Cache Reward System

2.2k · February 12, 2010

When I started Geocaching, the majority of caches that I found were well hidden caches in cool areas, often areas I never even knew were there. Even the micro caches were well thought out and interesting finds. As a newbie, I didn't know what I was doing and just started with what was nearby. When it came time to place my own, I went off what I knew from experience. My first cache was a combination of the different things I had experienced up to that point.

If I started Geocaching today in the same area, I would think that Geocaching was the game of hiding altoid containers in everyday places. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have continued for very long, because I would have lost interest. If I did stay, when it came time to place my first cache, it would be what I knew from experience. I took a look at my area today and I was amazed at how hard it was to find a quality cache amongst all the thorns. Don't respond with the typical, "Use GSAK to filter, blah blah blah" (while pushing your glasses up with your index finger)... The typical newbie Geocacher is not going to know any of this stuff (and a lot of non-newbie Geocachers probably don't even use that stuff)

Idea: Cache Rewards System

The cool thing about the rewards system is that it does not punish bad caches, but rewards good ones.

Possible Rewards:

Memorable Cache

Great Cache Container

Great Puzzle

Great Location

It could be as simple as an option when logging the cache as found to nominate the cache for a reward. When the cache comes up in searches, it could display an icon showing the awards that the cache has received. I think the recognition by itself would dramatically increase the quality of caches that are placed and could be searchable - ex: Find all caches within 25 miles that received the "Great Puzzle Cache" award.

Thoughts?

6k · February 12, 2010

Sounds very much like a slick version of the ratings argument which has been thoroughly trashed for years in these forums.

It won't matter what we think. Froggie has already said no and there is no reason to believe he will change his mind.

Where's that dead horse, I got the stick.

2.2k · February 12, 2010

Sounds very much like a slick version of the ratings argument which has been thoroughly trashed for years in these forums.

It won't matter what we think. Froggie has already said no and there is no reason to believe he will change his mind.

Where's that dead horse, I got the stick.

It was the froggie that proposed the reward system idea in the first place, going as far to say that it was being worked on... But I have not heard anything about it since. This is much different than a rating system

19k · February 12, 2010

I get those rewards frequently when people find my caches. I love getting them.

February 12, 2010

We do that in our area. Local geocachers have an online forum for discussing various things and each year folks can nominate and vote for their favorite geocaches in several categories:

Multi-Cache of the Year

Regular Cache of the Year

Mystery / Puzzle Cache of the Year

Themed Series of the Year

The winner gets to display a special award icon on his or her cache page.

7.3k · February 12, 2010

In Oct 09, Nate posted that some work was being done on ratings.

Here's that post

2.2k · February 12, 2010

In Oct 09, Nate posted that some work was being done on ratings.

Here's that post

Thanks so much for that! I didn't realize there had been an update. It sounds like they've decided on the engine, which is great news!

February 12, 2010

I'm very much in favor of any feature that would enable me to find caches that other people have enjoyed for any of the reasons you suggest. I don't need such as system for my local area but when I'm visiting a new area (particular an urban area), it's very difficult to easily find caches that are a step above your average park-n-grab unless you stumble across someone's bookmark list or a local caching association's recommendations.

Edited February 12, 2010 by sdarken

7.7k · February 12, 2010

Multi-Cache of the Year
Regular Cache of the Year

Mystery / Puzzle Cache of the Year

Themed Series of the Year

I hope the selection committee does not consist of Geocacher of the Year for 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008. Oh, and not Geocacher of the Decade either.

February 12, 2010

I like the idea. Here in MN, our geocaching association votes on cache of the month. http://mngca.org/. The award highlights well-thought out and creative caches and lets other cachers know what cool ones are out there.

One of the "other" (starts with a t) kind of has a recognition system built in. There, difficulty and terrain ratings are set by finders, as opposed by the hider. This supposedly encourages quality hides. Sounds neat, haven't tried it.

