Cache Ratings

[+JunglePete]

Has it ever been discussed or considered to include a rating system for caches? So after you have found it you can rate a cache based on it's location, theme, originality?

 

I've been to some that have been fantastic and other that are very lame, but it would be interesting to see how people rate them and it would encourage people to put more thought into them as well.

[+cache_test_dummies]

This gets brought up from time to time, with plenty of feelings on both the pro and con side.

 

Here is one of the more recent discussions.

[+Moose Mob]

Well, here's a rather long discussion on exaclty what you are looking for.

 

This is a "high demand" feature request, but there are a lot of opinions on just how it should be implemented.

[+Miragee]

After one I experienced recently, I really do wish there was a way to at least designate the really, really lame or awful caches, like the ones that are near dead animals or smelly dumpsters.

 

Grading levels of greatness might be hard and difficult to implement -- too subjective -- but the really awful ones should be easy to rate . . .

 

 

[+JohnnyVegas]

Its just a bad idea and would never work

[+jimmyreno]

I asked this question a few weeks ago myself,

I hope they do it.

 

Especially for when I travel to another city.

[+New England n00b]

Its just a bad idea and would never work

Yep. One mans treasure is another mans junk.

[+Greymane]

I think it would be rough to start. People who hate micros may crush all micros on the ratings. People who want a 10 mile hike might destroy all "park and grabs" in the ratings. People in urban areas might destroy anything that requires them to break a sweat. But, in the long run, I think it would even out and become fairly effective.

[+AtoZ]

Atleast once every month to every other week someone brings it up.

cheers

[+CharlieP]

Rating every cache hunt is probably not a good idea ... too many hurt feelings. But a system to help identify the really good caches could work ... maybe allow cachers to vote for their twenty favorite caches, or one cache out of every or ten they do. It would also be great to be able to easily list caches by characteristics such as historical, scenic, good hike, handicap friendly, creativity, etc.

[+The red-haired witch]

After one I experienced recently, I really do wish there was a way to at least designate the really, really lame or awful caches, like the ones that are near dead animals or smelly dumpsters.

 

I would never put a cache near a dumpster, but what you say about dead animals illustrates one of the many problem with a rating system. Say an animal dies near a cache hidden somewhere in a nice forest. It seems from your comment that some people would give a bad rating to the cache because of the rotting animal nearby (not something the owner had any control on). The bad ratings would remain even after the animal has disappeared.

 

Same thing if a cache is wet for a couple of days... even after it has been fixed, the bad ratings remains.

 

Just write what you think of the cache in your log and people will read if they want. Do we really need it translated in points out of 10 or in stars out of 5?

[HARVEY-ETC]

Doesn't that other site (TC) use a rating system similar to this?

 

"... employs a complex dynamic rating system which learns from members and actively encourages a focus on the quality, not quantity, of caches that members post. There are no written rules or guidelines regarding the types of caches members are allowed to post here. However, since the entire community judges the worthiness of each others' caches, members find that it's both much easier and much more difficult to post caches here. Caches that have been turned away from other sites have been welcomed here. Yet our community has also turned away some caches that would have (or even have been since) approved elsewhere. Quality, as defined and strictly enforced by the community, is the law of the land here."

 

Maybe take a look at what they are doing and implement something similar for cache quality rating.

[+Moose Mob]

For the folks who haven't read "THE THREAD" (or have read it and do not remember the content), here's some points that most folks agreed on.

 

Rating a cache as "poor" is not a good plan. Too many differing opinions based on personal taste. It also can burst the energy that a new cacher has when they start playing the game. "wow look! the cache is under a light pole cover, I want to do one of them do". They eventually learn better as they get more experience. We need to allow them to learn.

 

Rating an excellent cache as "above the rest" or "cream of the crop" has a very strong following, but different opinions on how to do it. Most folks agree that there should be a limit on how many caches each of us can put up there (10%, 5% or 1% of your finds). Based on some sort of criteria, a cache would then have gold star or you could view the number of "outstanding" lists that the cache was on (see Marwell's idea in the thread indicated above.

 

When visiting a city in some far off land, this would narrow down the list of caches that you need to cull through to get the ones that you would really enjoy.

[+briansnat]

The best way to determine if a cache is worthwhile is to scan the logs. If you see page after page of little more than " Quick find. TNLN. Thanks" you can be fairly certain its a stinker. If you see numerous, multi paragraph logs its probably a good one.

[+JohnnyVegas]

When visiting a city in some far off land, this would narrow down the list of caches that you need to cull through to get the ones that you would really enjoy.

You can do this now by reading the logs, if a cache is really good it will includes logs that will reflect it was above average.

Cache rattings, Just a bad idea that will never work

[+flask]

The best way to determine if a cache is worthwhile is to scan the logs. If you see page after page of little more than " Quick find. TNLN. Thanks" you can be fairly certain its a stinker. If you see numerous, multi paragraph logs its probably a good one.

sometimes a really excellent cache has boring short logs because nobody wants to give away any of the surprise.

 

not the usual, of course, but it's there all the same.

[AE_Rodney]

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

 

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?

[+SeventhSon]

The best way to determine if a cache is worthwhile is to ...

... go find it.

 

You may agree or disagree with someone else's opinion; you will always agree with your own.

[bogleman]

New to the game but here are my thoughts - No need for a cache rating, review the logs, isint that one of the reasons they are there, and then YOU decide if it is worthwhile. Rarely do I just simply go after a hide without doing a little research, then I go after the ones I want.

Ian

[Jeremy]

It has already been discussed (and is being discussed). Since this topic is redundant I am closing it. If you wish to continue you can use the discussion already in progress.