Suggestion for a new feature

[fourmcdonalds]

Who hasn't taken the entire family to a cache only to have it be a micro in a plastic bag next to a restaurant, or a lousy cache somewhere else . I would like to suggest that you implement a rating system in the same format as the terrain and difficulty are now. Once a cacher has logged the cache they are enabled to rate the cache based on a one to five scale, one being bad and five being good or vise versa. I am not currently a premium member, but that would be one thing that would convince me to become one. My entire family would be more likely to go if they knew we were going to visit an awesome cache that we would all enjoy. Just a thought.

 

David

[+sTeamTraen]

This topic comes up about every two days, it seems. Just use the forum search feature to look for "rating" in the topic titles. If you can come up with a system that everybody likes, you will be rich.

 

My system is simple: I count the number of lines in the Found logs. Awesome caches get good write-ups. If the last five logs don't include any vowels, take a nose clip and strong gloves.

[+StarBrand]

Though there are a few universal likes and dislikes, in general we all have different tastes. I tend to think the majority of caches will settle into a rating between 2.5 and 3.5. Thus not being very helpful.

 

Read through some of the older threads and you will find a semi-sort-of rating system is in the works. It will allow us to praise certain caches but not "punish" others. Should allow us to find the best ones out there to suit our tastes.

[+TotemLake]

Who hasn't taken the entire family to a cache only to have it be a micro in a plastic bag next to a restaurant, or a lousy cache somewhere else . I would like to suggest that you implement a rating system in the same format as the terrain and difficulty are now. Once a cacher has logged the cache they are enabled to rate the cache based on a one to five scale, one being bad and five being good or vise versa. I am not currently a premium member, but that would be one thing that would convince me to become one. My entire family would be more likely to go if they knew we were going to visit an awesome cache that we would all enjoy. Just a thought.

 

David

There already is a rating system for the type of cache. You'll be amazed at how useful it is.

 

You will find it in the top left corner and it is labeled Size:

 

That being said, the problem you face is your suggested style of rating system is extremely subjective to the individual. Your experience may not reflect the next finder's experience. Better yet, this should be used as a learning experience for you and your family. Just say "No" to cache locations you don't want to look in. Use your map and determine if it is near a location you want to be. You have the GPS. Use it.

Edited May 23, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Glenn]

This topic comes up about every two days, it seems. Just use the forum search feature to look for "rating" in the topic titles. If you can come up with a system that everybody likes, you will be rich.

 

The OP didn't even need to use the search feature when he started this thread because if he would have just glanced at the list of threads he would have seen one called Request: Add a rating system to the caches. It is still on the first page of the list of threads only 10 lines below the listing of this thread!

 

My system is simple: I count the number of lines in the Found logs. Awesome caches get good write-ups. If the last five logs don't include any vowels, take a nose clip and strong gloves.

 

That is a very good system and I've gotten good results using it. I particularity like it because I enjoy certain types of caches that some other don't. If I see someone complaining in a log about the cache being too far away, or there are too many bugs, or the cache site is too muddy then I know that there is increased chance that I will enjoy the cache even if they didn't. How is a 1 to 5 rating system going to tell me that? It wouldn't.

[+sTeamTraen]

That is a very good system and I've gotten good results using it. I particularity like it because I enjoy certain types of caches that some other don't. If I see someone complaining in a log about the cache being too far away, or there are too many bugs, or the cache site is too muddy then I know that there is increased chance that I will enjoy the cache even if they didn't. How is a 1 to 5 rating system going to tell me that? It wouldn't.

 

Confession: I cannot believe that I actually thought just now - for about 10 seconds - that it would be cool, and a trivial matter to program, for the cache page to say "people who found this cache wrote an average of 18.5 words in their log". Excuse me while I go and take a cold shower.

 

There. Back.

 

I can see it now: "Dude, write a bigger log, my Awesome Cache's average dipped below 20". Or "Dear Groundspeak, please implement artificial intelligence software to exclude Travel Bug names from cache log word counts, as people who place TBs are distorting the overall experience". Or "Additional Logging Requirement: every fourth character in your log must be a space".

[+TotemLake]

That is a very good system and I've gotten good results using it. I particularity like it because I enjoy certain types of caches that some other don't. If I see someone complaining in a log about the cache being too far away, or there are too many bugs, or the cache site is too muddy then I know that there is increased chance that I will enjoy the cache even if they didn't. How is a 1 to 5 rating system going to tell me that? It wouldn't.

 

Confession: I cannot believe that I actually thought just now - for about 10 seconds - that it would be cool, and a trivial matter to program, for the cache page to say "people who found this cache wrote an average of 18.5 words in their log". Excuse me while I go and take a cold shower.

 

There. Back.

 

I can see it now: "Dude, write a bigger log, my Awesome Cache's average dipped below 20". Or "Dear Groundspeak, please implement artificial intelligence software to exclude Travel Bug names from cache log word counts, as people who place TBs are distorting the overall experience". Or "Additional Logging Requirement: every fourth character in your log must be a space".

For every action, there is an opposite and disproportionate reaction.

 

Einstein should be rolling in his grave by now.

[+Michael]

This topic is being discussed in this thread There is no need for a duplicate thread as the other is still active.