7.4k · February 12, 2010

So, you want some sort of system to reward the caches YOU like, and punish people who hide caches you don't. Why not just state your thoughts in the logs?

2.2k · February 12, 2010

While I'm not opposed to the idea of a rating system, I think your premise is flawed. If I were just starting in your area today, or in my area, I would look for caches in the woods and parks and avoid shopping centers and most other urban areas. Guess what? I'd find plenty of them. To come to the conclusion that geocaching is about "placing altoid tins in everyday places", you would have to be pretty feebleminded.

I also don't think your idea would increase the quality of caches. The thing is, some people like shopping malls. And some people like hugh quantities of pointless caches. That's fine with me. Today I took a hike in a foot of snow to find one new cache. I knew I was going to like it because I read the cache page!

I think your idea might be a shortcut for finding nice caches in an unfamiliar area, but you can get the same result by putting in the effort to read the logs and cache pages.

February 13, 2010

So, you want some sort of system to reward the caches YOU like, and punish people who hide caches you don't. Why not just state your thoughts in the logs?

Good question. Was wondering about what really makes for a 'good' cache. I was introduced to caching with urban hides and was immediately impressed with how much creativity was involved in making something disappear within the plain sight of hundreds of people. Also, there was a huge amount of diversity because every setting presented a unique set of challenges. I must admit that I was fortunate in that I did not encounter mass quantities of light skirts until much later.

It wasn't until I was almost a year into geocaching that I discovered hiking and biking trails, which are an entirely different world all together. So are the caches. While I really do enjoy the hiking or biking aspect of them, sometimes the caches themselves are very predictable. Ammo can, coffee can, tupperware this or that. Still, caches scattered through the great outdoors are my favorite......when I have the time to go for them.

Still, there are some urban caches that rank among my favorites because of the ingenious ways the cache owners created and or placed them.

I suppose the rating system would be like a 'people's choice' thingy? Whatsoever caches the majority of people consider 'good' would recieve the highest rating. Then what about ratings for the S,N,L,V.....like they do for movies? Reviews for books and films rarely just say, Good, Bad, Happy, Sad...right? There have been many books on the No.1 Best Seller's list that I wouldn't line a bird cage with (cruelty to animals).

Just saying....I hope that IF a cache rating system is ever developed (other than the cache logs) that it would offer more insight than 5 smileys looking back at me. :laughing:

2.2k · February 13, 2010

but you can get the same result by putting in the effort to read the logs and cache pages.

Isn't that the whole point? Of course I can go through hundreds of pages of caches, reading through logs to determine the quality of the caches... Are you saying that going through page after page of logs is the best, most efficient way of doing it? Are you saying that because there's a way to do it, that there is no point is discussing "better" ways of doing it?

Wow

2.2k · February 13, 2010

So, you want some sort of system to reward the caches YOU like, and punish people who hide caches you don't. Why not just state your thoughts in the logs?

Who said anything about punishment? If you enjoy putting magnets on dumpsters, you probably won't get much in the way of rewards.. If it bothers you so much that you don't get any rewards, maybe one should re-think the types of caches they place. And if you don't care, then more power to you.

6.7k · February 13, 2010

Face it Readyornot (wait for it) we just are not ready for it.

22k · February 13, 2010

If I started Geocaching today in the same area, I would think that Geocaching was the game of hiding Altoid containers in everyday places... Thoughts?

I used to be...meh...about a rating system. Now I think we definitely need one. Yes I know that many people will give a thumbs up on every cache they find but eventually the numbers will tilt towards an accurate community opinion, even if that means more LPCs. From that system, many people will determine what kinds of caches they want to place.

Edit: changed people to many people.

Edited February 13, 2010 by BlueDeuce

7.5k · February 13, 2010

So, you want some sort of system to reward the caches YOU like, and punish people who hide caches you don't. Why not just state your thoughts in the logs?

