Cache Rating

[+TrailGators]

I think people are making this harder than it sounds. If I were going down to La Jolla for the day and could only do a few caches I would probably just use Google Earth and find a cluster of caches in an area that seemed to be a nice area to cache in - probably either stick along the coast or go to Mission Trails park. If we had Markwell's recommended caches scheme, it might influence to find one or two recommended caches but not neccessarily.

 

I recently was visiting my brother in Newport News, VA. I had planed to spend a day caching in Newport News Park. But it turned out I had to spend the day with my 88 year old mother and I wasn't going to be able to push her around the trails in the park all day. So instead we did an urban cache run around Newport News and found a few lamppost micros along with a few other more cleaverly hidden micros and even an ammo can. I also found a cache along a wheelchair accessible trail in another park. I actually enjoyed my day of caching, even though I didn't do the kind of caching that I had planned to do originally. And I am blissfully unaware that I may have bypassed the best, most creative hide in Hampton Roads.

My bet is that you would miss finding a couple of real gems. That's ashame but if you don't care then it really doesn't matter (to you). But I would love to have the OPTION when I travel to other places to be able just to find the best caches in that area! I can find the normal ones at home. We have tons of those...

[+sbell111]

The logs tell the story, not a subjective number.

Here is a PQ of Newport Beach area. We went drove up there the other day and we had no idea where the best caches were. As you can see there are 500 caches within a 10 mile radius.

Start reading.....

This kind of obfuscates the issue. The key to caching happiness is not 'just' reading the logs, but filtering out all the caches that you know you won't like, disgarding those in areas that you know you won't go to, and then reading the logs of the remainder.

Please share how you would have quickly and easily identify the caches you would like to visit if yuo were visiting Newport Beach! I would like to hear!

How long am I there for? Where will I be staying? Where will I go while in the area (non-geocaching)? What kinds of caches do I really like? What kind do I not like? Am I alone, or will I be with my wife? What are my abilities?

Edited July 5, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

My bet is that you would miss finding a couple of real gems. That's ashame but if you don't care then it really doesn't matter (to you). But I would love to have the OPTION when I travel to other places to be able just to find the best caches in that area! I can find the normal ones at home. We have tons of those...

Of course you are going to miss godd ones if you are only visiting for a couple of days. A rating system is not going to correct this problem because you still won't know why other people like the caches that they like.

 

You are still better using other options discussed in this thread and others.

1. Using PQs, filter out caches that you won't prefer.
   
2. Limit your search to areas that you actually plan on visiting.
   
3. Identify those cachers that like the same kind of caches as you. You will likely enjoy their hides and the caches that they liked. (Read their logs.)
   
4. From the remainder, scan the logs. Filter out those with a bunch of short, non-descript logs.
   

[+Davispak]

S-bell has some good points and his way is a viable way to find the best caches in any given area. Given enough time this is the best way to find the good caches. The only thing is I, and I believe many other cacher don't have alot of time to look up caches and read logs.

If you see my posts, I do this between tasks and other things i do. Kid taxi, work, cooking, spending time with the wife, and volunteer activities ,I have maybe an hour a day or so to spend on my hobbies. I wish I had more time to spend on caching, maybe I would have a lot more finds, but I wouldn't trade my life now just to get more caches. I think a cache rating system would help me maximize my caching time and enjoy it that much more.

[+TrailGators]

My bet is that you would miss finding a couple of real gems. That's ashame but if you don't care then it really doesn't matter (to you). But I would love to have the OPTION when I travel to other places to be able just to find the best caches in that area! I can find the normal ones at home. We have tons of those...

Of course you are going to miss godd ones if you are only visiting for a couple of days. A rating system is not going to correct this problem because you still won't know why other people like the caches that they like.

 

You are still better using other options discussed in this thread and others.

1. Using PQs, filter out caches that you won't prefer. Which ones should I filter out? I like any type if it is done very well.
   
2. Limit your search to areas that you actually plan on visiting. OK let's say anywhere within 10 miles of downtown La Jolla.
   
3. Identify those cachers that like the same kind of caches as you. You will likely enjoy their hides and the caches that they liked. (Read their logs.) How do I know which cachers these are?
   
4. From the remainder, scan the logs. Filter out those with a bunch of short, non-descript logs. I don't have a remainder.
   

