Rating cache quality

[+SummitCachers]

Unless one's goal is simply to rack up cache stats, I think most of us prefer to find caches that are cleverly done or are hidden in interesting places. I'd like to have a way to anonymously rate a cache at the time I log a "find" ...maybe on a scale of one to ten, then have the average quality rating appear on the cache page.

 

This accomplishes a couple of things:

 

1. It may make people give more thought to the quality of the cache when they hide it

 

2. If quality was a searchable criteria I could ignore caches with a low rating

 

I realize that quality is entirely subjective. That's why we should only post the average for a cache. I trust that well done caches, overall, would tend to have higher ratings.

 

Thoughts?

[+sbell111]

Unless one's goal is simply to rack up cache stats, I think most of us prefer to find caches that are cleverly done or are hidden in interesting places. I'd like to have a way to anonymously rate a cache at the time I log a "find" ...maybe on a scale of one to ten, then have the average quality rating appear on the cache page.

 

This accomplishes a couple of things:

 

1. It may make people give more thought to the quality of the cache when they hide it

 

2. If quality was a searchable criteria I could ignore caches with a low rating

 

I realize that quality is entirely subjective. That's why we should only post the average for a cache. I trust that well done caches, overall, would tend to have higher ratings.

 

Thoughts?

Wow. Thanks for the new idea.

 

I'll pass.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Comes up every few weeks (or days in this case).

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=206609

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Great idea! I think we should discuss this, since it's never been brought up. I vote no.

[+StarBrand]

Comes up every few weeks (or days in this case).

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=206609

yup - I'll stand by my thoughts in that thread......

[Skippermark]

No thanks. Too subjective. What I like may be totally different than someone else.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm hoping for a ranking system where the caches that score 4/5 or 5/5 get a special GC award attached to their page.

 

A "gold star" ranking system would be especially useful when travelling -- if there's 300 caches within 20 miles of your hotel it's a lot of work to go through all the logs to determine which ones you don't want to miss.

 

Sure you could weed out all of the micros, but I've found a few micros that were clever, creative or were placed in a very scenic location. Sure you could choose caches that have a scenic attribute, but I've been to "scenic" locations which weren't really what I would consider scenic. Sure you could look at the gallery of photos but that'll take a long time to go through 300 caches looking through photos.

[+wimseyguy]

Some days I like finding lots of caches, and don't care much about location or quality.

Some days I like long hikes to scenic locations and don't care much about how hard the find is.

Some days I like to find very cleverly hidden caches and don't care much about anything else.

 

But rarely do like to solve tough puzzles.

 

How would your rating system help me?

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I didn't read the other threads but I think its a great idea and should be available through geocaching.com.

When you log a find you would give it a 1-5 star rating on OUALITY. Yes its true this is subjective but after a few dozen ( or less) finds the cream would come to the top. How anyone uses this rating would be up to them.

Usually before long trips around the country I email local cachers inquiring about great caches ( and places to eat ) in their area . Most state associations have lists of their top caches. When I visit these areas I don't pass up other caches but I make sure to try and grab the " good" ones.

Just because something is subjective dosen't rule out rating it. If 90 % of the finders think a cache is a 5 star there is about a 90 % chance I will think it is as well.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And, you really think it would make LPC hiders do things differently? Wanna buy a bridge?

[+TeamMadHatter]

This sounds like a good idea but my opinion is to just look at the logs and the description of the cache. With those two things I can figure out if I want to bother with it or not. If most of the logs consist of TFTC and nothing else then you can tell what it will be like.

 

I can usually figure out if I would like it within the first 4 logs.

 

The more features that are added the more complicated this will get. I like the simplicity of this.

 

You can never make everyone happy

[CoyoteRed]

I do think there should be a rating system. Exactly what kind, I'm not sure. A straight up 5 star rating system and you can only vote if you found the cache system would not work nearly as well as some folks think, IMHO. Of course, it would probably be better than nothing, but only by a tiny bit.

 

I do know there have been several much more viable schemes, theories, and systems presented. If we get one and what kind it is, is entirely up to TPTB.

