Jump to content

Favorite Cache System


TrailGators
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

There is no objection in this quarter to a favorites list, a list of a particular type of cache or glowing reports about a truely wonderful one. You can certainly do this without slamming someone else - which a rating system does. The point is to accentuate the positive (from a song, I think) and eliminate the negative (from same song). Seems to me this method gets you what you want and keeps the hobby from becoming elitist.

Link to comment
There is no objection in this quarter to a favorites list, a list of a particular type of cache or glowing reports about a truely wonderful one. You can certainly do this without slamming someone else - which a rating system does. The point is to accentuate the positive (from a song, I think) and eliminate the negative (from same song). Seems to me this method gets you what you want and keeps the hobby from becoming elitist.

If you had read the entire thread you would have seen that the original rating idea involved into exactly what you just mentioned: a consensus favorites list. I have already made my own personal favorites list as have many others. But the concept was to collect the data from all these individual favorites lists to compile one composite list. So it was agreed that no cache would ever be rated. So please stick to the current idea and give your thoughts on that! :lol:

Link to comment

It would be great to have a "Add to my favorites" button right above the "Ignore this cache" button. Of course it would not show if you haven't found the cache and your "favorites" list did not exceed 10% of your finds. It would also be helpful to have it on the log page so you could click it after you made your log entry.

 

This horse ain't dead yet, so we will continue to beat on it!

 

Q: Should a cache be automatically removed from a person's favorites list if it is permantly archived? IMO: Yes, although it would cause a few ruffled feathers if the cache was resurected and the cache lost it's position on other cacher's favorite's list.

Edited by Moose Mob
Link to comment

I believe archiving a cache should eliminate it from the Top 10%, but with qualifications.

 

First, my reasoning: Some of my truly favorite finds are now archived. :D But I don't think they should be included in my Top 10%. The idea of Top 10% is designed to assist people in weeding out the ones that are the absolute best, and you should therefore hunt them (which doesn't make sense for an archived cache), or to hold them up as an example of the right way to do it (How would a newbie benefit from knowing that GC7DF or GC182A were some of my all-time favorite caches? They can't go out and see why I liked it to emulate it).

 

As far as implementation, I've worried about this for quite some time in this idea.

 

I guess one method would be that if a cache is archived for some critical time (7 days?), the cache would be permanently dropped from everyone's Top 10%. If the cache is unarchived, the onus is on the person wanting to list it as a Top 10% to a) determine that the cache is now unarchived, and :D determine if they've added caches other caches to their Top 10% and decide if this now unarchived cache still deserves inclusion in their list.

 

The reason I suggest a 7-day grace period is for those caches that accidentally get archived by cache owners, or the ones that get a knee-jerk reaction by the approvers when they get a SBA note indicating that it's trespassing (it may turn out NOT to be trespassing, and the cache is subsequently unarchived - but I would guess that conversation would happen in less than a week). There might even be a warning popping up saying

Archiving this cache will remove it from {X} cachers' Top 10% list.  Are you sure?
One cool thing about this would be if the cache is archived, there could be an e-mail sent to the accounts that have it as one of their favorites that says:
Top 10% Archive Notification: Seven days ago, this cache was archived, and it has not been subsequently unarchived.  It has now dropped from your list of favorites.  You may wish to review and update your Favorite Caches list.
I know that bookmarks already give you a Bookmark Notification if you desire, but since the Favorites would be a standardized type of Bookmark, it could contain its own standardized e-mails for specific purposes, right?
Link to comment

How about this Markwell:

 

If you add a cache to your top 10% and it gets archived, it goes into a SPECIAL bookmark list of archived favorites. Since it's archived, only YOU the account holder would be able to see it (like the ignore list). You could still keep your own personal list of favorite caches that are no longer active.

 

This would help keep the top 10% list a useful tool to help geocachers find active geocaches.