OK put your money where yuor mouth is! Let's see you identify 5 of the best caches in the La Jolla area using my parameters above with your method right now!

[+sbell111]

My bet is that you would miss finding a couple of real gems. That's ashame but if you don't care then it really doesn't matter (to you). But I would love to have the OPTION when I travel to other places to be able just to find the best caches in that area! I can find the normal ones at home. We have tons of those...

Of course you are going to miss godd ones if you are only visiting for a couple of days. A rating system is not going to correct this problem because you still won't know why other people like the caches that they like.

 

You are still better using other options discussed in this thread and others.

1. Using PQs, filter out caches that you won't prefer. Which ones should I filter out? I like any type if it is done very well.
   
2. Limit your search to areas that you actually plan on visiting. OK let's say anywhere within 10 miles of downtown La Jolla.
   
3. Identify those cachers that like the same kind of caches as you. You will likely enjoy their hides and the caches that they liked. (Read their logs.) How do I know which cachers these are?
   
4. From the remainder, scan the logs. Filter out those with a bunch of short, non-descript logs. I don't have a remainder.
   

OK put your money where yuor mouth is! Let's see you identify 5 of the best caches in the La Jolla area using my parameters above with your method right now!

You purposefully gave me no info. However, I could do it for myself very easily using these guidelines. Since you didn't answer my questions from my previous post, I'll have to use typical criteria based on my business travel and assume that I would only be in the area for a few days and geocaching would not be my primary activity.

 

First, I would create a PQ that excluded high terrain geocaches and anything with a difficulty over 4. I would also create a PQ of all 1/1s and exclude those.

 

I would then remove all caches that were not in the area of my hotel, and other locations that I would need to go to or between two or more of these locations.

 

This should leave a manageable number of caches. Personally, I would search from these, but others may prefer to start reading cache pages and logs. Many cache pages will tell you nothing about the cache, but others identify great caches very well. A quick read of the logs will verify this.

 

Once you have found a few of these very good caches, you can look at other caches hidden by these hiders and hidden or found by cachers who really liked this one. (The logs will tell this story.)

[+sbell111]

S-bell has some good points and his way is a viable way to find the best caches in any given area. Given enough time this is the best way to find the good caches. The only thing is I, and I believe many other cacher don't have alot of time to look up caches and read logs.

If you see my posts, I do this between tasks and other things i do. Kid taxi, work, cooking, spending time with the wife, and volunteer activities ,I have maybe an hour a day or so to spend on my hobbies. I wish I had more time to spend on caching, maybe I would have a lot more finds, but I wouldn't trade my life now just to get more caches. I think a cache rating system would help me maximize my caching time and enjoy it that much more.

With my way, you can be pretty sure that you'll like the caches. Using ratings, you'll only know that some other people probably liked them, but you won't know why. Since you don't know what they liked about the caches, you won't really know if you will like them.

[+TrailGators]

My bet is that you would miss finding a couple of real gems. That's ashame but if you don't care then it really doesn't matter (to you). But I would love to have the OPTION when I travel to other places to be able just to find the best caches in that area! I can find the normal ones at home. We have tons of those...

Of course you are going to miss godd ones if you are only visiting for a couple of days. A rating system is not going to correct this problem because you still won't know why other people like the caches that they like.

 

You are still better using other options discussed in this thread and others.

1. Using PQs, filter out caches that you won't prefer. Which ones should I filter out? I like any type if it is done very well.
   
2. Limit your search to areas that you actually plan on visiting. OK let's say anywhere within 10 miles of downtown La Jolla.
   
3. Identify those cachers that like the same kind of caches as you. You will likely enjoy their hides and the caches that they liked. (Read their logs.) How do I know which cachers these are?
   
4. From the remainder, scan the logs. Filter out those with a bunch of short, non-descript logs. I don't have a remainder.
   

OK put your money where yuor mouth is! Let's see you identify 5 of the best caches in the La Jolla area using my parameters above with your method right now!

You purposefully gave me no info. However, I could do it for myself very easily using these guidelines. Since you didn't answer my questions from my previous post, I'll have to use typical criteria based on my business travel and assume that I would only be in the area for a few days and geocaching would not be my primary activity.

 

First, I would create a PQ that excluded high terrain geocaches and anything with a difficulty over 4. I would also create a PQ of all 1/1s and exclude those.

