Rate Other's Caches

[sir2u]

Has anyone ever brought up the idea of being able to rate the cache you just found? I've been on hunts that the owner said was a 1 and it should be a 5. Or it's rated as a 4 when it should be a 2. Since this type of thing is relative to each individual, if everyone who went on a hunt gave it a rating on difficulty and terrain and then the site averaged them, it would give new hunters a more realistic idea of what they are in for. Just a thought.

[+LordSaw]

There have been several discussions on this subject. Search for "Rate Caches" in this forum and the Geocaching topics forum with "90 days and" and "newer" selected will find several.

 

Cache Well

[+sbell111]

I think you will find that many believe that ratings are a bad idea for several reasons. It is also believed that the simplest rating system has always been in place. It is the online logs.

[+southdeltan]

I think you will find that many believe that ratings are a bad idea for several reasons. It is also believed that the simplest rating system has always been in place. It is the online logs.

This may be true - but lots of geocachers don't like to read logs because they contain spoilers.

 

sd

[+caderoux]

Although it is not meant to be a difficulty rating system, here in Louisiana, we have a new Louisiana Lagniappe system which Alex at LAGeocaching.com has built which allows caches in Louisiana to be rated - for overall enjoyability. It's simple to vote on, simple to set up, and if you wanted to know the caches most people liked the most in Louisiana, you can simply work your way down the list.

 

It's just starting out, but looks like it is going to be a success.

 

YMMV, of course.

Edited September 4, 2004 by caderoux

[+Renegade Knight]

Handicaching.com has a rating system that lets people do just that.

 

It's purpose is to better rate terrain than the clayjar system for people who have a need to know the details. However it also averages peoples ratings for the same cache.

[Jeremy]

We have been considering a rating system similar to how slashdot does it (score, and feeling, like "interesting"). However, we're also considering a nomination concept for themed "best" caches in an area.

[+Moose Mob]

The idea of rating caches sounds great! Especially if it were just as "overall feel", with respect to the area, the cache it's self, inginuity, etc.

 

Couple curiosity questions...

- Would anyone be able to rate caches? or would this be a members only?

- Should there be some sort of "minimum" cache finds before a person could rate a cache? This way they have a feel of what makes one "feel" better than others?

- Would the display be individual? or summary of all ratings? (Score: 2.6 of 5.0 with 23 votes)

 

I also worry that this would open a can of worms... (or in CO_Admin's case, a can o' beans)

[BassoonPilot]

Hey, if you're going to have cache ratings, just keep it all "public" so everybody can see exactly what everybody else had to say.

 

I'm always SHOCKED! when I meet someone who left a positively effusive online log on a cache ABSOLUTELY TRASH the cache and/or its owner in private. Allow people to rate caches? Sure, but keep them accountable for those ratings, or else we'd probably end up with a bunch of caches with effusive logs but "0" rating.

Edited September 4, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+MarcB]

I think the best idea, rather than create a huge sliding scale of "absolutely brilliant" to "completly rubbish", is to award certain cache pages with an "outstanding cache" icon. A nice gold star for example.

 

These showcase caches would be awarded either by cachers who have found the cache clicking a button (which would appear when they log a find) asking the cache to be nominated/put foward for "outstanding" icon approval or rating the cache out of 5 stars. This rating would never be made public until it reaches a certian average level when the gold star would be awarded.

 

Perhaps a fairer way to award the gold stars (and less open to corruption) would be to set up local discussion groups to decide if a cache is worthy enough.

 

But why set up an "outstanding" icon?

I feel that the overall standard of caches across the world may rise as people would be more motivated to find the best hiding spot with the best views, create more devious (or simply better quality) containers and look after their caches more.

They would also be brilliant flagship/showcase (perhaps this is a better name than "outstanding"?) caches for new people and the media. It would be recommended to new users that for their first cache they may like to find a flagship/showcase cache to give them the best impression of the sport (and therefore, when they place their own caches for the first time the quality will be much better, as you tend to copy what you have seen before). The same applies to the media (newspaper/televsion reporters): local cacher takes reporter to a random cache and it's pot-luck, it could be really horrible; they have a bad experience and Geocaching is shown in a less than favourable light. However, if a seasoned cacher takes the reporter (or even friends/family they are trying to persuade to start the hobby) on a flagship/showcase/whatever cache, chances of them being impressed are much more likely.

 

Slightly different categories (and icons) could be implemented. For example, there may be an incredible 5*/5* cache which takes days to find and specialist equipment which deserves the flagship/showcase award but obviously this isn't suitable for newbies/the media.