 

I love your idea(s) on this so far and I hope Jeremy will consider implementing this (and if so, it's done sooner rather than later :D )

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

Sounds like the buttons on the side would be getting full. How about a list (similar to the Travel Bug drop list) that a person could add this cache to. This would include "Ignore", "Favorites", and all the person's personal lists.

 

Another question: Which is more significant. A cache that's on 5 favorites lists and has had 8 visitors, or a cache that's on 10 favorites lists that has had 35 visitors?

Link to comment
Another question: Which is more significant. A cache that's on 5 favorites lists and has had 8 visitors, or a cache that's on 10 favorites lists that has had 35 visitors?

Neither.

  • Some caches get visited very infrequently. If they've had six visitors over two years and five listed it as a favorite, great.
  • New caches might get visited five times by a group and they had the time of their lives, the next 40 people visit it over two weeks, but didn't think as much of it. Five people still thought it was great. Just because everyone else didn't want to list it as their favorite doesn't mitigate the fact that five liked it.

One of the nay-sayers' problems with this rating system is the fact that it's trying to quantify everything about the cache. I think of this as a slight recommendation from other cachers. If you want to know that 5/40 (12.5%) or 5/6 (83%) of the visitors liked it, THAT'S when I'd say "Go Read the Logs." I just want to make sure that if a cache is thought to be the cream of the crop by some people, that it gets recognized.

 

K.I.S.S.

Link to comment
Another question: Which is more significant.  A cache that's on 5 favorites lists and has had 8 visitors, or a cache that's on 10 favorites lists that has had 35 visitors?

Neither.

  • Some caches get visited very infrequently. If they've had six visitors over two years and five listed it as a favorite, great.
  • New caches might get visited five times by a group and they had the time of their lives, the next 40 people visit it over two weeks, but didn't think as much of it. Five people still thought it was great. Just because everyone else didn't want to list it as their favorite doesn't mitigate the fact that five liked it.

One of the nay-sayers' problems with this rating system is the fact that it's trying to quantify everything about the cache. I think of this as a slight recommendation from other cachers. If you want to know that 5/40 (12.5%) or 5/6 (83%) of the visitors liked it, THAT'S when I'd say "Go Read the Logs." I just want to make sure that if a cache is thought to be the cream of the crop by some people, that it gets recognized.

 

K.I.S.S.

I agree. But I am a little curious about the implementation. I am assuming that you could sort to find the highest vote getters any type of cache. So I am thinking that you could even find the consensus favorites for infrequently visited caches like ones with terrain ratings of 4. It seems like this would be possible since all the site would have to do is highlight the top 10% of caches returned in the database query for the conditions specified.

Link to comment

TG and Markwell, I personally agree, but thought I would pose the question because there may be other views (other than the "we don't want it" vocal minority). More often than not, these count vs percentage can be filtered with terrain/difficulty ratings and/or attributes.

 

I just want to know "a bunch of people like this cache". As long as we have a way to query or identify caches that are on multiple cacher's favorites lists, then that will accomplish what I am looking for. I hope it will help others gain what they are looking for also.

Link to comment
TG and Markwell, I personally agree, but thought I would pose the question because there may be other views (other than the "we don't want it" vocal minority).  More often than not, these count vs percentage can be filtered with terrain/difficulty ratings and/or attributes.

 

I just want to know "a bunch of people like this cache".  As long as we have a way to query or identify caches that are on multiple cacher's favorites lists, then that will accomplish what I am looking for.  I hope it will help others gain what they are looking for also.

Moose Mob, I think we are all in agreement. I do agree with Markwell that we should simply use vote count as the critieria. However, I do think you might get objections if you actually show that vote count.

 

Anyhow, if we had this favorites system you would create a Pocket Query and select whatever attributes you desire. Then you could simply check a box to return just the favorites (top ~10% of the vote getters) of what you just queried. Sounds awesome to me!

