Cache Rating System

[+Yuma4]

i was thinking. It might be interesting to add a feature when you log a cache to give it a rating between 1 and 5 stars. Perhaps make it a premium feature in addition to the favorite points. Any thoughts?

[+T.D.M.22]

[+stijnhommes]

Such a thing already exists: http://gcvote.com/index.php

[+Yuma4]

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Discussed many times previously. I think you will find a resounding NO! response.

 

The problem is... although it sounds as though it may give the ability to make an affirmative vote, is certainly opens the door for negative votes as well. You cannot have one without having the other.

 

Fav Points, I believe was Groundspeak's solution. It works a little differently. Either it ranks as one of your Favorites, or it doesn't. Pretty simple as there is no negativity involved.

 

Look at the link provided by stijnhommes. Do you see the door for negativity?

[AZcachemeister]

The truth is, some caches suck.

 

I might think it sucks, but you think it is OK.

 

I can vote it as a '1', and you can vote it as a '3'.

 

If everyone gets to vote, we eventually see the true quality of the cache.

 

Favorites Points?

Works fairly well to point out the top quality caches, but does nothing to point out the lesser quality caches.

 

But, Groundspeak doesn't want anyone getting their feelings hurt and cancelling their Premium Membership...it's all about the money.

[+tozainamboku]

If everyone gets to vote, we eventually see the true quality of the cache.

I don't buy this.

 

Of course, first you need to define who everyone is. It is people who found the cache? Is is anyone who looked? Or can I vote from reading the cache page?

 

Whoever it is, just because someone gets to vote doesn't guarantee they will vote or that they will be honest in their vote.

 

Good polls have small error because they take a random sample. They may also have some control questions to get an idea if people are giving honest answers. Voting on geocaches is likely to have a high margin of error because the sample is not random and there are numerous reasons for people to give dishonest answers.

 

I wouldn't put much trust in a five start system in letting me know what caches are good or bad. I see favorites get misused as well, with people expecting either the number of favorites or the ration of favorites to find to indicate the true quality of the cache. What favorites tell you is that some people thought the cache was in their top 10%. If you know some of the people, you can get a good idea if they like the same caches you like, then use their favorites as a kind of recommendation. If you don't know the people, you can still use the favorites as recommendation from a stranger. Few people will recommend the really bad caches, so these caches are less likely have any favorite votes and can be avoided.

[AZcachemeister]

If 100 people found a cache, and 50 of them gave it a FP, you could bet it's a good cache.

 

If 100 people found a cache, and 50 of them rated it 1-2 stars, you could bet it's not a very good cache.

 

With people giving FP because they were FTF on the new lampskirt hide, and giving an FP to the next cache they log after they were awarded an FP to give out, it's not a reliable system until you have a significant number of votes.

[+L0ne.R]

Such a thing already exists: http://gcvote.com/index.php

 

+1

[+Don_J]

If everyone gets to vote, we eventually see the true quality of the cache.

I don't buy this.

 

Of course, first you need to define who everyone is. It is people who found the cache? Is is anyone who looked? Or can I vote from reading the cache page?

 

Whoever it is, just because someone gets to vote doesn't guarantee they will vote or that they will be honest in their vote.

 

Good polls have small error because they take a random sample. They may also have some control questions to get an idea if people are giving honest answers. Voting on geocaches is likely to have a high margin of error because the sample is not random and there are numerous reasons for people to give dishonest answers.

 

I wouldn't put much trust in a five start system in letting me know what caches are good or bad. I see favorites get misused as well, with people expecting either the number of favorites or the ration of favorites to find to indicate the true quality of the cache. What favorites tell you is that some people thought the cache was in their top 10%. If you know some of the people, you can get a good idea if they like the same caches you like, then use their favorites as a kind of recommendation. If you don't know the people, you can still use the favorites as recommendation from a stranger. Few people will recommend the really bad caches, so these caches are less likely have any favorite votes and can be avoided.

