Grading Caches

[+duncscott]

I've noticed quite a few caches now have 'times viewed' statistics appearing on them along with the opportunity for finders to grade the caches.

 

Is this a new / standard feature of geocaching - if so where are details published / how do you load the information bars onto your own pages.

 

If its not a standard feature and some very clever people are doing it themselves - should it not be a feature for everyone.

 

It is very useful to be able to assess other peoples thoughts about a cache

[+DaveA]

There are caching sites like terracaching.com that do employ a rating system for caches, but if you are speaking of caches on geocaching.com there is no such system that I am aware of. More than likely what you are seeing are individual cachers who have customized their cache listing on geocaching.com to include a hit counter and a feedback/rating mechanism.

 

I do agree it is a neat idea, but I am not sure how helpful it really is since cachers have widely differing opinions on what makes a good or lame cache.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Grading Caches? I dont't think it will work, what one person might think is a good cache another person might think is a lame cache.

[+bigredmed]

The type of data that this place could support would require such a large number of users per individual cache that in normal conditions, it would not be valid. (likkert scale)

 

The type of data that could be stored in a log would be of the same limitations that the current logs have.

[+briansnat]

Is this a new / standard feature of geocaching - if so where are details published / how do you load the information bars onto your own pages.

 

I think people pull it from www.keenpeople.com and plug it into their cache pages.

[+Markwell]

But Jeremy has considered something along the lines of rewarding the best caches. Take a read here.

[+GeoMike11]

.... what one person might think is a good cache another person might think is a lame cache.

That is true. But over time, the varied responses would average out to a rolling average....which, to me, would be useful.

 

As it is now, the difficulty/terrain rating is relatively subjective...right?

[+briansnat]

As it is now, the difficulty/terrain rating is relatively subjective...right?

 

Not really. Here are the generally accepted defs:

 

 

Difficulty rating:

 

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

Edited February 3, 2005 by briansnat

[+RuffRidr]

But Jeremy has considered something along the lines of rewarding the best caches. Take a read here.

Markwell, I love your idea from that thread. Great implementation, also a good way not to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

--RuffRidr

[+Salvelinus]

Why not develop something and make it an option like the new cache attributes thingy? That way, it would be up to the cache owner to use it or not.

 

I would add it to all my caches immediatly since I would find it much more useful than many of those cache attributes. I would rather have some idea that my (and other) caches were appreciated rather than decipher the "TNLN, thanks for the hide" logs that tell you nothing.

 

This is how I would use it:

 

If the cache gets alot of high ratings its probably a good one. If it gets alot of low ratings, its probably got issues. If it gets mixed reviews, its likely somewhere on the average. This way, I could relatively quickly decide which caches I wanted to focus on first. Who knows, cache quality may even improve!

 

Salvelinus

[AJK]

I have read the other thread - some great ideas.

 

Here's my take, I cache in areas that are unknown to me. I would like to be able to do a PQ on an area, and have 5-20 caches in the area highlighted as good ones. I do not want to read the logs of 300-500 caches in an attempt to find those myself.

 

I do this sort of caching on a regular enough basis that joining local forums, etc. is time consuming.

 

I know some areas may have more or fewer ribboned caches - that's fine, I can look through these.

 

Basically, I want, I want, I want.....

[+Anonymous']

But Jeremy has considered something along the lines of rewarding the best caches.  Take a read here.

Markwell, I love your idea from that thread. Great implementation, also a good way not to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

--RuffRidr

I think that the idea is a very cool idea and I hope it goes into effect.