 

I would then remove all caches that were not in the area of my hotel, and other locations that I would need to go to or between two or more of these locations.

 

This should leave a manageable number of caches. Personally, I would search from these, but others may prefer to start reading cache pages and logs. Many cache pages will tell you nothing about the cache, but others identify great caches very well. A quick read of the logs will verify this.

 

Once you have found a few of these very good caches, you can look at other caches hidden by these hiders and hidden or found by cachers who really liked this one. (The logs will tell this story.)

Let's say you had an afternoon/evening for caching and a rental car so you could easily drive 10 miles from your hotel!

Let's see what you come up with!

Take the challenge!

By the way what's wrong with 1/1s?

Edited July 5, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Jhwk]

My five best caches would be the five closest to the hotel that I find.

 

Lameness is a state of mind and a personal opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...

[+sbell111]

Take the challenge!

As much as I would like to, I'm at work, and therefore, don't have access to my home computer which as GSAK and MapPoint. Both of which I would use to work this puzzle.

 

In reality, as I've posted earlier in this thread and much as Jhwk posted, I would most likely start at the closest cache to the hotel and keep going to the next closest caches until I ran out of town. I bet I would have just as much fun (or more) as those that continually beg for a ratings system to make their caching complete.

[+Markwell]

Real Life:

 

I just came back from a road trip to Chattanooga. I had precious little time to spend on the road caching (much less than I thought I would). I whittled down the criteria from my PQ along the route, and used GSAK extensively. I weeded out caches that were disabled or had multiple not found logs in the last couple of logs. I also went through and read the logs and descriptions - since I was with my kids, I filtered out caches that mention poisonous plants, etc.

 

Still on that trip I was left with 209 caches. Now admittedly, 209 caches is not a lot to read through the logs - oh, wait. I've already read through the logs and gotten feedback on them.

 

On the way home, I had time to probably find 2 or 3 caches. Any of them, as far as I could tell would suit me fine - right type, terrain, etc. Reasonably sure of finding the cache.

 

With this in mind, wouldn't it have been nice to be able to pick out 5 or 6 as high priority from the 209 since I had such limited time to cache?

 

In the end I found only one cache due to other problems on the road and time commitments. The one cache I found I did really enjoy. But did I miss an AMAZING cache because I took the time to find this other good, but not out-of-the-ordinary cache?

[CoyoteRed]

I could see how all of this filtering and research could leave someone with no time to cache!

[+Jango & Boba Fett]

I for one find the user rating system available on GcUK one of its best feature when planning a visit to an new area. OK its only covers the British Isles (you know Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales all tied up in an archipelago off northwest Europe). As a cache setter its useful too as although different users have different ideas, and the rating system is based on your "caching experience", its nice to know that you are getting it right. Logs don't tell the whole story as on a tricky puzzle cache the logs can be filled with the trials the cacher had but they still rate their overall experience at 4.5 out of 5.

[+SG-MIN]

I just noticed we rate favorite lists... someone please tell me how this is any differant? Aren't favorites just as subjective, couldn't that too become a competition?

[+TrailGators]

I just noticed we rate favorite lists... someone please tell me how this is any differant? Aren't favorites just as subjective, couldn't that too become a competition?

Not at all! Think of it more like recognition for those people that put in a huge amount of effort into their caches so that so many can enjoy them! We have some people around here that do a phenomenal job with their caches! They deserve a pat on the back and I would love for out-of-towners to find and enjoy these caches (if they knew which ones they were)!

[+ReadyOrNot]

What makes GC.com successful is that it is easy to use. Ease of use and a simple intuitive front-end is what we are looking for. I consider myself to be technically saavy, but there are many more folks out there that are not. When you start discussing 3rd party applications that parse through PQ lists, this is not 'User Friendly' nor 'Intuitive'. What we should be trying to accomplish here is an interface through the website that is easy for everyone to use, not some convoluted process that involves using 3rd party software.

 

Of course there are ways of narrowing down the searches, but there is a better way. I *think* we are trying to find the "Better Way".

Edited July 6, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

[+ar_kayaker]

I think there is a way to implement this without actually having a rating system, if only I could play with the database a little....