One reason I would like to see a rating system is for vacations. Let's say I'm going to go to Ottawa for a 3 day visit (which is very likely -- been there a few times, love the city). While I'm there I'd like to do some caching. I'm interested in caches within 20 miles of the hotel on 100 Queen Street (downtown Ottawa area). Turns out there is 2642 caches to choose from. I'm not going to eliminate any types and sizes, I want to choose from the caches where people consistently give good comments in the logs. If it takes me 3 minutes to read through a few logs on a cache, it'll take......7926 minutes = 132 hours...which takes 5.5 days of non-stop reading.

I would not like to see a system that punishes cache hiders. I'd rather see a reward system where those that get high ratings (maybe anything that rates over 7/10) gets a "Golden Signal" icon. COs don't see the ratings, they only see an award icon when their cache rates highly.

2.2k · February 13, 2010

but you can get the same result by putting in the effort to read the logs and cache pages.

Isn't that the whole point? Of course I can go through hundreds of pages of caches, reading through logs to determine the quality of the caches... Are you saying that going through page after page of logs is the best, most efficient way of doing it? Are you saying that because there's a way to do it, that there is no point is discussing "better" ways of doing it?

Wow

Uhhh... you asked a bunch of questions there. Let me give it a shot. Am I saying going through "page after page of logs" is the best way to do it? Yes. Absolutely. Glad you got my point.

"No point in discussing (other) ways of doing it?"

Well, I sorta thought discussing was what we were doing. Oh, wait... I disagreed with you. I guess that's not your idea of a discussion.

22k · February 13, 2010

So, you want some sort of system to reward the caches YOU like, and punish people who hide caches you don't. Why not just state your thoughts in the logs?

One reason I would like to see a rating system is for vacations. Let's say I'm going to go to Ottawa for a 3 day visit (which is very likely -- been there a few times, love the city). While I'm there I'd like to do some caching. I'm interested in caches within 20 miles of the hotel on 100 Queen Street (downtown Ottawa area). Turns out there is 2642 caches to choose from. I'm not going to eliminate any types and sizes, I want to choose from the caches where people consistently give good comments in the logs. If it takes me 3 minutes to read through a few logs on a cache, it'll take......7926 minutes = 132 hours...which takes 5.5 days of non-stop reading.

I would not like to see a system that punishes cache hiders. I'd rather see a reward system where those that get high ratings (maybe anything that rates over 7/10) gets a "Golden Signal" icon. COs don't see the ratings, they only see an award icon when their cache rates highly.

And from there filter by cache type and D/T rating. When I'm on a business trip I don't always have the right equipment along with me. I'm cool with searching for a 6 star cache at the local mall when there's a 9 star cache halfway up the mountain behind the hotel.

February 13, 2010

And from there filter by cache type and D/T rating. When I'm on a business trip I don't always have the right equipment along with me. I'm cool with searching for a 6 star cache at the local mall when there's a 9 star cache halfway up the mountain behind the hotel.

I'm pro rating system. If successful, it would could even point out some ingenious 9 star caches in areas you'd might never expect to see them (like the local mall).

22k · February 13, 2010

And from there filter by cache type and D/T rating. When I'm on a business trip I don't always have the right equipment along with me. I'm cool with searching for a 6 star cache at the local mall when there's a 9 star cache halfway up the mountain behind the hotel.

I'm pro rating system. If successful, it would could even point out some ingenious 9 star caches in areas you'd might never expect to see them (like the local mall).

There you go.

February 13, 2010

I think with a rating system you might make some folks afraid of hiding a cache.and their idea of a hide might be a really good one.but are afraid of how people would rate their hide some folks are like that.but on the other hand maybe it would be good too.It might cut down on the number of cache's that get archive so quick or stay out there with a NM forever

5.3k · February 13, 2010

So, you want some sort of system to reward the caches YOU like, and punish people who hide caches you don't.

No, he doesn't. In fact, he explicitly said he doesn't want anyohne to be punished. Did you even read the OP?

Why not just state your thoughts in the logs?

Well, for one thing, many owners delete logs that contain the faintest whiff of criticism.