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Yes, I was only trying to re-focus on the goal and purpose. Kind of a step back and look and see what can be developed and why. I have to be leary that without showing vote count in one way shape or form, then it would be difficult to achieve this goal.

Link to comment
Yes, I was only trying to re-focus on the goal and purpose.  Kind of a step back and look and see what can be developed and why.  I have to be leary that without showing vote count in one way shape or form, then it would be difficult to achieve this goal.

The vote count would really only have to be visible to Groundspeak. It is easier to give an example of what I mean:

Say you are traveling to Boston. So you run a PQ for all traditional caches within 20 miles of your hotel. Your first PQ returns 500 caches. Then you go back and create a new PQ but this time you check a "return only favorites" box. The PQ now returns just top 10% or 50 "favorite" caches in this case. However, if you only wanted the top 10 caches you chould change the original quantity from 500 to 100 and repeat the second PQ. Seems pretty simple to me! :)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Ummm.....??? :)

 

That's not really how I envisioned it. Individuals think it's on their Top 10%. If it gets some minimal number, it's given an attribute of "cacher's choice cache".

 

It's not that it's in the top 10% of the region. It's that it's considered to be in the top 10% of the people that found it. If the logic of weeding it down to find the best caches simply meant weeding down the numbers, then querying the database for 10 in that area would give you the #1... That doesn't make sense.

 

Please re-read the original idea on page one and see if it still would fit what you suggest. I'm not sure it does - nor that I would want it to.

Link to comment
Ummm.....??? :)

 

That's not really how I envisioned it.  Individuals think it's on their Top 10%.  If it gets some minimal number, it's given an attribute of "cacher's choice cache".

 

It's not that it's in the top 10% of the region.  It's that it's considered to be in the top 10% of the people that found it.  If the logic of weeding it down to find the best caches simply meant weeding down the numbers, then querying the database for 10 in that area would give you the #1...  That doesn't make sense.

 

Please re-read the original idea on page one and see if it still would fit what you suggest.  I'm not sure it does - nor that I would want it to.

It's almost the same thing because everyone still picks their own top 10%. You simply query that data to meet the needs of a wider variety of cachers. Moose Mob's question raised a good point. Some caches are awesome but infrequently visited (terrain=4). So it makes sense to be able to group and highlight like caches with each other. So if you could compare favorites of similar types then it wouldn't favor higher volume caches or higher density cache regions. So I simply brought up one potential solution for Moose Mob's question for discussion.

 

Edit: I wasn't suggesting that people do a query of 10 to find the best cache. I was suggesting that the database could secretly order the caches queried by the cacher and return the top 10% by vote count. I suppose if someone wanted to query 10 to find 1 he could, but it seems like a waste of time to me.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Ummm.....??? :)

 

That's not really how I envisioned it.  Individuals think it's on their Top 10%.  If it gets some minimal number, it's given an attribute of "cacher's choice cache".

 

It's not that it's in the top 10% of the region.  It's that it's considered to be in the top 10% of the people that found it.  If the logic of weeding it down to find the best caches simply meant weeding down the numbers, then querying the database for 10 in that area would give you the #1...  That doesn't make sense.

 

Please re-read the original idea on page one and see if it still would fit what you suggest.  I'm not sure it does - nor that I would want it to.

It's almost the same thing because everyone still picks their own top 10%. You simply query that data to meet the needs of a wider variety of cachers. Moose Mob's question raised a good point. Some caches are awesome but infrequently visited (terrain=4). So it makes sense to be able to group and highlight like caches with each other. So if you could compare favorites of similar types then it wouldn't favor higher volume caches. So I simply brought up one potential solution for Moose Mob's question for discussion.

 

Edit: I wasn't suggesting that people do a query of 10 to find the best cache. I was suggesting that the database could secretly order the caches queried by the cacher by vote count and return the top 10%. I suppose if someone wanted to query 10 to find 1 he could, but it seems like a waste of time to me.

Implementation would be a nightmare no matter how it was done.