 

Here's one point on a 5-star-rate-only-if-you-find-it scheme. Many of us who think a cache really sucks won't find it. If we do, we might not log it. Those who cache this way will never have the chance to vote a cache only a 1 star. Why should I have to hold my nose to find a cache solely so I can vote that I don't think it is a quality cache? No thanks.

 

Another point is cache owners have too much power. If they think your vote is not favorable they'll just delete you log--problem solved. No thanks.

 

Given the above two points everyone will rate the caches high. This completely defeats the whole reason for the rating as all caches would be five star caches. No thanks.

 

A combination of dividing the caches into genres, adding recommend-to-a-friend, and favorite lists would be a much better solution.

[+L0ne.R]

Here's one point on a 5-star-rate-only-if-you-find-it scheme. Many of us who think a cache really sucks won't find it. If we do, we might not log it. Those who cache this way will never have the chance to vote a cache only a 1 star. Why should I have to hold my nose to find a cache solely so I can vote that I don't think it is a quality cache? No thanks.

 

I would, especially local caches because I think it would be good for the geocaching community

 

Another point is cache owners have too much power. If they think your vote is not favorable they'll just delete you log--problem solved. No thanks.

 

How would they know who rated their cache unfavorably? It would be an anonymous voting system.

 

Given the above two points everyone will rate the caches high. This completely defeats the whole reason for the rating as all caches would be five star caches. No thanks.

 

Quality of votes would be taken into consideration. Votes would be weighted. There would need to be an expected distribution of rankings. Ideally, your voting pattern will follow a traditional bell curve where few boxes would receive 1 and 5 votes, a moderate number of boxes would receive 2 and 4 votes, and a lot of boxes—perhaps as many as half of them—would receive a vote of 3. If everything you find is always a 5, for instance, that's a clue that you aren't putting much thought into your votes.

[+sbell111]

Quality of votes would be taken into consideration. Votes would be weighted. ...

Why? How? Who's model are you commenting on? How about a link?

[+L0ne.R]

Quality of votes would be taken into consideration. Votes would be weighted. ...

Why? How? Who's model are you commenting on? How about a link?

 

Atlas Quest's Blue Diamond system. It's been working well.

[+sbell111]

Quality of votes would be taken into consideration. Votes would be weighted. ...

Why? How? Who's model are you commenting on? How about a link?

 

Atlas Quest's Blue Diamond system. It's been working well.

According to your link, some people think it works great and others think its a 'flop'.

 

No thanks.

[+bflentje]

There's already The Geocache Rating System that some people love and other people hate. To each their own. ratethiscache.com

[+tozainamboku]

How would they know who rated their cache unfavorably? It would be an anonymous voting system.

Might be OK for the PnG type caches that get found by hundreds of cachers. Most other caches get very few finds. Assume that you have to have found the cache in order to rate it, the owner would see their caches rating go up or down and will probably know who just found their cache and could figure out how they rated it. If they don't like the rating they got they could retaliate by deleting the 'Found It' log or by given a low rating to that persons cache. Also, a group of friends could decide to manipulate the rating by given each other't caches high ratings. Certainly, one would hope that geocaches would give honest ratings and would accept the ratings of on their caches as honest and unbiased input. But I have doubt the ratings will be that useful in part because of human nature.

 

I also object that the average cacher likes what I like. There are a few exceptional caches that get recommended by everyone I talk to. But I happen to like difficult puzzles, long hikes, and sometimes even a lamppost cache that surprised me by bringing me to an interesting place. And I have talked to people who would put these on their ignore list. Of course if they couldn't rate these (because they didn't find them) they may all get high ratings. But then how useful would the ratings be to those people?

 

What has been suggested are two other systems that would be far better than just a straight rating by finders of a cache. One idea is to use the bookmark list feature to find "highly recommended caches". Premium members can create list of caches. Many have a favorites list or a top 50 list. The recommendation is to allow each premium member to designate one bookmark list as a favorites list. A cache that shows up on more than some number of favorites lists would be designated a "highly recommended" cache. One could then search for "highly recommended" caches in an area. The other system would allow finders to rank a cache. But instead of calculating an average rank for the cache, this system would look at other cachers that ranked this cache similarly. If the system finds another cacher that has ranked several caches similar to your rankings, the system would recommend caches that this other cacher found and gave a good rating to. Sort of "people who liked this cache also liked the following".