 

Maybe some of TPTB could look into making a PQ search option that allows you to select caches that at least X people have bookmarked. You wouldn't need to be able to see who it was or what else was on their list if they had a private bookmark list, just that X people had bookmarked it. You could even have the reverse logical argument to ignore any cache that Y other people had already ignored.

 

Just my two cents.

[+Markwell]

But what if someone has it bookmarked because they thought that it stunk?

[+TrailGators]

But what if someone has it bookmarked because they thought that it stunk?

But there aren't any caches that stink....

 

GC would have to create a checkbox for people to allow their "Favorite caches" bookmark to be included with the global favorites list. Seems easy to do but I'm not a programmer.

[+JDandDD]

I think people are making this harder than it sounds. If I were going down to La Jolla for the day and could only do a few caches I would probably just use Google Earth and find a cluster of caches in an area that seemed to be a nice area to cache in - probably either stick along the coast or go to Mission Trails park. If we had Markwell's recommended caches scheme, it might influence to find one or two recommended caches but not neccessarily.

 

I recently was visiting my brother in Newport News, VA. I had planed to spend a day caching in Newport News Park. But it turned out I had to spend the day with my 88 year old mother and I wasn't going to be able to push her around the trails in the park all day. So instead we did an urban cache run around Newport News and found a few lamppost micros along with a few other more cleaverly hidden micros and even an ammo can. I also found a cache along a wheelchair accessible trail in another park. I actually enjoyed my day of caching, even though I didn't do the kind of caching that I had planned to do originally. And I am blissfully unaware that I may have bypassed the best, most creative hide in Hampton Roads.

Quite beautifully put!! The caching day is what you make of it not the caches themselves. Each of us brings something different to the sport and each of us gets something different out of it. Sometimes its just who we are caching with that makes the difference, sometimes its the scenery, sometimes its the challenge. The circumstances, the weather, the company, time of day, season (can't do some in winter in snowy areas), there are so many variables that affect a caching experience how do you capture them all.

 

So there's the problem with rating system. What makes a great cache. You're likely to get as many different answers as there are people. So until someone can come up with a rating system that captures all of the variance in the equation I don't think any system will be particularly useful.

 

Remember a good or bad cache may have less to do with the cache than the circumstances.

 

JD

[+TrailGators]

I think people are making this harder than it sounds. If I were going down to La Jolla for the day and could only do a few caches I would probably just use Google Earth and find a cluster of caches in an area that seemed to be a nice area to cache in - probably either stick along the coast or go to Mission Trails park. If we had Markwell's recommended caches scheme, it might influence to find one or two recommended caches but not neccessarily.

 

I recently was visiting my brother in Newport News, VA. I had planed to spend a day caching in Newport News Park. But it turned out I had to spend the day with my 88 year old mother and I wasn't going to be able to push her around the trails in the park all day. So instead we did an urban cache run around Newport News and found a few lamppost micros along with a few other more cleaverly hidden micros and even an ammo can. I also found a cache along a wheelchair accessible trail in another park. I actually enjoyed my day of caching, even though I didn't do the kind of caching that I had planned to do originally. And I am blissfully unaware that I may have bypassed the best, most creative hide in Hampton Roads.

Quite beautifully put!! The caching day is what you make of it not the caches themselves. Each of us brings something different to the sport and each of us gets something different out of it. Sometimes its just who we are caching with that makes the difference, sometimes its the scenery, sometimes its the challenge. The circumstances, the weather, the company, time of day, season (can't do some in winter in snowy areas), there are so many variables that affect a caching experience how do you capture them all.

 

So there's the problem with rating system. What makes a great cache. You're likely to get as many different answers as there are people. So until someone can come up with a rating system that captures all of the variance in the equation I don't think any system will be particularly useful.

 

Remember a good or bad cache may have less to do with the cache than the circumstances.

 

JD

Let's get back on track, lately we have been talking about doing a "favorites" concept. So think about if someone came to visit your area. Which ones would blow them away? Maybe there aren't any like that where you live but there are sure some of those around here!

[+hh1]

What makes a great cache. You're likely to get as many different answers as there are people. So until someone can come up with a rating system that captures all of the variance in the equation I don't think any system will be particularly useful.

 

Well it can be done perfectly.

It is possible to have the system look for people similar to you that rate caches high when you rate them high and inversely and give you suggestions about caches you probably would like.