22k · February 13, 2010

I think with a rating system you might make some folks afraid of hiding a cache.and their idea of a hide might be a really good one.but are afraid of how people would rate their hide some folks are like that.but on the other hand maybe it would be good too.It might cut down on the number of cache's that get archive so quick or stay out there with a NM forever

I agree, it would make even long time members think twice about placing a cache. Deciding to implement a rating system requires careful balance, eh? I don't want to rush into it without discussing things like what you brought up.

7.4k · February 13, 2010

Well, for one thing, many owners delete logs that contain the faintest whiff of criticism.

And a complaint to Groundspeak will get a legitimate find log restored.

February 13, 2010

I think with a rating system you might make some folks afraid of hiding a cache.and their idea of a hide might be a really good one.but are afraid of how people would rate their hide some folks are like that.but on the other hand maybe it would be good too.It might cut down on the number of cache's that get archive so quick or stay out there with a NM forever

I agree, it would make even long time members think twice about placing a cache. Deciding to implement a rating system requires careful balance, eh? I don't want to rush into it without discussing things like what you brought up.

And then there's the statistical loops to jump through. New hide, FTF cacher rates it off the charts, next one a month later says its the best ever, then a pair of cachers find it and both log it as a miserable experience because their gps was acting up, they are highly allergic to the blah blah growing nearby and they really didn't think it was all the first two cachers said it was so they were ticked. Now the cache has a 50% rating.

Problem is that now some people are just going off of the rating system so this one gets kicked to the curb by software. Now it won't have as many visitors to help provide more data points to build a better picture of what it is ....or is not.

On some of the really nice and "off the beaten path" type caches you won't have 15 or so cachers finding it every month. Fewer data points means that the weighting will be very heavy at first, and then will weaken out over time.

For caches that may have a lot of logs and ratings it will harder and harder for entries to change the ranking one way or the other. A cache with 400 logs compiled for a rating won't move much even if 10 of the last entries say it is horrid (maybe to a change in the environment, road conditions, muggle activity).

So that puts some pressure on the programming to provide some sort of analysis based on other criteria, such as an early population model that morphs over to a running population model with time/date sensitivity, outliers and averaging to consider.

As it is now you may have to read the last few log entries to get a feel for what is going on with any particular cache, but at least you are getting it from what is essentially an in the field report. Not something spit out by an algorithm.

Some people may have faith in such things, but I don't. Just as there are no gaurantees in life, there really is no gaurantee (or statistical probability factor) that will make sure all the caches you look for are going provide you with a great experience. There are a lot of variables at play, which is one of the cool things about geocaching. Some of my favorite caching experiences had more to do with things I experienced either with fellow geocachers, my own silly mistakes, unexpected encounters with the enivornment, muggles or LEOs and the always unpredictable native wildlife. Add to those scenarios another variable: people. People will interact (or react) differently each time the same scenario plays out.

My guess it that it would be like trying to set up an online meatloaf rating system.

Edited February 13, 2010 by LandStar

22k · February 13, 2010

I think with a rating system you might make some folks afraid of hiding a cache.and their idea of a hide might be a really good one.but are afraid of how people would rate their hide some folks are like that.but on the other hand maybe it would be good too.It might cut down on the number of cache's that get archive so quick or stay out there with a NM forever

I agree, it would make even long time members think twice about placing a cache. Deciding to implement a rating system requires careful balance, eh? I don't want to rush into it without discussing things like what you brought up.

And then there's the statistical loops to jump through. New hide, FTF cacher rates it off the charts, next one a month later says its the best ever, then a pair of cachers find it and both log it as a miserable experience because their gps was acting up, they are highly allergic to the blah blah growing nearby and they really didn't think it was all the first two cachers said it was so they were ticked. Now the cache has a 50% rating.

Problem is that now some people are just going off of the rating system so this one gets kicked to the curb by software. Now it won't have as many visitors to help provide more data points to build a better picture of what it is ....or is not.

