Rating For Caches

February 18, 2005

As with most every cacher, I've been frustrated by lame caches and really enjoyed others. What does everyone think about a rating system? If you've used a service like netflix, ebay, and the like, you've seen these rating systems. My idea is that everyone who logs a cache can click 1 to 5 stars if they want. The cache page would then display the average user rating and how many ratings have been logged. The more finds, the more weight you would give to this rating. A cache owner might be able to refurbish or restock a cache, and restart the ratings logs. This would allow cache improvement, and you might not waste time on a dirty mint can hidden under a garbage can. Likewise, people who put out a great effort would be rewarded with more stars. You could even make the stars a member only feature.

February 18, 2005

I think this has potential as it would be great to be able to choose which cache you want to go to next and what caches to leave for later.

Would also make a great search feature in PQ :laughing: .

24.7k · February 18, 2005

Ratings should mean something.

Hicking caches should get rave reviews from hikers.

Scuba caches from divers etc.

That way you can look up what you like and find the caches that match.

If a rating system is generic. Hikers will diss urban caches, urbanites will diss hikers caches and on average most caches would be average.

Great idea hard to implement.

I'm beginning to wonder if we could rate finders and if they don't make the cut they can't hunt your caches anymore.

February 18, 2005

Ratings should mean something.

Hicking caches should get rave reviews from hikers.

Scuba caches from divers etc.

That way you can look up what you like and find the caches that match.

If a rating system is generic. Hikers will diss urban caches, urbanites will diss hikers caches and on average most caches would be average.

Great idea hard to implement.

I'm beginning to wonder if we could rate finders and if they don't make the cut they can't hunt your caches anymore.

I beg to differ. I think most urban cachers would still really respect either a nicely placed micro in the city or a rural cache with a great view. No, they wouldn't dis a rural cache just because it isn't urban... not if it had a nice view, or a great container of goodies. Besides, it wouldn't matter, everything would even out with a large number of votes.

24.7k · February 18, 2005

...I beg to differ. I think most urban cachers would still really respect either a nicely placed micro in the city or a rural cache with a great view. No, they wouldn't dis a rural cache just because it isn't urban... not if it had a nice view, or a great container of goodies. Besides, it wouldn't matter, everything would even out with a large number of votes.

That's my point. It would look like a bell curve. Most caches would be average. A few that somehow appeal to everyone will be the extreme "good caches" and a few that manage to be complete crap will be at the other extreme.

The problem isn't the small minority of caches that find that universal magic, or anti magic. It's the majority of caches that appeal to some and not to others. The people that will cancel each other out and make a cache average out to average.

Cache feedback should let you seek caches that fit your style so you seek more of the ones you like. If I like caches that George likes, then I'm interested in his ratings. If I like caches that all tend to be short hikes. Not to far and not to close, well that's what I'd like to use the ratings to narrow down my search for.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I am saying implemetning it to do the most good is problamatic. We don't even agree on what the most good is.

February 18, 2005

Now there's a unique suggestion.

taken from this thread

2.3k · February 18, 2005

As with most every cacher, I've been frustrated by lame caches and really enjoyed others. What does everyone think about a rating system? If you've used a service like netflix, ebay, and the like, you've seen these rating systems. My idea is that everyone who logs a cache can click 1 to 5 stars if they want. The cache page would then display the average user rating and how many ratings have been logged. The more finds, the more weight you would give to this rating. A cache owner might be able to refurbish or restock a cache, and restart the ratings logs. This would allow cache improvement, and you might not waste time on a dirty mint can hidden under a garbage can. Likewise, people who put out a great effort would be rewarded with more stars. You could even make the stars a member only feature.

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.

Best of the Harrold quotes, Vol 1

8.9k · February 18, 2005

Now there's a unique suggestion.

taken from this thread

Yep - there's a pretty good (and endorsed) solution there.

9.1k · February 18, 2005

I had a recent experience that reinforces my opposition to a straight ratings system. We have the opportunity now to rate "shared bookmark lists." I spent hours building my list of all-time favorite caches. There's 65 caches on the list with descriptions of why each one made the list, what state they are in, who hid them, etc. It was a lot of work. One reason why I did it is so that I could start a forum thread when the new site launched, to give the rest of the community an example of the new feature's potential. Since then, I've answered lots of questions to help other people with bookmark lists.