There is more to say of course ...

[CoyoteRed]

So there's the problem with rating system. What makes a great cache. You're likely to get as many different answers as there are people. So until someone can come up with a rating system that captures all of the variance in the equation I don't think any system will be particularly useful.

 

I doubt any rating system would fail under this logic. I guess Consumer Reports should shut down because they just can't capture all of the variances. Same goes for just about any other rating system out there.

[+SG-MIN]

I just noticed we rate favorite lists... someone please tell me how this is any differant? Aren't favorites just as subjective, couldn't that too become a competition?

Not at all! Think of it more like recognition for those people that put in a huge amount of effort into their caches so that so many can enjoy them! We have some people around here that do a phenomenal job with their caches! They deserve a pat on the back and I would love for out-of-towners to find and enjoy these caches (if they knew which ones they were)!

 

Trailgators, I was not talking about favorite lists in general... of course those are subjective and individual. I mean I just noticed that above bookmark lists is says....

 

" 2 out of 2 users (100%) found this list helpful. [rate it]"

 

Isn't this exactly what people have been saying shouldn't be done, or would be too subjective, or would raise competition, or....

 

Obviously the coding is avialble from the programmers, now it is all what TPTB have to say about it.

[+sbell111]

In the end I found only one cache due to other problems on the road and time commitments. The one cache I found I did really enjoy. But did I miss an AMAZING cache because I took the time to find this other good, but not out-of-the-ordinary cache?

It sounds like preparation worked perfectly.

 

The fact is, a ratings system is not necessarily going to give you what you consider to be the Wowiest few caches on your route. It will only give you those caches that the most people logged as wowwie. You still will have no clue as to their motivations.

[+sbell111]

So there's the problem with rating system. What makes a great cache. You're likely to get as many different answers as there are people. So until someone can come up with a rating system that captures all of the variance in the equation I don't think any system will be particularly useful.

I doubt any rating system would fail under this logic. I guess Consumer Reports should shut down because they just can't capture all of the variances. Same goes for just about any other rating system out there.

Consumer Reports rates items in multiple ways. You are able to take a look at ratings for the specific areas that you are interested in. It is unlikely that this type of rating will be implemented for caches because it will be a bear to use. The rating process would be complicated enough that a significant number of cachers wouldn't bother. This would tend to skew the ratings.

 

Iterestingly (or not), Consumer Reports' ratings system tends to draw quite a bit of fire. I wouldn't hold it up as a perfect example.

[CoyoteRed]

I wouldn't hold it up as a perfect example.

 

Do you have a "perfect example" of a rating system that would pass muster for JDandDD?

[+sbell111]

I wouldn't hold it up as a perfect example.

Do you have a "perfect example" of a rating system that would pass muster for JDandDD?

Since I have been consistently in the 'ratings won't work' camp, can you imagine me having such an example?

[CoyoteRed]

I wouldn't hold it up as a perfect example.

Do you have a "perfect example" of a rating system that would pass muster for JDandDD?

Since I have been consistently in the 'ratings won't work' camp, can you imagine me having such an example?

 

No, no, I mean any rating scheme that is used anywhere in "real life."

[+sbell111]

I wouldn't hold it up as a perfect example.

Do you have a "perfect example" of a rating system that would pass muster for JDandDD?

Since I have been consistently in the 'ratings won't work' camp, can you imagine me having such an example?

No, no, I mean any rating scheme that is used anywhere in "real life."

Ratings schemes that are easy to use and only track very specific issues work well. Broad-based feel-good rating systems are never going to work.

[CoyoteRed]

I wouldn't hold it up as a perfect example.

Do you have a "perfect example" of a rating system that would pass muster for JDandDD?

Since I have been consistently in the 'ratings won't work' camp, can you imagine me having such an example?

No, no, I mean any rating scheme that is used anywhere in "real life."

Ratings schemes that are easy to use and only track very specific issues work well. Broad-based feel-good rating systems are never going to work.

So, that's a "no."

 

You don't think it's going to work and you work toward no one else trying it, too. Have I got that right?

[+sbell111]

So, that's a "no."

 

You don't think it's going to work and you work toward no one else trying it, too. Have I got that right?

Not exactly. I don't think a ratings system, as proposed, will work and I am against the implementation of a flawed system.