[+Arndtwe]

For those of us that are using FireFox as our browser, there is a GreaseMonkey script rating system.

[+BuckeyeClan]

 

What has been suggested are two other systems that would be far better than just a straight rating by finders of a cache. One idea is to use the bookmark list feature to find "highly recommended caches".

 

I like the bookmark list idea! I wouldn't mind a rating system that highlighted the best, without dogging on the not-so-good. I have some issues with the 5-star rating system. First, I tend to subscribe to the Thumper "If you can't say something nice.." philosophy, so I would have a hard time rating anything less than a 3. Anything worse, I would probably just decline to rate it. And if ratings are weighted according to how you've rated all caches, mine wouldn't count for much. Out of 60-odd finds, I can easily think of 5 or 6 that I would give 5 stars, but none that I would give only 1 star. A 1-star cache would be in a lousy location, and if I think the location is lousy, I don't even bother searching for it.

 

Yeah, I like the bookmark list idea!

[+L0ne.R]

Quality of votes would be taken into consideration. Votes would be weighted. ...

Why? How? Who's model are you commenting on? How about a link?

 

Atlas Quest's Blue Diamond system. It's been working well.

According to your link, some people think it works great and others think its a 'flop'.

 

No thanks.

 

Those on the AQ site that think it's a flop, never liked the idea to begin with. Many of those same people don't like the idea of online logs/comments either and won't allow online logs. Would you say no thanks to the geocaching online logs because there are some vocal people in the letterboxing community that think its a bad idea?

[+L0ne.R]

How would they know who rated their cache unfavorably? It would be an anonymous voting system.

Might be OK for the PnG type caches that get found by hundreds of cachers. Most other caches get very few finds. Assume that you have to have found the cache in order to rate it, the owner would see their caches rating go up or down and will probably know who just found their cache and could figure out how they rated it. If they don't like the rating they got they could retaliate by deleting the 'Found It' log or by given a low rating to that persons cache.

 

The owner wouldn't see any ratings. The only thing he'd see is if people really liked the cache - then he'd get rewarded in the form of a gold crown (or whatever symbol gc.com wanted to use). Not getting a crown doesn't mean your cache is carpy, just that it's likely average cache, maybe even a good one but not a 'cream of the crop' cache. Reading the online logs could help people figure out if it's good, average or below average. If it's an average cache he just won't get a crown. 80-90% (depending on what the set-point is to get the gold crown) of caches would not get that crown. If you're going to be disappointed that you're not getting a crown and start deleting everyone's logs, that would be a rather odd and detrimental thing to do. One other way to deter retaliation, could be to set it up so that deleting an online log doesn't erase the vote.

 

Hopefully, the opportunity to get a crown would spur a cache owner on to try to hide something that the average cache finder would consider 4/5 or 5/5. And more importantly it would make it easier for finders, especially those new to an area (perhaps on vacation) to focus in on the cream of the crop caches.

 

Also, a crown doesn't mean that people aren't going to look for caches that don't have the award. I think most of us are addicted enough that we still want to look for as many geocaches as we can. But I for one do not have all the time in the world (especially when on vacation) to find them all, so I want to be able to get those that are highly recommended.

[+sbell111]

Quality of votes would be taken into consideration. Votes would be weighted. ...

Why? How? Who's model are you commenting on? How about a link?

Atlas Quest's Blue Diamond system. It's been working well.

According to your link, some people think it works great and others think its a 'flop'.

 

No thanks.

Those on the AQ site that think it's a flop, never liked the idea to begin with. Many of those same people don't like the idea of online logs/comments either and won't allow online logs. Would you say no thanks to the geocaching online logs because there are some vocal people in the letterboxing community that think its a bad idea?

I don't believe that the choice is between offering some flawed rating system and removing a vital piece of what geocaching is.

[+StarBrand]

.... If everything you find is always a 5, for instance, that's a clue that you aren't putting much thought into your votes.

Unless you are using the rating system to only seek out 5 star caches.....