 

I remember that one of our friends had some of the higher quality, and very popular urban micro caches placed in Downtown Los Angeles. This kid from the mountains in Ventura County that had primarily only found hiking caches joined some friends to find these caches. He compared them to caches that he liked and rated each of them with a GCVote of 1. Since his was the only vote, all of the caches were now rated as being poor caches. Now, if the next guy comes along and is totally excited by urban micros with views of historic downtown buildings and marks it a 5, we now have an average of 3. I think that with the large diversity of what people like, want or expect out of a cache, with enough logs, the caches will all eventually level off at the middle.

 

Besides, we have those that might have to fight off a 12" rat to get the FTF and they'll still rate it a 5 because they got the FTF.

[AZcachemeister]

Well, sure.

GCVote is only the prototype for 'what could have been' with the current (Favorite point) system.

 

Two votes would not be enough to develop a true sense of any cache's actual quality.

 

As it is, GCVote is NOT the answer, mostly because of the effort needed to use the system...most cachers probably never heard of it.

 

If everyone who found a cache had the opportunity to vote on the cache's perceived quality, then yes...a lot of caches would level-off in the 3-star range of mediocrity.

Some caches would level-off in the 4-5 star range of excellence, and some caches would be relegated to the 1-2 star range of pointlessness.

 

The problem is that Groundspeak does not want the true lameness of any particular caches to be revealed.

 

If that cache owner is a PM, and if their lame cache gets voted down they may not send their $30 to Groundspeak next year.

That is THE PROBLEM with a full-on rating system, and it is THE ONLY PROBLEM.

 

Groundspeak's business is based on more people placing and finding more caches every day.

If it was revealed that some certain caches were not worth looking for, then overall site activity could drop...not good when you are trying to sell advertising.

[+on4bam]

GCVote is only the prototype for 'what could have been' with the current (Favorite point) system.

 

GCvote is an excellent system were it not for the fact it's an add-on and not integrated in "the system".

 

Some caches would level-off in the 4-5 star range of excellence, and some caches would be relegated to the 1-2 star range of pointlessness.

 

It would make filtering caches a lot easier. I now first go for a multi we want to do and filter a certain distance. Next I start reading logs to see if caches are worth being found (a lot of "TFTC" logs most of the time is a "never mind" cache). I also check who favored a cache, there are cachers who's judgement I trust more than others

If it were possible to "unfavorite" caches it would be a lot easier to filter out what's worthwhile.

Let's say the rating looks like this:

 

Founds: 50 - Favorite 20 - "unfavorite" 30 with a green 40/ red 60

 

The problem is that Groundspeak does not want the true lameness of any particular caches to be revealed.

 

These days most of newly placed caches have a high lameness level. Looking at a 20Kn radius I have 720 unfound caches, I doubt I will go out to find more than 100 of them. I even have one less than 300 from my house that I pass several times a week that I gave not yet tried. It will give me an extra point at gc but nothing more.

 

If that cache owner is a PM, and if their lame cache gets voted down they may not send their $30 to Groundspeak next year.

That is THE PROBLEM with a full-on rating system, and it is THE ONLY PROBLEM.

 

Groundspeak's business is based on more people placing and finding more caches every day.

If it was revealed that some certain caches were not worth looking for, then overall site activity could drop...not good when you are trying to sell advertising.

 

In the short run, that will work but if people stop caching altogether because there's nothing to find but a micro behind a lamppost that's bad for business too.

[+akindofmagick]

The problem is... although it sounds as though it may give the ability to make an affirmative vote, is certainly opens the door for negative votes as well. You cannot have one without having the other.

 

Erm... No.

 

Amazon has a 5 star system, as does iTunes. True, lots of times you'll see people write words to the effect of: "Horrid book/movie/app. I would have given this a zero but... the system wouldn't let me." This is not the same as a negative vote, however.

 

Facebook has a Like button - but no Dislike button, despite the many hoaxes.

 

So clearly, it IS possible to have one without the other.

 

I would like to see a five star assessment system on geocaching.com - it would encourage COs to make better placements, and would elevate the hobby as a whole.

[+cerberus1]

I would like to see a five star assessment system on geocaching.com - it would encourage COs to make better placements, and would elevate the hobby as a whole.

With Groundspeak themselves speaking of accessing LPC hides for this souvenir Month thing, do you really believe they'd consider making a feature change of an assessment system for better placements ?