Rating rather than favorites

[+tom&shelley]

Rather than use a favorites system would it be possible to use a rating system from 1 - 5? Favorites seem not to be used that often nor do they really help cachers before they get there. If a cache did not maintain a certain rating (1.5 or 2)after a designated number of finds it would be archived. In with the good out with the bad. Thoughts

[+niraD]

Rather than use a favorites system would it be possible to use a rating system from 1 - 5? Favorites seem not to be used that often nor do they really help cachers before they get there. If a cache did not maintain a certain rating (1.5 or 2)after a designated number of finds it would be archived. In with the good out with the bad. Thoughts

1) A 5-star rating system has been suggested before, for example:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=313657

 

2) Automated archiving is a bad idea.

[Pup Patrol]

Rather than use a favorites system would it be possible to use a rating system from 1 - 5? Favorites seem not to be used that often nor do they really help cachers before they get there. If a cache did not maintain a certain rating (1.5 or 2)after a designated number of finds it would be archived. In with the good out with the bad. Thoughts

 

I don't think that any of numerous times this has been suggested that anyone was so harsh as to suggest archiving caches that don't meet a certain rating.

 

If people already don't use the Favorite points, why would they be more motivated to use a rating system?

 

If Favorite points don't help you before you get to the location, why would a rating system be any different?

 

I can't believe that anyone would trust a rating system to deem what is "good" or "bad" and to archive caches. If much of that started happening, I think a lot of people would stop placing caches.

 

I did your work for you. I did an advanced search for "rating", limited to the Website subforum.

 

2010

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=248079

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=249871

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=256057

 

2012

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=297307

 

2013

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=313657

 

 

B.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+Touchstone]

Rather than use a favorites system would it be possible to use a rating system from 1 - 5? Favorites seem not to be used that often nor do they really help cachers before they get there. If a cache did not maintain a certain rating (1.5 or 2)after a designated number of finds it would be archived. In with the good out with the bad. Thoughts

Autoarchiving ain't going to happen. I'm pretty confident on that one.

 

Realistically, I'm not really concerned about the Favorites on a cache. I'm a cacher of opportunity, and rarely look at the Favorites. If I'm in the area, I'll usually give it a try, regardless of how many points it has (or lack thereof).

 

The things that usually sway my opinion are the DNF's, NM and NA log types. The only thing worse than finding an unmaintained cache is wasting my time. Favorites or a point system aren't really going to help me in that regard.