[+sbell111]

.... If everything you find is always a 5, for instance, that's a clue that you aren't putting much thought into your votes.

Unless you are using the rating system to only seek out 5 star caches.....

It could also be evidence that not all people use geocaching to fill the same needs or have the same expectations that others must satisfy.

 

While a person with high expectations may rarely peg his fun meter, another may do it on nearly every cache hunt. Another, such as my wife, may never even find enough satisfaction in the game to give any cache a '1'.

[CoyoteRed]

.... If everything you find is always a 5, for instance, that's a clue that you aren't putting much thought into your votes.

Unless you are using the rating system to only seek out 5 star caches.....

Therein lies the rub.

 

I don't have much time for movies that aren't well received. My offline database I like to have only so large, there are limited spots. I'd rather only have the "more worthwhile" caches in there for my enjoyment. So, why would my vote be worth less because it is weighted lower because I vote mostly high due to my generally only finding the higher voted caches?

 

It's the same with 10% lists and 50% limits on recommended lists.

 

A user's average score would have to be compared to the average score of the cache he finds and then somehow applied to any bias.

[+ccwrestlechik105]

I would absolutely love this idea! I recently came across a cache that I thought would be a really good one because of the area in which it was hidden. It turned out to be on the side of the road, which in the Antelope Valley means that it was burried in at least 2ft of tumble weed! It was a pain in the butt to get to and I'm still picking stickers out of my shoes.

 

If that cache would have been rated, and I'm sure the rating would have been low, I would have been able to avoid that cache and spend my time finding one that wouldn't make me grumpy!

[Skippermark]

It was a pain in the butt to get to and I'm still picking stickers out of my shoes.

We encountered that stuff when we visited CA. We didn't know what it was called, so we made up a name and called it "Devil grass." Took forever to pick out all the stickers and kept poking into our feet and ankles.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

A user's average score would have to be compared to the average score of the cache he finds and then somehow applied to any bias.

Good luck computing an average score that means anything... for me no two caching trips are the same!

 

 

Does that chart indicate:

 

that I don't like 4.5 terrain caches, or that there are very few listed with that rating?

 

that I prefer micros (actually I don't!) or that I do a lot of group numbers runs where micros are prevalent (I do)?

 

that I like easy to get to but moderately hard to find caches best? (I do)

 

Does that look like the chart of a lazy man or a crippled one? (I'm both!)

 

Would it change my 'average' or assumptions about my preferences if you knew that around 200 of those 1/1 micros were in fact events I have attended or that I attended and multi-logged back when that was acceptable?

 

There is no way anyone can infer anything even close to accurate about my preferences from my stats!

Edited October 31, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+The Cheeseheads]

I've always been in favor of a system where rating a cache was simply answering "Is this cache one of your favorites?" There would be a single "YES" button to click, or a "NO" button to undo a recommendation if a cache was no longer one of your favorites.

 

The catch is, you may only mark up to ten caches as favorites. If you want to mark more, you would have to clear out a previously "favorited" cache.

 

Also, to help ensure that favorites lists stay fresh:

• A vote for a cache would reset after a certain period of time, say six months or a year. You could simply re-vote for the cache to add it back to your list. This is so votes from inactive cachers don't remain applied forever.
  
• If a cache is archived, it is automatically removed from your list.
  

A cache listing would simply state "### people marked this cache as a favorite!" Thanks to the miracle of relational databases, by clicking on that text, you would end up on a search page taking everyone who marked the cache as a favorite, and listing all the other caches they had favorited, the theory being that if you liked the first cache, then these might also be caches that you'd like.

 

The system would be anonymous, and there would not be any sort of a "I didn't like this cache" or a subjective "How much did you like this cache" rating. Just a simple "Yes" or nothing at all.

[normis]

to those saying "subjective" - well how about those caches that are just plastic bag in a patch of grass? we have those, for some reason they get published, although they break every rule imaginable.

 

how about a "report trash cache" possibility?

 

+1 for "Cheeseheads", I like the idea. Or like Digg comment system - click on either plus or minus, and in the end you are given a result "432" for example. This doesn't say how many people voted for, or against. Just the final rating.

