- question can be answered by a novice as well, it doesn't require lots of geocaching experience to compare, just ask yourself "how many kilometers (miles) ...".

- it is less prone to misusage like any rating system from 1-10. People tend then to assume and use their proper scales. I know of one rating system for caches with such a scale. 1 was assumed to be a bad cache, 10 a very good and 5 an average good cache.

One would expect that 5 would be the dominant score, actually it was rather 7 and the usual range was 4 to 10. Why, because people thought about points at school and less than 5 was considered "not succeeded"!

 

About B )

- The median is definitely better than the average, it is a robust statistic, that is robust to outliers. The average is not, just consider these three ratings 10, 15 and 10000.

 

There is more to say and more is possible, such as how unanimous (or not) people are about this median rating (requires a measure of dispersion, there are good and robust measures available).

Share this post


Link to post

Having a favorite cache list does in no way replace having a rating system. You may like 10 caches I would not. Your list of top 10 has only ONE reviewer. But if everyone rated a cache, and the last 100 ratings were averaged, we would have a much better idea about the average quality of a cache. The group ratings on netflix mean a LOT more to me than one individual critics opinion! Bring on the ratings!

 

BTW, if you are tired of discussing this topic, just don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Been thinking,

What about a self moderation system for caches? When you submit a cache, give the owner the option to say who this cache is intended for? Is it an 'extreme' cache? Is it a walk in the woods? Is it a drive-up cache? Is it a cool location? Are you proud of the hide? Would you reccomend it to others? Who were you targeting when you placed the cache? How long do you expect the hunt to take? Maybe we should collectively be including these things in our cache descriptions? It would be nice though if the website provided some minimal help there though, to make it more easily searchable (actually the more I think about it, the more it sounds like the cache attributes idea).

 

Anyways, I think generally we're our own best judge.

Some people have enough trouble with rating the difficulty and terrain. Giving them more options would just confuse things even more.

 

What ever happened to reading the cache description, logs, and checking the map?

Share this post


Link to post

Some people have enough trouble with rating the difficulty and terrain. Giving them more options would just confuse things even more.

 

What ever happened to reading the cache description, logs, and checking the map?

 

I agree that giving more options to the placer would probably not help.

The cache attributes is doing this anyway as optional information.

 

Ratings should be done (averaged) by the finders.

 

As far as reading the descriptions/details....I've done that before and went for a cache that they left off alot of info I would include or they put stuff in that wasn't relevant and let me astray.

 

Logs can be informative...sometimes too much like giveaways, etc.

I only read them if I'm having trouble finding the cache....like the hints.

 

Kenneth

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thinking of the way I rate a product on Amazon as an analogy. I can read the manufacturers or publishers statement about the item and assume there is no self bias about it, or I can glance at the average review stars for a quick opinion from the average person. If I'm interested, I can go on and read the posted reviews for more info.

 

If my grandma placed a cache in my backyard swingset, tripping down the porch steps and getting dog poo on her slippers along the way, she would rate it a difficulty five/terrain five with a heck of a crazy description about the whole trek. Or an extreme hiker/puzzle master calls his cache easy. What about the regular folks?

 

Wouldn't it be simple if we just checked off a few boxes about our perception of the cache? We could rate difficulty and terrain along with overall satisfaction. This could be done as part of the log and would change if we revisit and relog that cache site. A poor review can be changed with better weather, gear, and a find. A hard hike with a tough find might be the best cache or the worst, and it would be great to know at a glance.

Edited by bluerockrew

Share this post


Link to post

The feedback system we have now (comments in the cache log) is perfectly adequate. We don't need a grading system. As cache owner I would find such a grading system to be degrading, regardless of the actual grades. I give grades for a living and I know that a "B" ("2", "good", ...) to some is great and a tragedy to others. At the same time some folks are ready to slap a grade of "A" (or "1"...) on anything that seems acceptable while others are much more descerning. So the end result would be meaningless anyway and the only outcome would be to hurt the feelings of many cache owners and to discourage new geocachers from placing caches. We simply don't need that.

