Quality ratings

[+dcvchicago]

I've just finished reading the 'elitism' thread on the general forum. The 'elitists' seems to be complaining about three things:

 

(1) The shifting emphasis toward the number of finds;

 

(2) The sheer density of caches; and

 

(3) What they perceive to be the lackluster quality of many caches--not much creativity or cleverness.

 

Now, to a newbie like myself, few caches are lackluster. I can struggle for ages to find a cache that more experienced cachers rate an easy find! But that's me.

 

Anyway, maybe the 'elitists' have a point. Maybe the sport/pastime needs a way to screen caches, so that people who don't really care about the stats (I would fall into that group) can select from only the most interesting ones?

 

I can understand that quality ratings from 1 to 5 might not be workable, or even a good idea. If that's the case, then why not create some sort of 'Exceptional Cache' award that the really good caches can be awarded by vote of those who find it? If twenty, or forty, or whatever number of people vote your cache for the award, you get it, and your cache is flagged in the database. Or maybe the more who vote for your cache as a great one, the higher your award.

 

If the subject hasn't been beaten to death recently, I'd be interested to hear what others think. If I'm covering old ground, I apologize. Ringo Starr tells how, in the early days, he would write what he thought was a really great song and take it in to the other Beatles. They'd all have a laugh, because it invariably turned out that he'd just re-written some old standard. So, if I'm beating a dead horse, at least I'm in good company.

[+Renegade Knight]

A simple rating system is in the works. The best of the best will rise to the top. Every now and then a cache comes along that almost everone enjoys in spite of all the varied tastes. Those would really shine wiht the system proposed by this site.

 

Any rating system that gets any more complex, expecually if you try to make it useful to those who would like a similar cache experience gets so complicated to give useful information that nobody would use it.

 

A netflix style system has been discused and it has a lot of merit in that it can directly suggest caches that you may like based on others who have rated similar caches that you also liked. It would be much more complex to set up, but very nice as it's would help the most people.

[+TrailGators]

A simple rating system is in the works.

What's the status of that? I know I can't wait!

[+Super_Nate]

A simple rating system is in the works.

What's the status of that? I know I can't wait!

 

Yeah, that's the first I have heard about that! Is it part of the updates in store for later this week?

[+Renegade Knight]

A simple rating system is in the works.

What's the status of that? I know I can't wait!

 

Yeah, that's the first I have heard about that! Is it part of the updates in store for later this week?

It was brought up a long time ago by TPTB. Discussed, a general idea hashed out. I think about that time the server first starting having issues. Haven't heard a lot in recent history.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Hi Ringo, nice to meet you - like Renegade Knight, I recall Jeremy participating in a long (or perhaps several long) threads on ranking/rating caches. A while back. The server error issues have likely killed a good many initiatives on the site. In the meantime, you might check your state group's website for "best of" of some other type of cache awards. For instance the North Carolina association maintains this bookmarked list of NC Greatest Hits! something that the Florida Geocaching Association is discussing. I'd like to see us do it on a tad more regional basis - Florida is really loooong.

 

bookmarked list NCGreatest Hits!

 

I've PQed this list for our visit to North Carolina. And really happy to have found it.

[+imajeep]

Hi Ringo, nice to meet you

 

And to think I just changed my user name and didn't come up with 'Ringo'. Oh well, it avoids a lawsuit from Mr. Starkey, I suppose.