On some of the really nice and "off the beaten path" type caches you won't have 15 or so cachers finding it every month. Fewer data points means that the weighting will be very heavy at first, and then will weaken out over time.

For caches that may have a lot of logs and ratings it will harder and harder for entries to change the ranking one way or the other. A cache with 400 logs compiled for a rating won't move much even if 10 of the last entries say it is horrid (maybe to a change in the environment, road conditions, muggle activity).

So that puts some pressure on the programming to provide some sort of analysis based on other criteria, such as an early population model that morphs over to a running population model with time/date sensitivity, outliers and averaging to consider.

As it is now you may have to read the last few log entries to get a feel for what is going on with any particular cache, but at least you are getting it from what is essentially an in the field report. Not something spit out by an algorithm.

Some people may have faith in such things, but I don't. Just as there are no gaurantees in life, there really is no gaurantee (or statistical probability factor) that will make sure all the caches you look for are going provide you with a great experience. There are a lot of variables at play, which is one of the cool things about geocaching. Some of my favorite caching experiences had more to do with things I experienced either with fellow geocachers, my own silly mistakes, unexpected encounters with the enivornment, muggles or LEOs and the always unpredictable native wildlife. Add to those scenarios another variable: people. People will interact (or react) differently each time the same scenario plays out.

My guess it that it would be like trying to set up an online meatloaf rating system.

Good points, I still vote for a cache rating system. Feel free to ignore the ratings whether to seek them or place them.

February 13, 2010

Thoughts?

Best thing is to write your opinion in the log. Be honest, but friendly! However there are owners who don't like it at all when their boring micro doesn't get a puff piece.

There is a rating system available. It's called GCVote. You need the Greasmonkey AddOn for Firefox. With GCVote you can vote geocaches with 1 to 5 stars, while 5 stars is the best rating. Of course there are endless discussions as well. GCVote is no substitute for proper logs, but it helps planning a tour. Usually after you found a cache you have a general idea how you liked it. That's what I use for my votes.

I found out that a geocache with 10 or more votes is usually pretty accurately rated.

Since GCVote started in Germany it's not yet well known in the US.

GermanSailor

6.1k · February 13, 2010

Charge $1 for every cache hidden. Many people will stop dumping hiding caches as a result. Send half to outdoor based nonprofit entities. Take the other half and give awards for exceptional hides. Voilà!

February 13, 2010

Ebay has something that I like to rate sellers. It's a "star" system where you rate the seller from 1-5 stars I think on a few important aspects of being a good seller. That concept would be easily adaptable to caches.

IMHO!!!

????

February 13, 2010

Ebay has something that I like to rate sellers. It's a "star" system where you rate the seller from 1-5 stars I think on a few important aspects of being a good seller. That concept would be easily adaptable to caches.

IMHO!!!

????

Yes, it's called GCVote. You can't rate a person (owner) there, but the individual geocache, which makes much more sense.

GermanSailor

February 13, 2010

I think I'd rather see this implemented at a state, regional, or local level than at Groundspeak level. I'd place more value on a list maintained by a local caching club or organization.

The CT Caching Community website has a top picks section with about a dozen categories. One nitpick to that list is that archived caches are left on the list, but for any active cache on the list it is very hard to go wrong if you're looking for a good cache. I also like the setup of the MN cache of the month list.

As I see it, an informal rating system is already out there in bookmark lists. Any time I find a cache I really enjoy, I check to see if anyone bookmarked it and often find lists of good caches that way. That takes a little work though, and I wouldn't mind an easier way of getting to lists of quality caches.

If this system is ever implemented, I really hope it'll be broken up into a fairly wide range of categories so that it would be easier to see what caches in each area are good (or avoid them if they aren't your type).

3.4k · February 13, 2010

I want a way to rate the logs I get. Some are far from satisfying, i.e.:

TNLNSL Thanks!

Seriously, did someone hand deliver this cache to the logger or did they have some kinds of journey to get there?

Hi, this is a rubber-stamp log from our trip through the area on a quest to find 200 caches today. Found it.