 

- An arbitrary number as to how many top 10% lists it was on would not apply across the board. In our area, a "busy" cache would be 10-15 visits a month, while other areas may see 30 or 40, while yet others maybe see 5 a year.

 

- If looking at it as a percentage (# of lists/# of visitors), if a cache has existed for 3 years and has had 300 visitors already, then once implemented, it would take a long time to float up to the top while a new cache of equivilant WOW factor would start at the top and stay there. Although we could assume we could go back and edit, not everyone would. In other words, not all of those cachers are around and thus will not be making thier top 10% lists. In this example, just the quantity would be relevant.

Link to comment
- An arbitrary number as to how many top 10% lists it was on would not apply across the board.  In our area, a "busy" cache would be 10-15 visits a month, while other areas may see 30 or 40, while yet others maybe see 5 a year.

Now I think you see my point. The number of visits is a relative number. It depends on the cacher density of a certain region. However the PQ lets you pull data for small circles to to 100 miles in diameter so you can find favorites within that area. So if one cache in Chicago has 50 votes it may only be 100th on a list of all the favorites in that circle. However, a cache in Kokomo that has 10 votes may be 5th in that area! So it doesn't matter what the absolute vote count is it matters what the relative vote count is. So a cacher traveling to Kokomo can do a PQ and find the favorites in that area based on the votes of caches in that area. So you don't need to provide the vote count you only need to sort the database based on the vote count and return the results of the top vote getters for that region!

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

My premise is NOT (even secretly) to order the caches in any way. If a minimum arbitrary number of cachers think it's good, it's considered worth the attribute. Binary. It is or it isn't. We're not talking about a "relative" vote, even if the individual cacher doesn't rate them in order.

 

While cacher density and number of visits CAN affect the votes of the cache (a 5 mile hike with a mensa-likk puzzle may only get 4 visitors in its first year, but all of them thought is was in 10 Top%), that's kind of a side-effect. To try and accommodate for that just complicates the system, and eventually leads to a "best" cache, which I'm not proposing, and wouldn't want to see.

 

My premise is much simpler than that: if the absolute vote is that five cachers think it's in their top 10%, the cache gets the system generated attribute of "favorite". That's it.

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment

I have to agree with Markwell. Whatever the number is (5, 10 or even 25) then it gets recocgnized. Although some possible deserving caches may not get omn that list right away, they will make it. It does keep it simple.

 

Questions:

- How do you prevent someone from creating 5 sockpuppet accounts, making bogus finds and putting thier cache on the list?

- How do you keep the information "fresh"? If the cache lost it's appeal for whatever reason, how do you get it off the list?

Link to comment
My premise is NOT (even secretly) to order the caches in any way.  If a minimum arbitrary number of cachers think it's good, it's considered worth the attribute.  Binary.  It is or it isn't.  We're not talking about a "relative" vote, even if the individual cacher doesn't rate them in order.

 

While cacher density and number of visits CAN affect the votes of the cache (a 5 mile hike with a mensa-likk puzzle may only get 4 visitors in its first year, but all of them thought is was in 10 Top%), that's kind of a side-effect.  To try and accommodate for that just complicates the system, and eventually leads to a "best" cache, which I'm not proposing, and wouldn't want to see.

 

My premise is much simpler than that: if the absolute vote is that five cachers think it's in their top 10%, the cache gets the system generated attribute of "favorite".  That's it.

I'm not disagreeing but what number were you thinking? If you set the trip point too low then some areas would get flooded with favorites and if you set it too high then large expanses of the country wouldn't get any. So I have a NEW idea that still amintains yuor binary concept. What if you let the user decide where to set the trip point in his PQ? This gives flexibility to the user to change the trip point to fit the area he is querying. For example, when you do a PQ there is a box that says "Return only caches appearing on ___ cachers favorites lists." ;)

 

Edit: I guess ideally I'd really like to see a favorites system that lets you run a PQ for the favorites within any 100 mile diameter circle in the world! ;)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
How do you prevent someone from creating 5 sockpuppet accounts, making bogus finds and putting thier cache on the list?

