Scoring/grading Of Geocaches By Finders

[+norpan]

This topic must have been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the forums.

 

I would very much appreciate a way for finders to score or grade a geocache. While I understand that this is a very subjective and random categorization, at least I would feel better going after a score 4.5 cache than a score 1.2 cache.

 

What do people think about that?

[Jeremy]

This is the most often refrenced thread about rating systems.

[cachepro]

I don't think cache sites should be graded. Geocaching is fun. It doesn't matter what you find in the 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

[+jimmyreno]

I don't think cache sites should be graded. Geocaching is fun. It doesn't matter what you find in the 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

You just cut and paste the same thing in several threads.

Your caches are probably just as boring.

I'll remember not to look for them.

[+norpan]

I don't think cache sites should be graded. Geocaching is fun. It doesn't matter what you find in the 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

Well, I've been reading up on the other threads and I think a simple "Was this cache worth looking for? [Y/N]" would suffice.

 

I don't want to make it a beauty contest, I just want to select good caches to look for since my time is unfortunatly very limited.

 

So why am I wasting it here?

[+New England n00b]

The thing is what is good to you is not necessarily what is going to be good for me. I don't like puzzle caches. I've only done one, but I might do more in the future. However, if I go and slap a NO on them simply because I want to give puzzle caches a black eye, how does that help 'Cacher X' (not to be confused with Racer X) decide if a puzzle cache they might be looking at is worth visiting?

[+Maingray]

No thanks.

[CoyoteRed]

A straight up rating system wouldn't work mainly because of a fairly recent split in the game. There is a sub-group of people who don't care at all about the asthetics of a cache as long as it increments their count. I've seen "thanks for the cache" for some of the most hideous caches you could imagine.

 

A cache rating system could work, but it would be far too complex for most folks to handle. Heck, plenty can't even get the cache ratings or category right.

[+norpan]

The thing is what is good to you is not necessarily what is going to be good for me. I don't like puzzle caches. I've only done one, but I might do more in the future. However, if I go and slap a NO on them simply because I want to give puzzle caches a black eye, how does that help 'Cacher X' (not to be confused with Racer X) decide if a puzzle cache they might be looking at is worth visiting?

If you feel you can't objectively rate a cache as being good or bad, then I suppose that under this system you don't have to rate it.

 

If you feel that you can give information that will help other geocachers pick among the hundreds or thousands of caches they could potentially visit, then you can give this information.

 

This is no diffent than you posting a log saying something like "this cache sucks, don't go there".

 

The system is warranted because there are a lot of low-quality caches out there, and many people don't go for quantity, but quality.

[+New England n00b]

You're missing the point, I think. Lemme try another way:

 

A handicapped cacher who is restricted to 1/1 caches may find them all incredibly cool - while a 'normally-abled' person would think they stink because they were too easy.

 

I dunno. There more juicy goodness in the thread linked above.

[+Team Perks]

Taking the time to read the cache logs will really tell you all you need to know.

 

Compare my log for this cache to my log for this cache, and I think you can figure out which one is worth visiting and which isn't.

[+norpan]

Taking the time to read the cache logs will really tell you all you need to know.

 

Compare my log for this cache to my log for this cache, and I think you can figure out which one is worth visiting and which isn't.

I think you missed my point. My point was that time is what is lacking. If I read through ten logs on average for a hundred caches, and it takes twenty seconds to read each log, then I will have spent almost six hours reading logs.

 

Wheras if I can filter that one hundred caches out to ten caches, I will only have to spend half an hour.

 

I posted a longer reply to the thread linked above.

[+Markwell]

Did anyone read the suggestion in that thread that Jeremy said he might even implement?

 

A little complicated, but not terribly. It rewards good caches - the best of the best of the best - and is mute on everything else, whether it is just under fabulous, good, mediocre or downright awful. You're only saying that you really liked this cache, and when people are searching for caches recommended by others in an area, if a certain number of people recommend it, it will show up on that list.

 

I'm not explaining it well here, but give that whole thread a read.

[+norpan]

Did anyone read the suggestion in that thread that Jeremy said he might even implement?

 

A little complicated, but not terribly. It rewards good caches - the best of the best of the best - and is mute on everything else, whether it is just under fabulous, good, mediocre or downright awful. You're only saying that you really liked this cache, and when people are searching for caches recommended by others in an area, if a certain number of people recommend it, it will show up on that list.

 

I'm not explaining it well here, but give that whole thread a read.

I've read the thread. I think it's most important to filter out the bad caches, not filter in the really good ones.

 

Going after a cache just to find it uninteresting and in a bad location always sucks. I want some rating to reflect that.

[+Glenn]

I've read the thread. I think it's most important to filter out the bad caches, not filter in the really good ones.

 

Going after a cache just to find it uninteresting and in a bad location always sucks. I want some rating to reflect that.

Problem is that it would only take a few inmature people to mark a good cache as bad and then that cache will have a bad rating.

[+jimmyreno]

I've read the thread. I think it's most important to filter out the bad caches, not filter in the really good ones.

 

Going after a cache just to find it uninteresting and in a bad location always sucks. I want some rating to reflect that.

Problem is that it would only take a few inmature people to mark a good cache as bad and then that cache will have a bad rating.

Terracaching.com doesn't have that problem.

Why do you think the people here are less able or more troublesome?

[+New England n00b]

I've read the thread. I think it's most important to filter out the bad caches, not filter in the really good ones.

 

Going after a cache just to find it uninteresting and in a bad location always sucks. I want some rating to reflect that.

Problem is that it would only take a few inmature people to mark a good cache as bad and then that cache will have a bad rating.

Terracaching.com doesn't have that problem.

Why do you think the people here are less able or more troublesome?

Because it's free for all, and there is no mandatory screening to get in.

[+norpan]

Problem is that it would only take a few inmature people to mark a good cache as bad and then that cache will have a bad rating.

If the cache is good, then hopefully more people will mark it good. That's all I hope for. If you for some reason suspect that the rating is flawed, then you don't need to use it. But if you think it's relevant, then you can.

 

If this feature is implemented, you can still read all the logs if you have the time.

 

And, what is stopping immature people from posting logs saying that a cache is bad? If people are out to do bad things, what's stopping them from seeking up caches and trashing them?

 

Remember, my suggestion is that this should be a guiding tool. I don't want it to be a beauty contest.

[Jeremy]

Terracaching.com doesn't have that problem.

Why do you think the people here are less able or more troublesome?

They don't have enough users for it to be a problem.

[+Team Cotati]

I don't think cache sites should be graded. Geocaching is fun. It doesn't matter what you find in the 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

Right on!! Thank you.

[+norpan]

I don't think cache sites should be graded. Geocaching is fun. It doesn't matter what you find in the 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

Right on!! Thank you.

Exactly. Right on. That's why I hate going to a geocache just to find out that the route there was boring paved road. The place was uninteresting, polluted and crowded, and the cache was in a trivial place.