One of the first people to rate my list gave it a "not helpful" rating, saying "where's my pot of gold?" Boy, *that* was constructive; thanks a lot. So now I've got the equivalent of eBay "negative feedback." Now, if the person had said "there are too many multicaches on your list" well, at least that is a valid opinion.

It is too easy to push a button and flame someone with a rating feature.

I do endorse the solution involving favorites, as adverted to by Markwell.

Edited February 18, 2005 by The Leprechauns

February 18, 2005

One of the first people to rate my list gave it a "not helpful" rating, saying "where's my pot of gold?"

Tell them that their "Pot of Gold" is on Quest Master's ignore list.

9.1k · February 18, 2005

LOL! :laughing: You won't find it on my "best cache hunts" list. Most of the spaces got taken up by your caches.

Watch for some "owner notification" e-mails over the weekend, Johnny.

24.7k · February 18, 2005

...
Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.
Best of the Harrold quotes, Vol 1

Harrolds always was good at veiled but blatant attacks.

This strikes me as the same.

1.8k · February 18, 2005

I've always been opposed to a straight ratings system as well for most of the reasons previously mentioned. Many of us already have difficulty assigning 1-5 ratings for our own caches...

The system I've always had tumbling around inside my head is as follows:

Everyone would be given five "tokens" (or whatever you want to call them. Ratings Points? Votes?) You would spend those tokens on your five all-time favorite caches. Once you've assigned them all, the only way to get another one is to take one of your tokens back from a cache that is no longer in your top five and spend it on a new favorite. So you're not actually giving a cache a rating, you're just saying it's one of your top five favorites.

To keep new cachers from giving all their tokens to all five caches they've found and skewing the results, the number of tokens you get would be prorated. One token for every five or ten caches found.

However, to keep things fresh, your tokens expire after a set period of time, say six months, where they are returned to your "inventory" to be reassigned. That will urge you to keep your list fresh (although you can put your tokens right back into the same caches if you wish) and make sure that caches that have fallen into disrepair don't still have recommendations from cachers that haven't kept their list up to date or have become inactive.

Obviously you would automatically get your tokens back if a cache is archived.

On the cache pages, you would not see a rating, all you would see is "17 people have made this cache a favorite" or something. As a bonus, you could click on that text and get a list titled "Of all the people that have made this cache a favorite, here's all the other caches they have spent their tokens on" and you get a merged list, sorted so if many of the 17 have made one of those caches a favorite, that would sort to the top. Kind of like Amazon's "People who bought this widget also bought this."

The idea is that you could get an idea of "I really liked this cache, and a lot of people who also like it seem to like 'Cache B' as well, so I bet I probably would, too!"

With this system, you don't feel compelled to rate every cache you find; you're just noting the cream of the crop. And it's positive only, so there's no way to downgrade a cache you don't like or is owned by a cacher you have a disagreement with.

Make sense?

February 18, 2005

As with most every cacher, I've been frustrated by lame caches and really enjoyed others. What does everyone think about a rating system? If you've used a service like netflix, ebay, and the like, you've seen these rating systems. My idea is that everyone who logs a cache can click 1 to 5 stars if they want. The cache page would then display the average user rating and how many ratings have been logged. The more finds, the more weight you would give to this rating. A cache owner might be able to refurbish or restock a cache, and restart the ratings logs. This would allow cache improvement, and you might not waste time on a dirty mint can hidden under a garbage can. Likewise, people who put out a great effort would be rewarded with more stars. You could even make the stars a member only feature.

Nobody can be so amusingly arrogant as a young man who has just discovered an old idea and thinks it is his own.
Best of the Harrold quotes, Vol 1

This other thread was from Nov. of last year.

Clearly two people can independently have the same, original idea. Think about it! :mad:

Edited February 18, 2005 by Durango!

February 18, 2005

I've been looking over the old posts from other threads on the subject I wasn't able to find before.

You berate people for bringing it up when it has been brought up before. This is doubtless because you don't like the idea. Well, guess what, many people like the idea. That is why they keep bringing it up! There are many people now who have independantly come up with this idea because it is something they would really like to see. It may be another year, but people will bring it up again.