 

If you set the trip point too low then some areas would get flooded with favorites and if you set it too high then large expanses of the country wouldn't get any.

 

Both of these are answered with where that criticial mass (trip number) is set. Five is probably too low. Make it high enough that it's icky to setup sockpuppets for logging purposes. If it's 10 (again arbitrary) then if you get the cache showing up with the "Favorite"* attribute and you look on the cache page - the 10 people that log it all only have one find on or about the day the cache is placed, then someone setup a few dummy accounts. ;) - but after all, what's to stop someone from doing that now?

 

puppy.gifMy Dog Wags has her own account. I could (if I so deemed) go through and mark her with extra finds on my caches which she hasn't actually found, and then mark them as her favorites - and boost my caches to the elevated status of "favorites." But why? Just so more people will visit my caches? sigh.gif I suppose there are people out there that would do that. But in the Geocaching world, where so much of the site depends on the intergrity of others, I would think that would be a rare occurrence.

 

Back on the topic at hand, I would think (even in a cache rich area like Chicago) if 10 accounts think a cache is a favorites, then it's probably good. Ten definitely seems prohibitive for the sockpuppet effect. Ten also seems low enough that a cache that's been around a long time, but is in a sparse area might just about make it after a 18 month stint.

 

How do you keep the information "fresh"?  If the cache lost it's appeal for whatever reason, how do you get it off the list?
You have to remember that favorites caches are dynamic. I've got a list of 30 caches that are my favorite. It's what I'll convert to my favorites eventually (if/when this gets implemented). As I find more caches, I have to update and add some. As caches on this list get archived, I have to delete some. I also have all of these favorites notifying me of new finds on a watchlist. I can change my favorites whenever I want.

 

The problem is that the Dive Bomber was one of my favorites. I visited it in December of 2002. The cache might have gone completely to seed. The area might be clear-cut, and paved over with just the box in a typical hiding spot as the only thing left.

 

But it was still one of my favorites when I visited it back in 2002. I doubt that I would remove it until it's archived. Others may respond differently. That's why this is an aggregate function instead of at the whim of an individual cacher.

 

 

 

* For the purposes of this post, whenever the word favorites is in blue, I mean top 10% list of favorites of the cacher.

Link to comment
If you set the trip point too low then some areas would get flooded with favorites and if you set it too high then large expanses of the country wouldn't get any.

 

Both of these are answered with where that criticial mass (trip number) is set. Five is probably too low. Make it high enough that it's icky to setup sockpuppets for logging purposes. If it's 10 (again arbitrary) then if you get the cache showing up with the "Favorite"* attribute and you look on the cache page - the 10 people that log it all only have one find on or about the day the cache is placed, then someone setup a few dummy accounts. ;) - but after all, what's to stop someone from doing that now?

I think 10 might be too low for my area. We have hundreds of cachers down here and this would end up highlighting too many caches. But it is really a matter of opinion as to how many should get highlighted. So what do you think about the idea I suggested above about letting the user set the trip point in his PQ?

Link to comment

Yes - provided that the "that at least [] geocachers have recommended" has a minimum. If you do it with "1" then you're back to being able to see which caches are being snubbed. To be included I believe it should necessitate some critical number of geocachers finding it and listing it as one of their favorites.

Link to comment
Yes - provided that the "that at least [] geocachers have recommended" has a minimum. If you do it with "1" then you're back to being able to see which caches are being snubbed. To be included I believe it should necessitate some critical number of geocachers finding it and listing it as one of their favorites.

Yes, I totally agree. GS would have to set a minimum limit.

Link to comment
I am starting to think percentage again!