 

I do think that there are some ideas floated that would get the job done very well.

 

For instance, Markwell can create a bookmark list of all the caches that he thinks are great. He can tag that list with what he looks for in a great cache. When pulling up caches, we can see what public lists the cache is on and pull up that list. It will tell you the individual's basis for 'Wow' and give you other caches to consider.

 

This scheme allows you to identify those caches that are believed to be great when planning a trip. It still requires planning however, so it will probably not satisfy you since over and over in your posts you cry out for a way to get what you want without doing any work.

[+TrailGators]

For instance, Markwell can create a bookmark list of all the caches that he thinks are great. He can tag that list with what he looks for in a great cache. When pulling up caches, we can see what public lists the cache is on and pull up that list. It will tell you the individual's basis for 'Wow' and give you other caches to consider.

 

This scheme allows you to identify those caches that are believed to be great when planning a trip. It still requires planning however, so it will probably not satisfy you since over and over in your posts you cry out for a way to get what you want without doing any work.

We will never get rid of planning but we can increase the odds of successfully being able to identify most of the best caches in a given area. If you took everyone's "favorites" in an area and combined them all you would generate a pareto of the best caches. I'm sure the programmers could look at the top caches in that pareto and assign them a tag that we could use in our PQs.

 

We have actually done that out here! Everyone has created favorites lists and one of our cachers in the area took everyone's list and manually generated a master list. I saw the list and it is right on the money! I know that anyone visiting San Diego would be very happy if they visited the caches on that list!

[+Davispak]

What makes GC.com successful is that it is easy to use. Ease of use and a simple intuitive front-end is what we are looking for. I consider myself to be technically saavy, but there are many more folks out there that are not. When you start discussing 3rd party applications that parse through PQ lists, this is not 'User Friendly' nor 'Intuitive'. What we should be trying to accomplish here is an interface through the website that is easy for everyone to use, not some convoluted process that involves using 3rd party software.

 

Of course there are ways of narrowing down the searches, but there is a better way. I *think* we are trying to find the "Better Way".

 

Right on Brother!

 

I will be the first to admit that I am NOT computer savvy. I have a palm that I have had for two months and even with the directions I cannot figure out how to download caches to it. So running PQ's and sending it through an algorithm program and then checking with NORAD and LANSAT to verify the exact locations while using Spinnerx and GPS Wowsers to convert the file and make it compatible is beyond me right now. I'm not even sure what program to use and from what I have seen I will need to buy more programs to make it work.

What I don't get is why people are so set against something that could make caching a better experience?

I mean why do you think there is a 9.1 version of programs out there? Because they found a way to make it better. If we sit around and say don't try it until you got it perfected, we would still be banging rocks and killing wooly mammoths for food.

People said the world was flat not to long ago, and you can't fly, or go faster than the speed of sound, or go into space, yet we know these things to be false, because we as humans had the courage to try. So lets try.

[+sbell111]

We will never get rid of planning but we can increase the odds of successfully being able to identify most of the best caches in a given area. If you took everyone's "favorites" in an area and combined them all you would generate a pareto of the best caches. I'm sure the programmers could look at the top caches in that pareto and assign them a tag that we could use in our PQs.

 

We have actually done that out here! Everyone has created favorites lists and one of our cachers in the area took everyone's list and manually generated a master list. I saw the list and it is right on the money! I know that anyone visiting San Diego would be very happy if they visited the caches on that list!

I've got no freakin idea what a pareto is, but I have no problem with this plan.

[+TrailGators]

We will never get rid of planning but we can increase the odds of successfully being able to identify most of the best caches in a given area. If you took everyone's "favorites" in an area and combined them all you would generate a pareto of the best caches. I'm sure the programmers could look at the top caches in that pareto and assign them a tag that we could use in our PQs.

 

We have actually done that out here! Everyone has created favorites lists and one of our cachers in the area took everyone's list and manually generated a master list. I saw the list and it is right on the money! I know that anyone visiting San Diego would be very happy if they visited the caches on that list!

I've got no freakin idea what a pareto is, but I have no problem with this plan.

Read this.

[+sbell111]

I've got no freakin idea what a pareto is, but I have no problem with this plan.

Read this.

In that case, your idea makes slightly less sense, but I still agree with the basic plan.

[+SG-MIN]

Right on Brother!