Edited November 10, 2008 by normis99

[+sbell111]

to those saying "subjective" - well how about those caches that are just plastic bag in a patch of grass? we have those, for some reason they get published, although they break every rule imaginable.

Just out of curiosity, how does a cache like that 'break every rule'?

[+Wild Thing 73]

Just "filter" out the caches you feel are not worthy of your time spent in searching for them. Simple, but effective.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Wild Thing 73

[+Mother Wolf]

What exactly would the purpose of this be? Likes & dislikes vary to much to make this of any use IMHO.

 

Ive done caches I thought were great while others have said it was just ok. Ive done caches that I hated that others loved.

 

I read the logs. That usually tells me all I need to know.

 

Sorry Im a NO for the rating idea.

[Skippermark]

to those saying "subjective" - well how about those caches that are just plastic bag in a patch of grass? we have those, for some reason they get published, although they break every rule imaginable.

In my original reply, I said "too subjective," so I feel that I'm qualified to reply.

 

But first, I'm curious how a plastic bag cache in a patch of grass breaks every rule? We've seen caches that are plastic Easter eggs with a logbook inside tossed into waist high grass. Not very smart when you accidentally step on it and crack it while searching, but they didn't break any rules. We've seen caches where the container is a plastic bags with a logbook inside tossed into a bush. They didn't break any rules.

 

To answer your question, I've found similar types of hides (a couple examples noted above) and am okay with it. I'm happy to find pretty much anything except devious hides in rock walls.

[+infiniteMPG]

I'd vote yes simply because if data is made available it doesn't mean you have to use it. If we had even a simple 5-star rating system and allowed people to PQ filter on that, it wouldn't hurt the people not wanting a rating system one bit. We have filters available for size, type, area, terrain, difficulty, attributes, and many more things, and I'd bet the vast majority don't use any, they just look for caches... period. For the few that use the filters, what's wrong with giving people a "cacher rated" filter??? You don't have to use it any more then you have to use any of the other filters. Arguing against having rating data is like arguing against having a filter showing if public phones are available nearby....

 

And you wouldn't "have" to rate the cache when you find it, but you have find it in order to rate it. Simply make it part of the FOUND IT log page. If I were somewhere away from home on business and looking for a restaurant, I'd search on line and check out the restaurants with high ratings. Could be skewed or inaccurate but I'd bet for the vast majority, it's pretty spot on.

 

As far as reading the logs to determine the quality of the cache.... puh-lease.... that would take about as much time as just finding the dang thing.

 

......need more data.

Edited November 10, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+Top rope ian]

I have been reading the comments here and can see how the argument will go on. I have see other caching site that rates caches and gives points. These systems are open to interpretation and abuse, is also depends on the expectations of your caches and cachers.

 

I think Geocaching has it right. I have made the mistake of just downloading a large number of caches in an area without reading the descriptions and logs, some have been good and others are pants. My fault for not reading the logs.

 

I have also had comments on some caches i had placed, that they are to hard, however those who have taken repeated visits to find it, once found had enjoyed it. how would you rate that?

 

Others i have placed are visually clear where they are but the challenge is how it is retrieved. Again would this have an easy find rating or impossible to get rating??

 

Leave as is, plan your cache trips and read the logs.

 

TRI

[normis]

I'm not talking about easter eggs or something like that. I'm talking about a wet plastic bag with a logbook, dropped on the ground with no specific idea behind it, and no one maintaining it. Somebody just registered, and immediately submitted 5 such caches in my area. What should I do in this case? Everyone is angry in the comments, this just ruins all the GC experience.

 

Rules?

 

How about guidelines sections for "Permanence", "Maintenance", "Contents" and "Container Types"? Generally I think that if nearly all comments on a cache are negative, this means that cache is bad.

 

Of course one could just read the comments, and there would be no need for rating, but I think it would be nice that one could filter by rating (don't show caches with rating lower than 1*).

[CoyoteRed]

A user's average score would have to be compared to the average score of the cache he finds and then somehow applied to any bias.

Does that chart indicate: ...

Nothing about which I was referring. The score I to which I was referring was to the "quality" rating one would be giving to a cache and was pointing out the problem with weighted scores. Why should a very high quality cache be punished because it was found who only finds high quality caches, but his vote was weighted lower because of it?