The problem with percentage is looking at the earliest caches like Beverly. It's been found no less than 146 times (and revisted by some). Many of those cachers that found it originally have moved on to new hobbies and never see the forums or visit Geocaching spots or even know where the batteries are in their GPS anymore (I know one guy on that page that lost his GPS behind his desk and got uninvolved in caching).

 

So caches that are older and found often over their life would be disproportionately lower in their percentage of cachers that think it's a favorite.

 

TrailGators's suggestion alleviates that problem.

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment
Yes - provided that the "that at least [] geocachers have recommended" has a minimum. If you do it with "1" then you're back to being able to see which caches are being snubbed.  To be included I believe it should necessitate some critical number of geocachers finding it and listing it as one of their favorites.

Yes, I totally agree. GS would have to set a minimum limit.

Come to think of it, if you did that then you'd have to make that selector a separate line item underneath the current line item that grabs all caches regardless of whether or not they are favorites. So you would select one or the other selector similar to the way other PQ categories work.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I am starting to think percentage again!

The problem with percentage is looking at the earliest caches like Beverly. It's been found no less than 146 times (and revisted by some). Many of those cachers that found it originally have moved on to new hobbies and never see the forums or visit Geocaching spots or even know where the batteries are in their GPS anymore (I know one guy on that page that lost his GPS behind his desk and got uninvolved in caching).

 

So caches that are older and found often over their life would be disproportionately lower in their percentage of cachers that think it's a favorite.

 

TrailGators's suggestion alleviates that problem.

Yes, I believe that was identified in an earlier post. Either way, it becomes very complicated. Especially if you combine it with caches along a route.

Link to comment

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but a problem I see, at least for the "ammo can" type of caches, is what I found today.

 

I revisited two caches I found back in January right after I started doing this.

 

At that time, each can was well-hidden and camouflaged and it took me a while to find them.

 

Today, I found each can more exposed and the placement looked "sloppy." I replaced the rocks and sticks better after logging my visit.

 

So, with a rating system . . . what happens if the original person has gone to great care to place and hide a cache, but subsequent finders mess things up a bit. That cache might get a poorer rating when it wasn't the cache owners fault? :ph34r:

Link to comment
<snip>Today, I found each can more exposed and the placement looked "sloppy." I replaced the rocks and sticks better after logging my visit.

 

So, with a rating system . . . what happens if the original person has gone to great care to place and hide a cache, but subsequent finders mess things up a bit. That cache might get a poorer rating when it wasn't the cache owners fault? :ph34r:

Well, it depends. If the "ammo can" cache is still functional,. it will likely be a a spectacular spot, not the cache container or the hide. It's about the great views, the great trail, not really the 20 ft circle around the cache container.

 

As far as well hidden micros in a suburban setting, that would be a different story. It only takes one person to ruin a good camo job, and destry the effects of an otherwise worthy cache.

Link to comment

I would think that maintenance plays a factor on whether you enjoy the cache or not. A cache that is basically left out there to rot will not be enjoyed by the later people that find it.

 

This actually goes to the type of log that I've suggested be for. Instead of a "needs archived" there should be (additionally) a pair of logs "needs maintenance" and "maintenance provided".

 

Then you could have recommended cache that needs matenance, and when you provide that needed maintenance, it becomes a great cache again.

Link to comment
I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but a problem I see, at least for the "ammo can" type of caches, is what I found today.

 

I revisited two caches I found back in January right after I started doing this.

 

At that time, each can was well-hidden and camouflaged and it took me a while to find them.

 

Today, I found each can more exposed and the placement looked "sloppy." I replaced the rocks and sticks better after logging my visit.

 

So, with a rating system . . . what happens if the original person has gone to great care to place and hide a cache, but subsequent finders mess things up a bit. That cache might get a poorer rating when it wasn't the cache owners fault?  :rolleyes:

What I remember about all the caches on my favorites list is the adventure. Typically, the cachers that create these caches keep them well maintained. If the cache is not maintained than it probably should fall out of favor. I like Markwell's idea about a "Need's Maintenance" checkbox. If other cachers see that box checked, I'm sure that many could would help out a fellow cacher if he is away/busy.