 

I will be the first to admit that I am NOT computer savvy. I have a palm that I have had for two months and even with the directions I cannot figure out how to download caches to it. So running PQ's and sending it through an algorithm program and then checking with NORAD and LANSAT to verify the exact locations while using Spinnerx and GPS Wowsers to convert the file and make it compatible is beyond me right now. I'm not even sure what program to use and from what I have seen I will need to buy more programs to make it work.

What I don't get is why people are so set against something that could make caching a better experience?

I mean why do you think there is a 9.1 version of programs out there? Because they found a way to make it better. If we sit around and say don't try it until you got it perfected, we would still be banging rocks and killing wooly mammoths for food.

People said the world was flat not to long ago, and you can't fly, or go faster than the speed of sound, or go into space, yet we know these things to be false, because we as humans had the courage to try. So lets try.

 

A bit over dramatic I might say... but I do agree... this isnt going to be perfect, but at least for some of us, it might make life easier.

[+TrailGators]

I've got no freakin idea what a pareto is, but I have no problem with this plan.

Read this.

In that case, your idea makes slightly less sense, but I still agree with the basic plan.

Sorry for confusing you. OK imagine that all the cachers in San Diego were each given 20 gold stars to put inside each of their 20 favorites caches. After they were all done doing that then someone went and counted the number of gold stars in each cache and then made a list of the top vote getters in descending order (most to least). That is a pareto.

[+sbell111]

I've got no freakin idea what a pareto is, but I have no problem with this plan.

Read this.

In that case, your idea makes slightly less sense, but I still agree with the basic plan.

Sorry for confusing you. OK imagine that all the cachers in San Diego were each given 20 gold stars to put inside each of their 20 favorites caches. After they were all done doing that then someone went and counted the number of gold stars in each cache and then made a list of the top vote getters in descending order (most to least). That is a pareto.

Actually, that's not exactly correct. I am somewhat familiar with a pareto chart (not a 'pareto') from b-school and I know that it tracks multiple issues. This is different than what I suggested and makes the process more complicated (and therefore less likely for people to use).

 

Simpler is better.

[+TrailGators]

I've got no freakin idea what a pareto is, but I have no problem with this plan.

Read this.

In that case, your idea makes slightly less sense, but I still agree with the basic plan.

Sorry for confusing you. OK imagine that all the cachers in San Diego were each given 20 gold stars to put inside each of their 20 favorites caches. After they were all done doing that then someone went and counted the number of gold stars in each cache and then made a list of the top vote getters in descending order (most to least). That is a pareto.

Actually, that's not exactly correct. I am somewhat familiar with a pareto chart (not a 'pareto') from b-school and I know that it tracks multiple issues. This is different than what I suggested and makes the process more complicated (and therefore less likely for people to use).

 

Simpler is better.

This would be simple. All people have to do is create a Favorite List! Then you let the computers did the work! Back in December there were 12 of us in San Diego that had created Favorites lists and one of the guys took all our lists and came up with our mutually agreed on Favorite cache list:

 

The Forbidden Forest - 6

Fear Factor: Up the Rat Hole - 5

Local Treasure - 5

Snakes and Ladders - 5

Zis Is KAOS, Ve Don't Bush-vaak Here! - 5

CHUD - 4

Mad Eye Moody - 4

The Mountain Of Moonlit Rocks - 4

Triwizard Tournament - The Goblet of Fire - 4

 

Now this is only 12 people but it gives you an idea what I'm talking about! By the way all these caches are exceptional! There are around 3000 caches in San Diego.

Edited July 6, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

The way you describe it will work pretty well. (EDIT: But with the issues I mention in my next post)

Edited July 6, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The more I think of the path we are headed down, the more I think that no change is necessary. We can already see how many bookmaark lists a cache is on from the cache page. Looking at this information, instead of just knowing how many people put it on their list gives us a better idea of why people liked it. (Again, it is best if people would explain what their criteria for great caches is.)

 

Reviewing these lists would give us greater incite as to why these caches are great, instead of just knowing that x # of people thought they were great which would only bring us back to the fundemental flaw of rating systems: 'why?'.

[+sbell111]

... By the way all these caches are exceptional!

Your post underlines the fundemental flaw with the system. While it might be useful to know that x people liked a cache, it doesn't really give me a clue whether I would like those caches.