So happy for you. :laughing:

We had an early start, planning to find a dozen caches on our hike today. We found Bird's Nest and Broken Bridge before heading up this way. We struggled up the trail as a tree fell across it and was yet to be removed. Readings took us within 30 feet and we searched, but couldn't find it until we realized it was just above us on a fork in the trail we didn't take. D'oh! So we backtracked and went up that trail and found it right away. Nice view up here, thanks for bringing us here! Took some pictures and swapped travelbugs. Thanks again for a great caching experience!

GOLD!

7.9k · February 13, 2010

Ebay has something that I like to rate sellers. It's a "star" system where you rate the seller from 1-5 stars I think on a few important aspects of being a good seller. That concept would be easily adaptable to caches.

IMHO!!!

????

Yes, it's called GCVote. You can't rate a person (owner) there, but the individual geocache, which makes much more sense.

GermanSailor

I use it!

I would hope my ratings might be helpful to some out-of-town cachers someday. As has been stated, Groundspeak are working on an integrated system right now.

Certainly most caches will eventually be dragged to 'somewhere in the middle', but a rating system can help point out the real gems (and the real stinkers) in a given area (given a significant number of expressed opinions).

6.7k · February 13, 2010

Not a fan of a simple rating system. The best of the ideas, if there is going to be some form of ratings, is to award the very best of the best. Too many of these schemes leave it open to nothing but a popularity contest. All Joe Crappers buddies are going to rate his dumpster vistas high while at the same time many of the remaining cachers are just not gonna vote at all. The results will end up uselessly skewed. However, if we award only the best caches we eliminate much of the problem.

I like the idea of each cacher having X number of stars to award. If you can only award a star to each of your favorite ten caches you are less likely to waste them on your buddies port-a-john hide.

I did think a hidden system that returned an 'also found' list was a great idea. Something that said 'cachers who rated this cache similar to how you did also rated these caches high'. I guess it would be too hard to implement though.

February 13, 2010

I like the idea of each cacher having X number of stars to award. If you can only award a star to each of your favorite ten caches you are less likely to waste them on your buddies port-a-john hide.

I like that idea! Maybe 5 votes per month or something like that.

I think there have been some very good concepts included in this thread and I hope to see some of them implemented. Reward the top 10%, "best of" categories would be nice.

I'm a low volume cacher, I can't see myself ever caching for the numbers. There's now over 500 caches within 10 miles of my house, I really want some way to narrow down which ones I go after. It doesn't need to be a clever hide if it takes me someplace beautiful or interesting, but if you take me someplace very mundane I hope at least it's going to be a clever hide. ( Yes I do read a lot of logs, but I'm not going to read all of the 500 nearest anytime soon.)

8k · February 13, 2010

A carefully crafted awards system may have some usefulness. If the awards categories are well defined then you'd be more likely to be comparing apples to apples. An award would indicate that among the cache ins a category these caches have gotten a threshold number of votes by cacher who think the cache deserves special recognition. I wouldn't necessarily call the award winning caches the "best" of the the category - instead I'd prefer an "oustanding" in category or a "gold star" cache . Many caches could reach the levels to be awarded a gold star in a category. New caches of course might be outstanding but may take a while to get enough votes to get a an award. Likewise a cache that has lasted a long time might get a an award simply because the accumulated enough votes over a long period of time. So the system is not perfect, but a least it would be understood.

A system that allows cachers to rate a cache from 1 to 10 with 10 being "best" and then using the average rating as an indication of cache quality won't work because of a well known principle of statistics. The Cramer-Rao lower bound inequality states that the variance of any unbiased estimator is at least as high as the inverse of the Fisher information. It can also be applied to biased estimators.