If you don't like the idea, you don't have to use it. A user could choose whether or not to display cache ratings with a simple check mark. I don't see any reason you should oppose this for the people who want to rate caches.

9.1k · February 18, 2005

I don't see any reason you should oppose this for the people who want to rate caches.

And some of us *do* see a reason. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Forums are marvelous places to prove that.

February 18, 2005

Bravo, my little shamrock-hugging friend. Give that man a cigar! :mad:

8.9k · February 18, 2005

I've always been opposed to a straight ratings system as well for most of the reasons previously mentioned. Many of us already have difficulty assigning 1-5 ratings for our own caches...

The system I've always had tumbling around inside my head is as follows:

(((snipped)))

Make sense?

Sounds familiar my cheesy friend...

Almost like what I wrote out in the thread I linked earlier. :mad:

February 18, 2005

I've been looking over the old posts from other threads on the subject I wasn't able to find before.

You berate people for bringing it up when it has been brought up before. This is doubtless because you don't like the idea. Well, guess what, many people like the idea. That is why they keep bringing it up! There are many people now who have independantly come up with this idea because it is something they would really like to see. It may be another year, but people will bring it up again.

If you don't like the idea, you don't have to use it. A user could choose whether or not to display cache ratings with a simple check mark. I don't see any reason you should oppose this for the people who want to rate caches.

Interesting.

Here you are complaining about forum member berating people for trying to push an idea that encourages berating cache placers.

Am I missing something, or there something wrong with picture??

Byron

20.7k · February 18, 2005

Rather than restate what I and others have said in many, many threads regarding ratings, let me just say that I think this is a bad idea.

3.9k · February 19, 2005

It seems we have the making of a cache and cacher rating system in progress now. Since we can rate a person's cache list as "not very useful" regardless of purpose. I am not sure where it's headed, so I am watching it's evolution with caution.

I am all for a method of being able to identify specific caches as being "better than average". I am not sure about rating one individual's list over another's.

Edit: Qualification.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Moose Mob

February 19, 2005

Byron, yes you are missing something.. the positive is missed while you just focus on the negative. Rating always involves both, of course. this is every bit as much about encouraging great caches by giving them a great rating, honoring them for putting out the extra effort. To do this, you also have to distinguish them from the junk. The junkers in this case will be encouraged to improve by the rating, at least if they care. Again, I said the rating display could be optional, so you could just turn it off if you didn't want to use it. Would you like to know what the last 50 finders thougth of a cache? I sure would, but you can turn it off if you want to be ignorant of it. If it is your cache, maybe this would hurt your feelings and that is what you are afraid of. I think this may be the crux of it. I wouldn't mind, though, as it would encourage me to do better maintenance. I think it would come out that most caches would be average. Only the stinky ones and the truly nice ones would stand out. ... and that's what I'd love to see on the pages!

February 19, 2005

I don't like the idea of a cache rating system, and will not go into all the reasons here as they have already been covered quite well. Having said that, I will say that IF there ever is a cache rating system of some sort, then the cache owner should have the option to not have their cache rated. It's got nothing to do with "not wanting feelings hurt" at all...it's simply a matter that a lot of us don't care for all the quantifying, listing, "stats" type stuff. You go out and hunt for a cache, you find it or you don't. You enjoy the hunt and find or you don't. It's just life: you're not going to have a great time at every baseball game, or every party, or every date, but you keep going, and you take your chances on having fun or not, and as long as you are enjoying them most of the time, you'll probably keep going. Caching is no different to me.

February 19, 2005

I respect your opinion, but...

I don't particularly like going to a part when I don't know who is hosting it or attending,

I don't like going on a blind date every time,

I don't like going to a baseball game if I don't know if the teams are good or awful . . .

February 21, 2005

I respect your opinion, but...

I don't particularly like going to a part when I don't know who is hosting it or attending,

I don't like going on a blind date every time,

I don't like going to a baseball game if I don't know if the teams are good or awful . . .

1. The appealing thing about geocaching is NOT knowing. It's the adventure, the "what's around the bend", what's the next cache going to be like. The discovery. These are the things that make geocaching an interesting activity. Putting ratings on caches removes some of that.