[J.A.R.S.]

A user's average score would have to be compared to the average score of the cache he finds and then somehow applied to any bias.

Does that chart indicate: ...

Nothing about which I was referring. The score I to which I was referring was to the "quality" rating one would be giving to a cache and was pointing out the problem with weighted scores. Why should a very high quality cache be punished because it was found who only finds high quality caches, but his vote was weighted lower because of it?

 

So how do you screen out for only high quality caches? How long does it take you to do the research? If you were new to the area do you read all the logs in all of the caches within a 10 mile radius or along a route to screen out for high quality only? Are there certain words you look for?

 

Have you ever gone to what you perceived as a high quality cache only to find it OK, really just an ordinary cache.

[rogheff]

Terracaching has the rating system for which the OP asked. It has good traits and it has bad traits. Caches that I think are good or bad (either as a hider or a seeker) may get a better or worse rating than I feel it deserves.

 

Groundspeak has determined no such need exists for a rating system on geocaching.com so have never included one. The rating system is a selling point for Terracaching.com

 

I guess if you want rated caches go there, if you don't - stay here.

[CoyoteRed]

I've always been in favor of a system where rating a cache was simply answering "Is this cache one of your favorites?" There would be a single "YES" button to click, or a "NO" button to undo a recommendation if a cache was no longer one of your favorites.

 

The catch is, you may only mark up to ten caches as favorites. If you want to mark more, you would have to clear out a previously "favorited" cache.

 

Also, to help ensure that favorites lists stay fresh:

• A vote for a cache would reset after a certain period of time, say six months or a year. You could simply re-vote for the cache to add it back to your list. This is so votes from inactive cachers don't remain applied forever.
  
• If a cache is archived, it is automatically removed from your list.
  

A cache listing would simply state "### people marked this cache as a favorite!" Thanks to the miracle of relational databases, by clicking on that text, you would end up on a search page taking everyone who marked the cache as a favorite, and listing all the other caches they had favorited, the theory being that if you liked the first cache, then these might also be caches that you'd like.

 

The system would be anonymous, and there would not be any sort of a "I didn't like this cache" or a subjective "How much did you like this cache" rating. Just a simple "Yes" or nothing at all.

I like where you're going with this with the set number of favorites versus a percentage.

 

If I may expand on your idea a little:

• Consider that a lot of folks are into the thousands of finds, managing a list would get unwieldy very quickly.
  
• Allow finders to privately rate caches from 1 to 10.
  
• Show the user a list of all rated his rated finds and then allow them to sort them--regardless of the score--from most well listed to least.
  • A "Send to Top" and "Send to Bottom" button would be helpful.
    
  • Allowing adjustment of the private rating right on that page would be helpful, too.
    

  [*]Then take the top 10 caches and highlight them.

  [*]Revisit the favorites every six months like you said but, say, only on the user's semi-annual anniversary.

  [*]Allow the user to also recommend any cache on that sorted list, as well. Each cache would end up with two scores: the number of favorites and number of recommendations.

  • Recommendations would be limited to 25% or 100 caches whichever is less. It would be assumed that your favorites would be ten of those.
    
  • Recommendations would also be prioritized from the sorted list. You can have more checked than allowed, but only the higher sorted ones would count.
    

  [*]A user's favorites or recommendations won't be counted until they reach their 1 year anniversary and found 100 caches.

  [*]Cache scores are updated no more often than once a week to reduce server load. Heck, make it monthly.

  [*]ALRs based on voting strictly forbidden.

  [*]These two numbers would be send in the PQs.

The PQ system would have to modified with a couple of check marks:

• Include all Favorites in search area regardless of size of type.
  
• Include only those that are favorites.
  

The first would allow you to make a general PQ and exclude, say, micros in general, but include those micros that were voted a favorite--a general list but exceptional caches included that would have normally been excluded. The second would allow a general query, but show only those that are favorites--a much more limited list.