What this means is that if you are estimating cache quality using the average of ratings given by individual cachers is that the variance of the rating will higher if the individual ratings of the cache carry little information about the cache quality. Those in favor of rating systems seem to believe that individuals will rate higher quality caches higher and lower quality cache lower so there would be quite a lot of information about cache quality in the individual rating. Those opposed to a rating system argue that individual ratings carry little information about cache quality. One person likes PnGs will another prefers long hikes. The caches may have equal quality but they will be rated completely different. Even the same person rating the same cache will be influenced by things that will effect the rating at least as much as quality. A person looking for the cache during a blizzard may give it a different rating than had he looked for it on a beautiful spring day; or he found something he always wanted to trade for, vs. finding the same cache with only junk for swag. The information in an individual's cache rating tells more about the individual than it does about the cache. Cramer-Rao says the less information in the statistic used to estimate something the more variance in the estimate. If the estimate is unbiased, you would end up like Goldilocks and have some caches rated too high, some too low, and some just right. The problem is you wouldn't know which is which unless you actually went and found each cache. Averaging the individual ratings to get an estimate of cache quality cannot give you an an answer that is any better than reading the logs. How much better it is than selecting caches at random, depends on how much you believe the individual ratings are dependent on your particular view of cache quality.

February 13, 2010

I prefer the awards idea to numerical ratings. If for no other reason than to avoid the inevitable flood of noobies coming into and asking "WHY MY CASHE GET LOW RATING?". I'd be happy just knowing which caches were the highlights, so if I only had time to do a couple they'd be memorable. I don't really need to know which caches are stinkers.

6.7k · February 13, 2010

I like the idea of each cacher having X number of stars to award. If you can only award a star to each of your favorite ten caches you are less likely to waste them on your buddies port-a-john hide.

I like that idea! Maybe 5 votes per month or something like that.

I think there have been some very good concepts included in this thread and I hope to see some of them implemented. Reward the top 10%, "best of" categories would be nice.

I'm a low volume cacher, I can't see myself ever caching for the numbers. There's now over 500 caches within 10 miles of my house, I really want some way to narrow down which ones I go after. It doesn't need to be a clever hide if it takes me someplace beautiful or interesting, but if you take me someplace very mundane I hope at least it's going to be a clever hide. ( Yes I do read a lot of logs, but I'm not going to read all of the 500 nearest anytime soon.)

Five per month? You are way too generous. I was thinking ten total ever. You could move them as you found better caches or the old ones suffered the ravages of time.

Alternately perhaps five for every 100 caches you find or some such schedule. I think it would be too many though. The object as I see it is to single out the best of the best.

5.3k · February 14, 2010

I prefer the awards idea to numerical ratings. If for no other reason than to avoid the inevitable flood of noobies coming into and asking "WHY MY CASHE GET LOW RATING?".

To my mind, that's a feature, not a bug. A simple "because it sucked" is the proper response to those queries and would provide good education for minimal effort.

February 14, 2010

Suprised to find this thread is still going....

So, another question for those who believe that the world of geocaching would be vastly imrpoved by creating a new cache rating system: What are you rating? Are you rating the cache container, the journey to the cache container, the scenery around the cache container, the technique used in the 'hide' aspect of the cache container, the contents of the cache container, the creativity in the listing of the cache (web bling), the condition and quality of all contents within the cache, or just the singular subjective feeling you had when you found the cache? :laughing: Will there be guidelines as to how to rate the various elements which should be considered before rendering a judgement, or is it more like a "Well, WE know what is good and what is not good cache" kinda thing?

22k · February 14, 2010

Suprised to find this thread is still going....

So, another question for those who believe that the world of geocaching would be vastly imrpoved by creating a new cache rating system: What are you rating? Are you rating the cache container, the journey to the cache container, the scenery around the cache container, the technique used in the 'hide' aspect of the cache container, the contents of the cache container, the creativity in the listing of the cache (web bling), the condition and quality of all contents within the cache, or just the singular subjective feeling you had when you found the cache? Will there be guidelines as to how to rate the various elements which should be considered before rendering a judgement, or is it more like a "Well, WE know what is good and what is not good cache" kinda thing?

Who in the heck said vastly? But since you asked I vote for the we know what is good and what is not good cache kinda thing. You think I'm wrong? Well, then take a survey.