2. It's not a baseball game, a movie, or etc. It's hide and seek.

3. If most caches are rated average, what's the point? To hurt the feelings of those are rated below average.?

4. Cachers have different critiera, no matter how you try to set guide lines. Case in point. I looked at your hides from your profile page. I'd rate all of them at on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 the very best) a 0. Why? Because I don't like urban caches.

5. If you don't like the unknown. Wait until there's been a lot of finds and read the logs. There's usually enough information there to give you an idea of what those that come before think.

February 23, 2005

Isn't the Reactions in the Logs a good enough rating system? You can read the logs and get an idea of what people think and base your decision off of that. There are so few caches in my area that we don't care much for ratings... If there is a new one good or bad we go for it... Once again I think every cache deserves a shot and ratings do not work as many people just click *One Star* because they suck....

February 25, 2005

No new rating system EVER! Read the logs.

8.9k · February 25, 2005

Isn't the Reactions in the Logs a good enough rating system? You can read the logs and get an idea of what people think and base your decision off of that.

Seems that we have two identicle threads brought up by the same post. So, I'll state the reasoning behind having some quantification. I'll illustrate the reason with a true story:

In my early days of caching in the spring of 2001, I was planning a trip down to Tennessee to visit my in-laws. I had the GPS all set. I tried to find the best resources to find caches that might be close to my route - ANY caches. There was one that seemed close enough to the interstate that I could make a couple hours' trip to go there and get it, but it sounded like I needed a 4WD vehicle to get there. There was one in Nashville that seemed close enough for me to hit - and we did that one.

Compare that with my most recent trip to Tennessee in December of 2004. I set up PQs to cover the area and get caches within 6 miles of my route. I weeded out multi-stage caches and virtuals (as they weren't too condusive to "passing through" geocaching).

Since Nashville had a (possibly undeserved) reputation for less than desireable micro caches - I unfortunately felt that I needed to weed out all of the micros. Had I not weeded out the single-stage micros, there's no way I could have gotten all of the Nashville area within any one or two pocket queries. Even with weeding out the micros, the 20 mile radius around Nashville had over 250 single-stage regular-size (or large-size) caches. With that narrow set of criteria, in the stretch of Interstate 24 from Exit 24 to where 840 crosses I-24, there were 68 caches within 3 miles of that stretch of interstate.

Now I'm not stopping in Nashville - but I'm passing through. I'm not out to raise my numbers a whole lot. I would like to stop on my way down to Chattanooga and visit some quality caches. As it was, I arbitrarily decided to stop at one or two spots. I was somewhat disappointed in the ones that I chose, and I'm certain that I missed some quality caches because of the "static" created by all of the average or below-average caches.

Here's the premise:

A rating system that rewards only the cream of the crop serves two purposes:

1. If travelers from out of town have a way to limit the caches to those that people gave some consensus that this cache is better than the average, they would most likely find their caching experience a better one for visiting popular caches.

2. If hiders are motivated by such things, it would encourage them to possibly take a little extra time to hide a cache in a more thoughtful manner than copycatting the 50 or 60 other caches that are hidden the exact same way, or make them think twice before putting a cache out in an area "just because you can".

Some posters have been lamenting in great length what to do about the glut of lame caches (I'm not saying there is one, but that is what is being posted in threads like this). I think one of the BEST ways to ensure caches that are thoughtful and interesting is to reward the efforts of those that put out thoughtful and interesting caches in such a way as to not insult those that didn't make the "A" list.

Remember that in my proposed method of rating, if a cache has no one listing the cache as being in their top 10%, it doesn't show that. Nor does it show it if less than X cachers think it's in their top 10%. I've arbitrarily suggested either 5 or 10. That way if a cache doesn't have anyone listing it as one of their favorites, it looks no different than a cache that has four people listing it as one of their favorites. The favorites attribute only clicks in after some critical mass believe it's good.

Given the LENGTHY discussion, and this way too long post, how is this suggestion harmful to the sport of Geocaching?

11.3k · February 26, 2005

I'm too new and inexperienced to have an opinion that anyone would respect . . . however, I think it would be interesting to have a rating system for the coordinates.