 

For that, I would have to know why each person liked the cache to see whether I am interested in those criterion.

[+TrailGators]

... By the way all these caches are exceptional!

Your post underlines the fundemental flaw with the system. While it might be useful to know that x people liked a cache, it doesn't really give me a clue whether I would like those caches.

I never said that everyone would like all these caches! But most people that have done them love them and I am willing to bet that so will most future visitors! The idea is to have a tool to help people quickly narrow down the caches they may enjoy the most without turning it into a major research project. Nobody has time to do all the stuff that you are suggesting.

[+tozainamboku]

I have to agree with sbell111. The San Diego crew that is active in these forums have done a great job in putting together their favorites list. But I have a little bit of concern that just counting the number of favorites lists a cache appears on may not result in the best caches. I may be interested in caches that most people wouldn't even choose to look for. I like both tough puzzles and long, tough hikes. These are likely to get less votes than easy urban park and grabs simply because less people find them. Also older caches will tend to score higher just because more people have already found them. Had this system been in place a few years ago, I bet the first lamppost hide in each area would have made some favorites lists - a newbie who hasn't seen one before might still put one on their favorites list.

 

If the favorites lists used for this was limited to a very small percentage of caches so that each participant would use their votes for caches that truly stand out and caches that got a certain number of recommendations could be searched for a "recommended cache", this could have a positive effect on the overall quality of urban park and grabs as hiders give more thought into how to make their caches standout to try to get more votes.

 

Perhaps if we had favorites in each of several categories - Favorite terrain 2+, Favorite micro, Favorite unknown/puzzle, Favorite park and grab, etc. this could be used to find recommendations without unfairly descriminating against a particular type or style of cache.

Edited July 6, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+Markwell]

never mind.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Markwell

[+TrailGators]

I have to agree with sbell111. The San Diego crew that is active in these forums have done a great job in putting together their favorites list. But I have a little bit of concern that just counting the number of favorites lists a cache appears on may not result in the best caches. I may be interested in caches that most people wouldn't even choose to look for. I like both tough puzzles and long, tough hikes. These are likely to get less votes than easy urban park and grabs simply because less people find them. Also older caches will tend to score higher just because more people have already found them. Had this system been in place a few years ago, I bet the first lamppost hide in each area would have made some favorites lists - a newbie who hasn't seen one before might still put one on their favorites list.

 

If the favorites lists used for this was limited to a very small percentage of caches so that each participant would use their votes for caches that truly stand out and caches that got a certain number of recommendations could be searched for a "recommended cache", this could have a positive effect on the overall quality of urban park and grabs as hiders give more thought into how to make their caches standout to try to get more votes.

 

Perhaps if we had favorites in each of several categories - Favorite terrain 2+, Favorite micro, Favorite unknown/puzzle, Favorite park and grab, etc. this could be used to find recommendations without unfairly descriminating against a particular type or style of cache.

Mr. T none of the caches that were our favorites are urban park and grabs. Those are a dime-a-dozen. These caches are all unique and incredibly creative. A couple were tough hikes and some are less challenging terrain. You can still sort the favorites by terrain and difficulty ratings. You could also do the reverse. If you run a PQ for terrain >3 then you could download just the favorites for just those! If you wanted best puzzles you could query those. Why limit it?

[+SG-MIN]

there comes a point where you get tired of repeating your arguement. I am not there, but I am pretty close. One last time, in regards to the recent conversations:

 

The primary reason cache ratings would be useful would be to simplify searching in a cache saturated area that one is not familar. Agreed, favorites and logs are the best indicator, but there is something nice about being able to use a PQ to narrow down caches.

 

When you don't have the time to research, and all you have is a screen full of GC#'s, it is nice to be able to have at least some idea (even if it is subjective and flawed) of which caches might be worth it, and which might now.

 

I do belive that I have now reached the point where I am tired of repeating my argument. For the rest of you, feel free to continue the conversation!!

[CoyoteRed]

There is a term oft used on the internet, YMMV. It stands for "Your Mileage May Vary." It means roughly your results or outcome may vary from that of the person who said it.

 

If you look at any result from a rating system with this in mind then you will get a good idea of the result, not an absolute certainty.

 

Don't look for a rating system that will give you absolute certainty. Just look for one that gets you close.