 

I like the idea of a limited number of selections for a couple of reasons; it doesn't promote going out to find more caches simply to make a goal (the reason the 1 year requirement), and it's going to be harder for a cache owner to twist a finder's arm to get a recommendation--to give one, the finder would have to unrecommend another cache. That's not to mention if they've not got past their first year or 100 finds, there's nothing the cache owner could twist out of them to begin with. This would reduce the strong-arming of newbies.

[Braff-n-MandaRue]

I just don't think it would work out with GC.com. There are just too many people. The problem with people is that they lie.

 

What I'm saying is, if you are always rating caches of people whom you don't know, it would be easy to give a more honest rating, you don't have to worry about hurting a strangers feelings.

 

The problem comes in to rating caches in your local area. It's a place where you get to know the local cachers in one form or another. You may not ever meet them face to face, but you hunt each others caches, talk on forums, or you may in fact meet them at an event face to face. So, you do get to know them in some form or another. Then, once you get to know them, you don't want to hurt their feelings, so you would give the cache they place a higher rating than it deserves.

 

Given that most caches are going to be found by the local cachers, and not so many out of the area, the ratings would always have a tendency to be higher rated, because the local crew didn't want to hurt their cache buddy's feelings.

[CoyoteRed]

A user's average score would have to be compared to the average score of the cache he finds and then somehow applied to any bias.

Does that chart indicate: ...

Nothing about which I was referring. The score I to which I was referring was to the "quality" rating one would be giving to a cache and was pointing out the problem with weighted scores. Why should a very high quality cache be punished because it was found who only finds high quality caches, but his vote was weighted lower because of it?

So how do you screen out for only high quality caches? How long does it take you to do the research? If you were new to the area do you read all the logs in all of the caches within a 10 mile radius or along a route to screen out for high quality only? Are there certain words you look for?

 

Have you ever gone to what you perceived as a high quality cache only to find it OK, really just an ordinary cache.

Please go back re-read the sub-thread. I was referring to when (if) this site implements some sort of rating system and uses weight to bias a user's vote.

 

One complaint of a voting system is some folks with vote everything high simply to be nice or out of laziness. The answer has been weight that user's votes to bring them down to average. That would be fine if all of the caches he found averaged out to be, well, average.

 

However, the problem with simply biasing a person's vote is when that person only goes out after caches that are voted 5 stars. His honest votes would average out to 5 stars, but the "bias correction system" would bring those votes down to 3's--not his real vote and not what those caches deserve.

 

It's the law of unintended consequences. Many of these schemes don't look past the very next step or what would happen if the system was used for what it is intended or how it could be abused.

[Dinoprophet]

I've always been in favor of a system where rating a cache was simply answering "Is this cache one of your favorites?" There would be a single "YES" button to click, or a "NO" button to undo a recommendation if a cache was no longer one of your favorites.

 

The catch is, you may only mark up to ten caches as favorites. If you want to mark more, you would have to clear out a previously "favorited" cache.

 

Also, to help ensure that favorites lists stay fresh:

• A vote for a cache would reset after a certain period of time, say six months or a year. You could simply re-vote for the cache to add it back to your list. This is so votes from inactive cachers don't remain applied forever.
  
• If a cache is archived, it is automatically removed from your list.
  

A cache listing would simply state "### people marked this cache as a favorite!" Thanks to the miracle of relational databases, by clicking on that text, you would end up on a search page taking everyone who marked the cache as a favorite, and listing all the other caches they had favorited, the theory being that if you liked the first cache, then these might also be caches that you'd like.

 

The system would be anonymous, and there would not be any sort of a "I didn't like this cache" or a subjective "How much did you like this cache" rating. Just a simple "Yes" or nothing at all.

I love it! Maybe "### out of ### finders marked this cache as a favorite". For those tough caches where 100% of the three people who found it marked it a favorite.

 

I might like to see more than 10, too. Maybe 25. Or even a percentage of your total finds.

[CoyoteRed]

Groundspeak has determined no such need exists for a rating system on geocaching.com so have never included one.

They'll sooner or later change their minds.

 

They originally thought there would be no need for more than 65,535 waypoints. ...or 4 digits. ...create a new site to handle non-physical caches. ...or that site wouldn't take off like a rocket. ...there would ever be an Off-Topic forum. ...and on and on.