Now, it is my understanding that this is a real "can of worms," but, I have tried to find caches where the previous people state not only that the coordinates are "off" by 40 feet (or 74 feet), but they have included new coordinates in the logs.

Even trying original and new coordinates for one, I couldn't find it.

Then, yesterday I found two. One in a parking lot and one out in a big open field.

On each of those, the coordinates were right on. I knew which lamp post held the micro. I wasn't standing in the middle of the asphalt wondering which of the four around me to look at.

I would rate each of those a '5' on a 1 to 5 scale for coordinates.

3.9k · February 26, 2005

I'm too new and inexperienced to have an opinion that anyone would respect . . . however, I think it would be interesting to have a rating system for the coordinates.

Now, it is my understanding that this is a real "can of worms," but, I have tried to find caches where the previous people state not only that the coordinates are "off" by 40 feet (or 74 feet), but they have included new coordinates in the logs.

Even trying original and new coordinates for one, I couldn't find it.

Then, yesterday I found two. One in a parking lot and one out in a big open field.

On each of those, the coordinates were right on. I knew which lamp post held the micro. I wasn't standing in the middle of the asphalt wondering which of the four around me to look at.

I would rate each of those a '5' on a 1 to 5 scale for coordinates.

That's an interesting thought. But wouldn't you be grading the accuracy of thier GPS against yours? Accuracy changes based on many factors, such as time of day, satellite positions, things like that. In the case where they take the reading nearby (such as in the car or from the nearby sidewalk) the readings can be off by 30 feet or bettter.

I would have to agree though, it would be good for the person looking to have an easier way to find that the accuracy is off by the majority of finders and just how far they are off. My PDA holds the 5 logs that are in the web page, I usually find the answer I am looking for there. If it's that far off, the cache owner should fix it, many times, they do not. I would be very much in favor of being able to enter my own coordinates if the readings were that far off. This would be for traditional caches only, of course. I would hate for someone to do that to a multi!

11.3k · February 26, 2005

I'm too new and inexperienced to have an opinion that anyone would respect . . . however, I think it would be interesting to have a rating system for the coordinates.

Now, it is my understanding that this is a real "can of worms," but, I have tried to find caches where the previous people state not only that the coordinates are "off" by 40 feet (or 74 feet), but they have included new coordinates in the logs.

Even trying original and new coordinates for one, I couldn't find it.

Then, yesterday I found two. One in a parking lot and one out in a big open field.

On each of those, the coordinates were right on. I knew which lamp post held the micro. I wasn't standing in the middle of the asphalt wondering which of the four around me to look at.

I would rate each of those a '5' on a 1 to 5 scale for coordinates.

That's an interesting thought. But wouldn't you be grading the accuracy of thier GPS against yours? Accuracy changes based on many factors, such as time of day, satellite positions, things like that. In the case where they take the reading nearby (such as in the car or from the nearby sidewalk) the readings can be off by 30 feet or bettter. . . .

That is why I said it was probably opening a "can of worms." I'm learning that my GPSr doesn't deliver me to the exact spot, but when other cachers have also mentioned the problem, the coordinates might really be off.

With a rating system for the coordinates, at least that way you would know, before arriving, that you might have to greatly expand your search area to succeed (or you can avoid the cache altogether if your frustration level is easily reached.)

I found the one that was off by more than 70 feet because the clue was very specific. That was much appreciated . . . otherwise I never would have found it.

3.9k · February 27, 2005

No, this isn't really a "can of worms" since it doesn't really stimulate a heated discussion. This is more of an educational process, where most of the educaton is learning that there are certain inaccuracies in coordinates, differences in GPS units, differences in how people take thier readings, and always that little reminder in the back of your head that says "YOU are the search engine!"

March 1, 2005

Just my $.02 (maybe less since I'm new to the sport), but I'm not so keen on rating caches for quality, simply because the point is the hunt as others have said.

I think it would be great if finders could rate the terrain and difficulty of each cache though. This would help normalize these ratings. Sorry if I'm repeating someone else!

Thanks!

3.9k · March 2, 2005

Maybe a different spin on how I view it. I would be rating my enjoyment factor while finding the cache. More of an enjoyment factor than a judgement on the container, contents, or how it was hidden.

Rating For Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment