Rating or review for caches

[xavus]

Would it be nice to have some sort of rating or review for caches. I'm talking about a simple way to evaluate a cache; if you liked a cache very much you would put 5 stars and if you didn't, you woud put 1. It would be anonymous and there could be categories too. I'm thinking of something like Tripadvisor but for caches. Maybe this already exist, but I'm making this suggestion because I still didn't find anything like this.

[+roziecakes]

I've only been on the forums for the last couple of weeks, but I do notice this gets brought up a lot...

 

From what I've read it seems like this would be difficult to implement, and some find it unethical. I've also read that TPTB have mentioned that they would look into it.

 

Anyone more experienced on the forums, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

-Rozie

[+steel city babes]

It would be neat to rate them kinda of like netflix or ebay...give you the client/user a chance to offer some critique....I guess you could do that in the log but that might get deleted.

[+StarBrand]

Here is the latest long winded thread on the subject:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=217621

[+gof1]

[+roziecakes]

 

-Rozie

[+Knight2000]

Would it be nice to have some sort of rating or review for caches.

Yes, it would be very nice.

 

I think it will come someday. Besides people knowing our hides are different and interesting a cacher that didnt know us might pass our micro because they think it is another lazy film can in a lamp post. (How is that caching?)

[J.A.R.S.]

Would it be nice to have some sort of rating or review for caches. I'm talking about a simple way to evaluate a cache; if you liked a cache very much you would put 5 stars and if you didn't, you woud put 1. It would be anonymous and there could be categories too. I'm thinking of something like Tripadvisor but for caches. Maybe this already exist, but I'm making this suggestion because I still didn't find anything like this.

I agree. I'd like the ratings to remain anonymous and only those that get an average of 4/5 or 5/5 get a "golden frog" icon. I think it would encourage better hides and would be useful on trips/vacations when you have limited time and budget, you can filter for golden frogs and then maybe pick up a few others in the vicinity.

[+Rockin Roddy]

NO THANKS!! What about someone in your area who doesn't like you? How about people who'd simply start rating caches they never even visited? It's very subjective and could be misleading.

 

Besides, there's already this option...the bookmark! If you like a cache, bookmark it as a favorite, if not, bookmark it as a least favorite. You can even leave why you liked/disliked it and whatever other note you want!

[GOF and Bacall]

Rockin Roddy said it better that what I had typed. I just sounded nasty.

[+Stargazer22]

NO THANKS!! What about someone in your area who doesn't like you? How about people who'd simply start rating caches they never even visited? It's very subjective and could be misleading.

 

Besides, there's already this option...the bookmark! If you like a cache, bookmark it as a favorite, if not, bookmark it as a least favorite. You can even leave why you liked/disliked it and whatever other note you want!

 

I find myself in agreement with Roddy again.

Too easy for someone to falsely rate a cache because someone doesn't like the kind of car some cacher drives, or the name of his dog.

[J.A.R.S.]

NO THANKS!! What about someone in your area who doesn't like you? How about people who'd simply start rating caches they never even visited? It's very subjective and could be misleading.

 

Besides, there's already this option...the bookmark! If you like a cache, bookmark it as a favorite, if not, bookmark it as a least favorite. You can even leave why you liked/disliked it and whatever other note you want!

 

Bookmarks can't be filtered i.e. you can't use PQs. You can't even search for bookmarks in your area. Very few people use them. I use them, but they never get rated, so I doubt many people care about my bookmark lists.

 

Attributes are OK too but a cache with a scenic attribute doesn't automatically make it a great cache experience.

 

Cache size - a microcache doesn't automatically make it a bad cache experience.

 

I'm sure the GC web gurus can create a rating system that doesn't allow a person to rate a cache unless they visited the cache.

 

For those who don't want their caches rated, I'm sure that ratings could be optional and owners could opt out.

[+sbell111]

I'll pass for the very reasons discussed every time this issue comes up.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If all you're doing is loading tons of caches without an idea of what the cache is (other than filtered for PQ), you're likely already getting caches you don't like and missing caches you do. This isn't the fault of the PQ.

 

Having someone put a label on MY cache isn't an option I would like, someone gets scratched and they automatically rate it badly. Someone has a bad experience of some kind (at no fault to the cache or owner) and the rating is bad. Someone who is overly selective decides they don't like my cache...we could go on! It's already an option with the bookmarks and you can also get an idea of how well it's perceived through how many watch the cache.

 

Again, NO THANKS!

 

If you're not at least skimming the cache pages, you'd have no idea if the cache was bookmarked or not. My suggestion, read the cache pages, or at least skim them before loading enmasse!

[J.A.R.S.]

Having someone put a label on MY cache isn't an option I would like, someone gets scratched and they automatically rate it badly. Someone has a bad experience of some kind (at no fault to the cache or owner) and the rating is bad. Someone who is overly selective decides they don't like my cache...we could go on! It's already an option with the bookmarks and you can also get an idea of how well it's perceived through how many watch the cache.

If it's optional then you would opt out of having your caches rated. Me, I would definitely use an anonymous "golden frog" type of feature. Are you saying that because you don't want to be rated, no one should have the option?

[+wimseyguy]

Yes it would be nice, but almost all of the options that have been discussed in the past point out the perils of a simple ratings system for our community.

 

The one option I do like is for PM's to be able to add 1% of all caches found to a favorites list separate from the current bookmarking system. If your cache gets added to enough of these favorite lists, then it gets a special attribute. Then we could filter searches on that special attribute.

 

I'd also like for cache owners to be able to block that and any other bookmark list from appearing on their cache pages if they wish.

Edited April 16, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+sbell111]

Yes it would be nice, but almost all of the options that have been discussed in the past point out the perils of a simple ratings system for our community.

 

The one option I do like is for PM's to be able to add 1% of all caches found to a favorites list separate from the current bookmarking system. If your cache gets added to enough of these favorite lists, then it gets a special attribute. Then we could filter searches on that special attribute.

 

I'd also like for cache owners to be able to block that and any other bookmark list from appearing on their cache pages if they wish.

So imagine that I am a geocacher who has been playing the game for just short of eight years and I've found a bit shy of 1700 caches. I would be able to choose 17 of those 1700 caches as my favorites. Do you think that I am going to choose 17 of the best caches that I have found over those eight years, or the most memorable ones, heavily skewing 'the best' to those found most recently?

Edited April 16, 2009 by sbell111

[+wimseyguy]

That's up to you, they are your top 1%. If your memory of caches past isn't worthy of inclusion, then so be it. I have very fond memories of some of the caches I found on my first visit to Nashville in 2004 and would happily include them on my list. I suspect a few might match yours too.

[+sbell111]

That's up to you, they are your top 1%. If your memory of caches past isn't worthy of inclusion, then so be it. I have very fond memories of some of the caches I found on my first visit to Nashville in 2004 and would happily include them on my list. I suspect a few might match yours too.

Maybe, but only two of the ones that I was thinking of happened to be in TN.

 

Of course, this merely highlights the problem that I was trying to point out. Of my 'top 17', I can only think of two or three that are more than a couple of years old. That certainly doesn't mean that the older ones are bad, but it does suggest that they would be underrepresented while some newer ones would be included, but shouldn't be.

[sdarken]

That's up to you, they are your top 1%.

 

I dont think that a "Top 1%" would generate nearly enough ratings to be useful. A person with a 1000 finds would be able to highlight 10 caches. In my county which is pretty active, there are probably 10-15 cachers with that many finds. Half probably wouldn't use any sort of rating system. The remaining cachers would probably "vote" for some out-of-county caches as their favorites and the result would be a few very difficult caches being picked out multiple times and then the rest of the "votes" would be scattered amongst lots of caches.

 

With any kind of rating system you need a critical mass for it to be useful. 1 "vote" by one person isn't enough to know if something is really above average.

 

Someone (Markwell I believe?) has previously suggested a Top 10% favorites list. That seems like a much better limit to me.

 

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. I'd take any kind of rating system. If it started at a Top 1%, it could always be changed later.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Having someone put a label on MY cache isn't an option I would like, someone gets scratched and they automatically rate it badly. Someone has a bad experience of some kind (at no fault to the cache or owner) and the rating is bad. Someone who is overly selective decides they don't like my cache...we could go on! It's already an option with the bookmarks and you can also get an idea of how well it's perceived through how many watch the cache.

If it's optional then you would opt out of having your caches rated. Me, I would definitely use an anonymous "golden frog" type of feature. Are you saying that because you don't want to be rated, no one should have the option?

 

If you're asking what my vote is, I think I said that!

 

Not only would someone be able to mess up my caches, but also caches I might want to find!

[+sbell111]

That's up to you, they are your top 1%.

 

I dont think that a "Top 1%" would generate nearly enough ratings to be useful. A person with a 1000 finds would be able to highlight 10 caches. In my county which is pretty active, there are probably 10-15 cachers with that many finds. Half probably wouldn't use any sort of rating system. The remaining cachers would probably "vote" for some out-of-county caches as their favorites and the result would be a few very difficult caches being picked out multiple times and then the rest of the "votes" would be scattered amongst lots of caches.

 

With any kind of rating system you need a critical mass for it to be useful. 1 "vote" by one person isn't enough to know if something is really above average.

 

Someone (Markwell I believe?) has previously suggested a Top 10% favorites list. That seems like a much better limit to me.

 

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs. I'd take any kind of rating system. If it started at a Top 1%, it could always be changed later.

Top ten percent would have the same problem as top 1%. I would not easily recall the 170 most awesome caches that I ever found. Therefore, I would likely squander these 'votes' on the next 160 caches that were fun for me, further skewing the results toward recently placed caches and away from the best of the best.

[+Walts Hunting]

Where's that dead horse so I can beat it again.

[J.A.R.S.]

Where's that dead horse so I can beat it again.

Why are you reading this thread if it bothers you?

[+tozainamboku]

Top ten percent would have the same problem as top 1%. I would not easily recall the 170 most awesome caches that I ever found. Therefore, I would likely squander these 'votes' on the next 160 caches that were fun for me, further skewing the results toward recently placed caches and away from the best of the best.

I just don't see the problem. I maintain a bookmark list called EMC's top seven of all time. EMC has over 18000 finds. If she can tell me her top seven you can pick out your favorites too. The limit to 1% or 10% or top seven doesn't mean that caches which didn't make your list are bad. It means you were forced to think about which caches you selected so your less likely to just pick the last seven cache you have found. Yes, this list will be skewed toward recent caches. But isn't that what you want for recommendations. Some cache you found six or seven years ago may have deteriorated or the area it is in has changed. Your going to recommend something based on what you remember and not what is really there. If it is such a great cache, then hopefully more recent visitor will have recommended it on their favorites list. I suspect that like EMC you have your all time favorites and they will show up still on your list no matter when you found them. After these you'd recommend more recent caches that stick out in your mind and these are more likely going to be ones that a new finder might enjoy.

 

Now you could point out that you had a memorable experience at a cache because you saw some rare wildlife or you met another geocacher. The next person may not have that experience here and in fact without that experience that cache isn't all that great. That is why I'd prefer that instead of calling it a favorites cache list it be called a recommended caches list, so you actually select cache you would think other people might enjoy. Of course you may want to recommend only LPCs since it is clear that some people enjoy finding quick and easy caches. But that is what I like about this scheme. Each person can recommend whatever caches they think some else might like. And since this is only a list of recommendations, cachers would still have to look at the cache pages to see if they want to do these. They may find someone with similar tastes and use that individuals recommended list instead of just looking for the caches with the most recommendations.

[+sbell111]

Top ten percent would have the same problem as top 1%. I would not easily recall the 170 most awesome caches that I ever found. Therefore, I would likely squander these 'votes' on the next 160 caches that were fun for me, further skewing the results toward recently placed caches and away from the best of the best.

I just don't see the problem. I maintain a bookmark list called EMC's top seven of all time. EMC has over 18000 finds. If she can tell me her top seven you can pick out your favorites too. ...

There are a couple problems with this logic. 1) Just because one person can do it, doesn't mean that every person will. 2) Just because one person puts the effort into it doesn't mean that every person will.

 

I rather doubt that most people will bother. I suspect that they will choose from the recent caches that they will be able to easily remember and then dump new finds in there until they hit their limit (irregardless of whether those caches are indeed stand-out caches). They will then only add additional caches to the list as they increase their find counts (thus being able to add another cache to the 'good' list). I doubt that most people will periodically review the list to kick off those that are not as good as new finds.

 

Most people, in my opinion, are not interested in becoming a librarian or statistician so will not have much interest in the extra work that managing this list would entail.

[xavus]

Was there a survey by Geocaching.com on this subject?. Maybe this would help to know how goecachers feels about this!

[+gof1]

You want to put the inmates in charge of the asylum?

[+tozainamboku]

Was there a survey by Geocaching.com on this subject?. Maybe this would help to know how goecachers feels about this!

I did a quick survey with the four cachers I went hiking with today. The consensus was that everyone has they own likes and dislikes when it comes to cache so a rating system that took the average rating of cache doesn't really help anyone. Unlike movies on Netflix or books on Amazon, the number of people who would rate caches is very small. The average rating you would get from that type of system would not have any statistical significance even if one could argue that there is an average cacher whose tastes would reflect what the average rating of a cache would give. I believe that Geocaching.com has done surveys and they do know that many geocachers find it hard to sort through all the caches that are out there to find the ones they are likely to enjoy more. Instead of suggesting a useless system that believe that cacher are average so what the average of what cacher would rank a cache would tell you what cache you might like or dislike, instead try to think of a method that might actual work for you. TPTB have looked at implementing some kind of system that may recommend caches you might like base on they history of caches you have said you like. This is a bit complicated to implement, though not impossible. A simpler idea is the one that allows cachers to recommend caches (using a favorites or recommendation list) and to allow you to find caches that have several recommendations. Now you would still have to look at the recommended cache because people who like hikes will recommended hiking caches, people who like puzzles with recommend puzzle caches, people who like caches at historic locations will recommend those caches, and, yes, even people who like to find LPCs may recommend some of these. But the recommended caches will hopefully be the best of each genre of caches and the number will be limited so you'd have time to review these pages to find what you might like before going caching.