Share this post


Link to post

But the rating system that I proposed (did you read the whole thread?) only gives the equivalent of what our Rotary Club honors each year in high school: The Top 10% of the graduates. It makes it so that all of the other grades (like by a teacher that just hated you, or a subject that you just couldn't get your hands around) not part of the equation.

 

In other words, if some dufus goes to one of my caches and gets trampled by a wild boar, he might dislike my cache. A lot. It just doesn't get into his top 10%. It's not considered any "worse" than that cache that was really good, but just not good enough for the top 10%. If I found 1,176 caches, the one that I disliked the most would not be rated any worse than the one that I liked only 118th.

 

The other great thing about this as a possibility is that if you don't want to rate the cache, you don't have to.

 

And - just for clarification - remember that this discussion has nothing to do with terrain and difficulty ratings.

 

As to why we need this (again - read the whole thread please...) I commented earlier that when you're going into an area like San Francisco or Nashville that has TONS of caches - how do you know which ones are the best ones to visit? Right now, your left with thousands of possibilities and unless you've got a year, not enough time to read all of the logs. This proposal is a shorthand to allow people to ferret out the cream of the crop if you're on tight time constraints in an unfamiliar area.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post
But the rating system that I proposed (did you read the whole thread?) only gives the equivalent of what our Rotary Club honors each year in high school: The Top 10% of the graduates. It makes it so that all of the other grades (like by a teacher that just hated you, or a subject that you just couldn't get your hands around) not part of the equation.

 

In other words, if some dufus goes to one of my caches and gets trampled by a wild boar, he might dislike my cache. A lot. It just doesn't get into his top 10%. It's not considered any "worse" than that cache that was really good, but just not good enough for the top 10%. If I found 1,176 caches, the one that I disliked the most would not be rated any worse than the one that I liked only 118th.

 

The other great thing about this as a possibility is that if you don't want to rate the cache, you don't have to.

 

And - just for clarification - remember that this discussion has nothing to do with terrain and difficulty ratings.

 

As to why we need this (again - read the whole thread please...) I commented earlier that when you're going into an area like San Francisco or Nashville that has TONS of caches - how do you know which ones are the best ones to visit? Right now, your left with thousands of possibilities and unless you've got a year, not enough time to read all of the logs. This proposal is a shorthand to allow people to ferret out the cream of the crop if you're on tight time constraints in an unfamiliar area.

I totally agree with Markwell!

 

Since the recent site changes many of us San Diegans (3000+ caches) have been bookmarking and making our own favorite cache lists. But it is obvious how handy it would be to compile those individual lists to come up with a consensus. Then someday those caches would get highlighted for all cachers to easily find. I have already added a few local favorites to my own watch list!

Share this post


Link to post
But the rating system that I proposed (did you read the whole thread?) ...

I'll just say based on your top post on page 4 of the thread, I probably read as much as you did, Markwell, before posting. With the length of the thread and the repetition from the previous times this general idea has been mentioned, I probalby just scanned it.

 

Anyway, the post by TrailGators (who started this thread) proposes a rating a cache from 1-10. I assume it meant one extreme is good the other is bad. I object to this type of system.

 

I would be OK with a system that accentuates the positive. Of the caches I have done in San Francisco, one in particular is on my best-of-all-time list; I can see that communicating that would be very beneficial.

 

Maybe an alternative to a grading system would be the use of bookmarks. The post by the second person that replied hints at a system that could be implemented now that we have a way of creating such list: If the system automatically gave you a list called "Best Caches Found" (or something like that), then one could manage one's own list of 10 to 100 best caches. Once a day the system could go through and compile and rank a list of those that are included most often by all the users. Such compilations are probably best tabulated on a regional basis to achieve the effect you (and many others) seek. This would be very useful indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
I'll just say based on your top post on page 4 of the thread, I probably read as much as you did, Markwell, before posting.

Go back and read the whole thread please. This went way beyond the original poster's thoughts.

Maybe an alternative to a grading system would be the use of bookmarks...
Which is exactly what Jeremy had posted. Please read the whole thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting point of view. Care to expand on that?