 

Plus we are NOT proposing a rating system. Read the logs!

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Always somebody wanting to play "judge", eh?

:blink: It's not a matter of playing judge.

It's directing attention to the good caches and not wasting time on the lame ones.

Tell us your favorites, you can check out my list.

Boy that was a blast from the past. Anyhow, ironically Byron & Anne's comment sounded like a judgement to me! :lol: Luckily for us, I think most people get it now!

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

:blink: It's not a matter of playing judge.

It's directing attention to the good caches and not wasting time on the lame ones.

Tell us your favorites, you can check out my list.

It's an old one, for sure.

 

Technically, I guess a person could call it playing judge. However, most of us see it as identifying those caches that are well above the rest as far as location or inginuity. Not trying to say the remaining caches are poor.

Edited by Moose Mob
Link to comment

Glad you asked - my favorites are linked in my forum sig line. Admittedly not that grandiose of a list (top 5% so but a dozen.) Nevertheless...

 

I'm not sure how the "rate this list" works, so if someone would kindly rate mine, I'd appreciate it...

 

(btw, one tip I learned for this - do identify what region you're from in the title or description of the favorites list - so folks know immediately what area the caches are generally in.)

Link to comment

I'm for a rating system!

I'd like to suggest the the ratings have 2 catagories; one for "cleverness" of hide for those interested in the challenges of the search, and another for geographical interest (for those travelers like me who use Geocaching to discover neat spots in a new area). Not all caches need to be rated; only those deemed exemplary.

Link to comment

I agree with those who say you should just read the logs. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE!

 

I would also go with the idea of having a personal favourites list, though you could always just add this into your profile. When I get a website, Im going to list my favourites. I also take newbie cachers to my favourite caches if there are no new caches around.

 

We had a discussion in our honours class last night about a similar type of rating system for a match-maker website. The problem would be (like most people have said) alot of flaming (very negative, maybe even untrue comments). Someone would have to monitor this system, to keep it fair. Think about it, would any of you out there actually give up your time to monitor such a system?

 

(I put this log in 3 different threads, cuz I can and cuz I think it's quite relevant)

Link to comment
I agree with those who say you should just read the logs. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE!

 

I would also go with the idea of having a personal favourites list, though you could always just add this into your profile. When I get a website, Im going to list my favourites. I also take newbie cachers to my favourite caches if there are no new caches around.

 

We had a discussion in our honours class last night about a similar type of rating system for a match-maker website. The problem would be (like most people have said) alot of flaming (very negative, maybe even untrue comments). Someone would have to monitor this system, to keep it fair. Think about it, would any of you out there actually give up your time to monitor such a system?

 

(I put this log in 3 different threads, cuz I can and cuz I think it's quite relevant)

We are not proposing a rating system. It started off that way and then the idea quickly evolved into a consensus favorites system. You can do favorites lists now. But it would be great if we could run a PQ to find the consensus favorites when you are traveling to a new area.

 

I WISH THERE WAS A WAY TO RENAME THIS TOPIC!

Link to comment
(I put this log in 3 different threads, cuz I can and cuz I think it's quite relevant)

Oh really? Please have a look at the forum guidelines, by following the link at the top left corner. There, you'll read this:

Posting Messages: Posting the same message to many topics or boards is considered spam. Duplicate messages will be deleted or consolidated by our moderators.

Thanks for sharing your insight. Once is fine. Having multiple topics open on the same subject gets mighty confusing, though.

Link to comment

Since Jeremy saw fit to link to this thread from another thread on rating caches, let's recap. While the original post on the thread talked about rating the caches, the discussion has evolved into aggregate listings of favorite caches.

 

The current proposal on the table is...