6.7k · February 14, 2010

Suprised to find this thread is still going....

So, another question for those who believe that the world of geocaching would be vastly imrpoved by creating a new cache rating system: What are you rating? Are you rating the cache container, the journey to the cache container, the scenery around the cache container, the technique used in the 'hide' aspect of the cache container, the contents of the cache container, the creativity in the listing of the cache (web bling), the condition and quality of all contents within the cache, or just the singular subjective feeling you had when you found the cache? Will there be guidelines as to how to rate the various elements which should be considered before rendering a judgement, or is it more like a "Well, WE know what is good and what is not good cache" kinda thing?

Simple. All of it. The total caching experience. That is the beauty of an award system as opposed to a rating system. An absolutely spectacular LPC is just as likely to get an award as the perfect long hike cache.

February 14, 2010

Sometimes is just best to sign off, so "Live long and prosper" and best of luck with a new cache awards/rating/ranking system....and all that comes with it.

22k · February 14, 2010

Suprised to find this thread is still going....

So, another question for those who believe that the world of geocaching would be vastly imrpoved by creating a new cache rating system: What are you rating? Are you rating the cache container, the journey to the cache container, the scenery around the cache container, the technique used in the 'hide' aspect of the cache container, the contents of the cache container, the creativity in the listing of the cache (web bling), the condition and quality of all contents within the cache, or just the singular subjective feeling you had when you found the cache? Will there be guidelines as to how to rate the various elements which should be considered before rendering a judgement, or is it more like a "Well, WE know what is good and what is not good cache" kinda thing?

Simple. All of it. The total caching experience. That is the beauty of an award system as opposed to a rating system. An absolutely spectacular LPC is just as likely to get an award as the perfect long hike cache.

Let me throw this out. Say I'm me and I decide that you know what? I'm tired of maintaining this awesome rated cache, I'm going back to an ammocan.

Shouldn't the most recent reviews reflect a change in opinion? How do I lose my star rating?

4.8k · February 14, 2010

Why not just have a nomination system put in place for the crappy caches.

We could have the Geocaching Hall of Lame

It's just as silly of an idea as a rewards system...

February 14, 2010

Let me throw this out. Say I'm me and I decide that you know what? I'm tired of maintaining this awesome rated cache, I'm going back to an ammocan.

Shouldn't the most recent reviews reflect a change in opinion? How do I lose my star rating?

That's my main objection to any kind of rating system. Caches change over time but, around here at least, most of the finds come early in their life.

22k · February 14, 2010

Why not just have a nomination system put in place for the crappy caches.

We could have the Geocaching Hall of Lame

It's just as silly of an idea as a rewards system...

Thank you for being objective.

6.7k · February 14, 2010

Suprised to find this thread is still going....

So, another question for those who believe that the world of geocaching would be vastly imrpoved by creating a new cache rating system: What are you rating? Are you rating the cache container, the journey to the cache container, the scenery around the cache container, the technique used in the 'hide' aspect of the cache container, the contents of the cache container, the creativity in the listing of the cache (web bling), the condition and quality of all contents within the cache, or just the singular subjective feeling you had when you found the cache? Will there be guidelines as to how to rate the various elements which should be considered before rendering a judgement, or is it more like a "Well, WE know what is good and what is not good cache" kinda thing?

Simple. All of it. The total caching experience. That is the beauty of an award system as opposed to a rating system. An absolutely spectacular LPC is just as likely to get an award as the perfect long hike cache.

Let me throw this out. Say I'm me and I decide that you know what? I'm tired of maintaining this awesome rated cache, I'm going back to an ammocan.

Shouldn't the most recent reviews reflect a change in opinion? How do I lose my star rating?

First the great caches tend to need little if any maintenance. If you do decide to stop taking care of your cache the NM and the NA logs should be a dead giveaway.

Flaws can be found in any system that depends on user objectivity. Just need to minimize the number and effect of them.

Cache Reward System

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

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