 

Since this is your first time in this thread, I'm genuinely intersted in why you would take such a hard stance on implementing a rating system like this - especially when the rating system others and I have suggested is voluntary to use from the person rating (you don't HAVE to rate the caches), voluntary to use from the cache seeker (you don't HAVE to read the ratings) and only rewards the best caches (without insulting the ones that seekers deem not-so-good). Is there something inherently wrong with rewarding what some people think is a good cache?

Share this post


Link to post
No rating system EVER! Read the logs.

Be constructive with your comments. Suggest ways for improvement. You can get your point across without being so short.

Share this post


Link to post
No rating system EVER! Read the logs.

Be constructive with your comments. Suggest ways for improvement. You can get your point across without being so short.

Man, I love this quote. It is the very center of my arguement. There is no need to belittle people who came in to this as a hobby. We do not need to be rude to each other. And, whether or not you see it, ranking somebody's cache as a 1 is very rude. Look, everybody has their own set of standards. One man's gold is another man's poison. Leave it be. This hobby is enough fun without junking it up with a rating system.

Share this post


Link to post
[<snip> One man's gold is another man's poison. Leave it be. This hobby is enough fun without junking it up with a rating system.

Hemlock was being constructive, although a but short, it does look to be constructive. Please focus on that part.

 

As far as the "one man's gold..." would it be true that if enough people saw value, then gold is worth something? or do we devalue gold because one pesron doesn't like the yellow color?

 

As far as "junking it up", I don't like overly fancied up cache pages. Too many photos fill the PDA, background sounds are distracting, and most puzzle caches are not my idea of a good cache. But those are only my opinions, and it does not bother me that they exist because I know that other people enjoy them.

 

Back on topic...

My recent experiences in a different city were similar to Marwell's. I onlyu had a few hours to spend in the bay area afew weeks ago. I posted a thread in the West/Southwest forum looking for suggestions, and got a few. There are somewhere near 5,000 caches in the bay area. As a single parent, I don't usually have time to read through the logs on several hundered caches to see which ones I might enjoy more, I do not have time to sort through several hundered cachers' personal lists to see which cacher has the same tastes I have.

 

The goal is for a traveller to narrow down the list of available caches to a manageable list. If rating systems are a bad idea, then how do suppose we can simpler?

Share this post


Link to post
[<snip> One man's gold is another man's poison. Leave it be. This hobby is enough fun without junking it up with a rating system.

Hemlock was being constructive, although a but short, it does look to be constructive. Please focus on that part.

Actually I was throwing one of Joypa's responses from another thread right back at him. I knew nobody but him would see the irony in it. :ph34r:

 

The goal is for a traveler to narrow down the list of available caches to a manageable list.  If rating systems are a bad idea, then how do suppose we can simpler?

I think the idea Markwell has suggested above would be a fine solution. I also think something could be done using the new bookmark lists. Similar to how a cache page now says how many cachers are "watching" it, it could also say how many "favorites" lists it is on. If that could then be search-able somehow, then it would be possible to find the great caches in an area. The remaining 90% of the caches, whether good, mediocre, or lame, wouldn't be rated.

Share this post


Link to post
No rating system EVER! Read the logs.

Be constructive with your comments. Suggest ways for improvement. You can get your point across without being so short.

Man, I love this quote. It is the very center of my arguement. There is no need to belittle people who came in to this as a hobby. We do not need to be rude to each other. And, whether or not you see it, ranking somebody's cache as a 1 is very rude. Look, everybody has their own set of standards. One man's gold is another man's poison. Leave it be. This hobby is enough fun without junking it up with a rating system.

It doesn't belittle anybody. To me it is very obvious which caches are standouts. The cachers that create these marvelous caches go above and beyond the call of duty and often spend many hours preparing these caches. So why not give them a little recognition for their efforts? So this idea is a benefit for those hard working cachers and it is a benefit for the rest of us because it points out the caches that we should definitely make a point of finding whether it is in our own area or not! :ph34r:

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post
Actually I was throwing one of Joypa's responses from another thread right back at him. I knew nobody but him would see the irony in it. :o

I did. :huh:

 

But then - I read absolutely every thread on the board and file it away in my personal database of threads and quotes. :lol:

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...