  • Cachers would be able to use a special bookmark list designated as "favorites" - similar to the ignore list
  • The maximum number of caches any account would be able to mark as a favorite cache would be a percentage to the number of total finds the account has (current thought is 10%)
  • Caches that have a minimum number ("X*") of cachers listing the cache as a favorite would be designated with some small recognition on the cache page - similar to the attributes - indicating that some people thought that the cache was a worthy one (maybe a Gold Star/Smily (smiley.gif)
  • Caches below the critical mass of X accounts would not be differentiated from any other average or sub-par caches. There would be two categories - the ones one which there's a consensus this cache is "good", and all of the others.
  • Once the Favorites bookmark (currently proposed by Jeremy) would go into place, eventually cachers would be able to set up a pocket query to only show these caches. This is similar to the idea of only showing caches that match a certain attribute (something promised on the site already). The would also see "favorite" caches designated on a standard proximity or zip code search.
  • Jeremy has also proposed that if a cacher DOES list a cache as a favorite in this specialized list, their log would be dynamic in that their found it logs (and notes, DNFs maybe) would also show that same not-over-the-top icon (smiley.gif) that would mean that this is one of the cachers' logs that thought enough of this cache to list it as a favorite.
  • Some thought has also been given to making X a variable number in the PQ, thus allowing the potential seeker to choose how many accounts think this cache is a good one.

Things this is NOT:

  • People will NOT be giving caches a grade, or rating them 1-10.
  • This will NOT create a system that will say that a cache is "bad." The only time this system "trashes" a cache is if a cache has been found a large number times, and it can't seem to get X number of cachers to say that it's in their top 10%. That silence would be very telling.
  • This is NOT a proposal to have finders rate terrain and difficulty

X* - that minimum number of cachers is still open to suggestions and discussion.

 

Why is there a need? Can't you just read the logs?

With so MANY caches to choose from, those with limited schedules in which to enjoy caches want some way for the system to separate out some of the best caches. This is a post that I think best answers MY views on this question.

Link to comment

That method would serve to highlight universal favorites. The caches to the far right of the bell curve. It will have some interesting side effects and it really isnt' cache ratings either. But it has potential to identify the can't miss if you have any time to do it caches in any location. Especially if you could put the Blaze mark on top of the state maps so they show first in the mass of caches that blanket things these days.

 

As for how to say a cache is one of my all time favorites, it should be a simple button on thelog page. My 2 cents.

 

Even though this isn't a traditional rating (it's much closer to the Criminal system than anything else proposed before) I'm looking forward to how it plays out. I would make special trips to do these caches.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Why is there a need? Can't you just read the logs?

With so MANY caches to choose from, those with limited schedules in which to enjoy caches want some way for the system to separate out some of the best caches. This is a post that I think best answers MY views on this question.

Let's not forget that logs can contain spoilers. While some geocachers want every find to be a "gimme" - not all geocachers want their hunt ruined by unnecessary hints or outright directions on how to find a cache.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

I like Markwell's suggestion above.....seems to fit the bill nicely.

 

My mods:

 

No rating for less than 10 found it logs

 

X should be set at least 5 for number of found its less than 100

 

X should be 10 for number of found its over 100

 

 

just a thought....

Link to comment

I don't think cache sites should be graded. Geocaching is fun. It doesn't matter what you find in a cache. I enjoy the find, the locations, the views, the historic sites,the walks, etc. It's not what you get out of a cache, it's the enjoyment you get out of geocaching.

cachepro

Link to comment
I don't think cache sites should be graded. Geocaching is fun. It doesn't matter what you find in a cache. I enjoy the find, the locations, the views, the historic sites,the walks, etc. It's not what you get out of a cache, it's the enjoyment you get out of geocaching.

cachepro

And if the location is poor, the view of a busy street, no historic site,

is it still fun?

 

And if you find 1500 caches in a city you're visiting, are you going

to go to all 1500???? :lol::P:lol:

 

Why is this so hard? :lol:

Why not just copy what Terracaching.com has done? ;)

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...