 

This site will only get larger and larger, and thus move away from folks finding everything in front of them. They've become much more selective. They need a better way to be selective than individually selecting caches to ignore or download. The power of the collective is there waiting to be harnessed. It's a massive amount of horsepower being ignored and wasted.

[+AmbBra]

Wow, you know i can't believe the amount of whining that has been in this thread. It al comes down to do your homework. What i'm reading here is that if i'm on vacation, i want someone else to do all the leg work for me so i can just go find the caches.

 

I'm a relative newcomer and i have found caches that should be archived due to being wet or bad location or whatever. The thrill for me is in the hunt, i don't care what i find when i get there, just that i took the time to go find it and seen something new.

 

My 5 YO daughter hunts with me a good bit and you should see the excitement in her eyes when she finds the cache. She doesn't care whether it's an egg or a baggie or what it is, she's just delighted to have found it.

 

I geuss what i'm saying is if you want quality only caches to find. Do the work yourself and you'll never be disappointed. I cache in Indiana a good bit with my sister, nephew and brother in law and can honestly say i have never found a bad cache.

 

Just my 2 cents worth, flame away!

 

I would vote no on a rating system, just to state my opinion.

[+tozainamboku]

I've always been in favor of a system where rating a cache was simply answering "Is this cache one of your favorites?" There would be a single "YES" button to click, or a "NO" button to undo a recommendation if a cache was no longer one of your favorites.

 

The catch is, you may only mark up to ten caches as favorites. If you want to mark more, you would have to clear out a previously "favorited" cache.

 

Also, to help ensure that favorites lists stay fresh:

• A vote for a cache would reset after a certain period of time, say six months or a year. You could simply re-vote for the cache to add it back to your list. This is so votes from inactive cachers don't remain applied forever.
  
• If a cache is archived, it is automatically removed from your list.
  

A cache listing would simply state "### people marked this cache as a favorite!" Thanks to the miracle of relational databases, by clicking on that text, you would end up on a search page taking everyone who marked the cache as a favorite, and listing all the other caches they had favorited, the theory being that if you liked the first cache, then these might also be caches that you'd like.

 

The system would be anonymous, and there would not be any sort of a "I didn't like this cache" or a subjective "How much did you like this cache" rating. Just a simple "Yes" or nothing at all.

I like where you're going with this with the set number of favorites versus a percentage.

 

If I may expand on your idea a little:[snip]

The nice thing about the Cheeseheads < Leprechauns < Markwell favorites list idea is it is simple. Just allow cachers to added caches to a designated favorites/recommended bookmarklist, count the number of such list a cache appears on, and show that number on the cache page and allow a search for caches with x or more recommendations. All those other complexities CR asks for are best done using a third party software like GSAK and not be part of the official mechanism.

 

Groundspeak has determined no such need exists for a rating system on geocaching.com so have never included one.

They'll sooner or later change their minds.

Jeremy has on several occasions remarked favorably on the favorites/recommendation list. He has also talked about an awards/recognition scheme - probably a modification of the favorites/recommendation idea. My guess is we will see something after Geocaching v2 (Project Phoenix) is release.

[CoyoteRed]

The nice thing about the Cheeseheads < Leprechauns < Markwell favorites list idea is it is simple. Just allow cachers to added caches to a designated favorites/recommended bookmarklist, count the number of such list a cache appears on, and show that number on the cache page and allow a search for caches with x or more recommendations. All those other complexities CR asks for are best done using a third party software like GSAK and not be part of the official mechanism.

Cheeseheads idea was a limited number favorites list. Other idea I've seen have been a percentage and I've highlighted the issue with a percentage elsewhere. The rest was pretty much simply list management.

 

I like the idea of keeping a private list of caches that are eligible for a favorites list without having to wade through massive numbers of caches that don't stand a chance. Also, streamlining the process would have to take place here on the site as you log the cache. "Rate how well you enjoyed this cache." Simple. Then those rated caches show up on a list--maybe even limited by rating. You manage your list right there. I'm thinking streamlined, not kludged.

[Mushtang]

If there is a rating system I sure hope they require you to find it before you can rate it.