Cache Ratings System

[markandlynn]

There is a thread over in the USA forum on cache ratings (currently 8 pages long!!!)

As mentioned elswhere at the moment we have a lot of caches being placed many by relative newcomers to the sport, not a problem as thats more new places to find.

However we also have comments that some of these caches are not quite up to the standard we have come to expect.

Eventually this will be to much of a problem to ignore say when on holiday or in an unfamiliar area.

At this point reading the previous logs to find the poorer caches will seem like to much work and you will probably take pot luck or only hunt certain cache types, terrains and difficulties.

How would you go about getting a consensus rating for caches in a fair manner and getting this information out into the public domain?

[+hh1]

Agree, agree, ... sigh.

But it is up to Groundspeak/geocaching.com to decide and take action.

Proposal(s)

[+MarcB]

Rather than showing the best caches, I'd prefer a system which highlights the worst. In my opinion, people are much more likely to agree on what the worst caches are, than the best.

MarcB

[+The Hokesters]

Is this what you are thinking of?

[markandlynn]

Is this what you are thinking of?

I've used that system on some of my caches.

The problem with scores is many fold ( i do some questionaire design at work)

the main one i had with this was one cache took ten visits before anyone voted and you still have to read every single cache listing online to find the ratings if they have used the system at all.

[Remote Part]

I think a system showing the worst caches would be a bad idea.

If someone new to cache hiding had their cache marked as one of the worst they would probably be discouraged from hiding any more (possibly much better) caches in the future.

 

Also some people might mark a cache as worst just because they don't like that sort of cache, whereas others might think it is great.

 

Though I would like some way of marking your favourite caches, say your top 10% or so. Then caches with the most nominations could be added to some sort of "best caches" list.

[+The Hokesters]

Look lets face it all caches are good more the merrier. If a particular cache type doesn't float your boat then move on to the next. Let's not go out to bum down any cache.

 

Group hug!

[+klaus23]

I agree with The Hokesters. What I might see as a 'bad' cache might be perfectly acceptable to someone else. Also, I've been against grading caches except for "Must-Do Before You Die" or general recommendations.

 

Imagine you placed a cache and found it 'graded' badly? How would you feel?

 

If you're going on holiday or in an unfamiliar area, consult local cachers on their recommendations. Use these or local forums. Read the logs. Creating "league tables" is not the answer. If you think a cache is lame, do another.

[+snaik]

Its all about perception!

 

You might think a cache is Bad!

 

It what you think at the time

 

Not seen any posters here doing any of my caches, would be grateful of critique

 

Snaik

Edited June 3, 2005 by Snaik

[+The Hokesters]

Sorry Snaik - will definitely be after a few of yours when we finally get up there to see some of Jo's heritage. Could be another Christmas jaunt for us.

[+-Phoenix-]

'taste' is always an issue with any scoring or review system, however it is possible to put together a system that takes this into account.

 

Firstly whats required is for everyone who visits to score a cache against a criteria on an +/- scale ie +5 = best and -5 = worse, these scores are never revealed to anyone in their raw form.

 

Next when someone else visits a cache they also put their review, but they can read past reviews and rate their agreement with the past reviewers.

 

This agreement factor then assigns an agreement score between the initial reviewer and the later visitor, such that over a period of time the system will learn which cachers whos opinions you rate highly, and can provide a modified score for each cache based upon past visitors ratings and your agreement factors of these visitors.

 

The great thing about this is the individuality of it, no one cache can easily be rated better or worse on a national league table, but, individuals who want a quality guideline can tailor it to their particular tastes

[Deego]

We are testing a cache rating system on GUK at the moment :) and its looking good so far .

[+Teasel]

The G:UK system I'm working on is a simple "stars out of 5" affair for caches you have logged as found. All cachers' opinions are considered equal, and a "baysian" average is calculated so that if, for example, cache A had ten people give it 4 stars, it'd rate higher than cache B which had one person give it 5 stars. Ditto a single low vote won't push a cache to the bottom of the pile.

 

I like -Phoenix-'s idea of creating a personalised ranking, giving more weight to the opinions of people who tend to score caches similarly to yourself. But I'm not sure I've got the mathematical skills to do it justice, and I think it would need a lot of raw data to work well, so I'll stick to the simple version for the timebeing.

 

You can see what I've done so far at http://statstest.guk2.com.

[+-Phoenix-]

If you want some algorithms then let me know, I could probably put together an example in excel and VBA, and it could then be cloned into whatever languge you want

[+Teasel]

OK, I've put the rating system live. 1250 scores have been entered so far, so hopefully it's not too much of a pain to use. If it's popular, maybe we can look at automatically finding like-minded cachers and giving their votes a higher weighting in your lists?

Edited June 4, 2005 by Teasel

[+mongoose39uk]

Not keen on rating systems!

 

Why?

 

Most of mine are carp!