 

I hope I put my argument across well in what must be my longest ever post!

MarcB

[+Moose Mob]

And a lot of good stuff said MarcB. I think you made your point very well. But I need a bit more convincing on that single "gold star" approach.

 

I would expect a large amount of cachers to have 180 deg difference in opinions. Some would feel the cache is not worthy because the hike was too long. Another would feel the long hike made the cache worth the effort. There would be many like that would average out at 3 of 5. I think that's the purpose of scoring. Many caches will end up as a "1" because they have no appeal to any of the visitors, while others may end up as 5 because they are worthy of it.

 

If answers are public, many folks will rate it higher that thier true feeleings. As BP put it, people would reflect thier logs in a positive manner and display thier feelings in private quite differently. People would rate caches 3/4/5 as not to disrespect another cacher, while in private thinking that this cache [site] was crap.

 

Next step... let's rate the cachers!

[+MarcB]

Yes, any rating would have to be in secret. An idea I had was that the more caches you have found, the more "weight" your vote has in the award process (however that may be). This would also stop cache owners creating sock puppet accounts (lets say you need to have found at least 20 caches to rate/vote/nominate) in order to get their cache an award.

 

MarcB

[+MarcB]

About the single "gold star" approach...

Having a number out of 10 shown on each cache page is more open to abuse than an award icon.

Creating an "out of 10" system makes at least 10 different levels a cache could be on and loads of problems (e.g. finder rates a cache 10 out of 10 when it isn't really, then nobody finds it for months and the cache appears on the showcase list when it shouldn't be there).

A two tier system (normal and "showcase") would be much less contraversial and, if given out sparingly, would be of much more use to the community.

MarcB

[+Mopar]

I've said it before, I guess I'll say it again.

Different people like different caches.

Some people HATE micros and would rate a micro on a guardrail poorly.

Some people LOVE doing micros, and think a guardrail is a fine place to hide a cache and would rate it highly.

Some people couldn't care less, and rate it in the middle.

 

This same logic extends to all caches. Some of us think and a long, vigorous hike to a cache is great, some people think it sucks.

Some like hydrocaches, some people hate paddling.

Some people enjoy virtuals, some people won't even log a find on them if they do them with other cachers. some people are in the middle.

 

Eventually, most caches will have an average rating in the middle. Sure, a few will rise to the top, or sink to the bottom, but the majority of all caches will rate about the same. If all caches rate the same, the rating is useless.

Edited September 5, 2004 by Mopar

[+Moose Mob]

I've said it before, I guess I'll say it again.

Different people like different caches.

Some people HATE micros and would rate a micro on a guardrail poorly.

Some people LOVE doing micros, and think a guardrail is a fine place to hide a cache and would rate it highly.

Some people couldn't care less, and rate it in the middle.

 

This same logic extends to all caches. Some of us think and a long, vigorous hike to a cache is great, some people think it sucks.

Some like hydrocaches, some people hate paddling.

Some people enjoy virtuals, some people won't even log a find on them if they do them with other cachers. some people are in the middle.

 

Eventually, most caches will have an average rating in the middle. Sure, a few will rise to the top, or sink to the bottom, but the majority of all caches will rate about the same. If all caches rate the same, the rating is useless.

Yes, I believe this is the point. The majority will be in the middle. Some will rise to the top, others flutter to the bottom. Once a cache has maybe ten votes, the rating should be more or representative. Scores of 1-10, or 1-5 will work. Scores of 0 are for inactive or insuffecient vote caches.

[+sbukosky]

I think the best rating of a cache are the comments in the logs. Let the local organizations tend to the "cache of the month" and such things.

 

Steve Bukosky-treasurer and director

Wisconsin Geocaching Association

wi-geocaching.com

[+Moose Mob]

True... but you can't query web pages comments. And it's tough to sift through 500 caches when you are in a town for only a day or two.

[+Lean Wolf]

There are so many approaches to caching, what use would there be for a single rating? What I would like to know about a cache before I decide to take it is this:

• What scenic value does it have? Will I see a scenery out of the ordinary or will I see a grey facade of an industrial building from an employee parking place?
  
• What historical/cultural information will I gain? Will I discover an exciting monument or a remarkable spot in some other measure, or is it just a film canister in a crack in a sound barrier by the highway?
  
• Is it a challenge finding it? Will I say "Wow, that was ingenious, had to think really hard to find it, how do people come up with ideas like this" or is it a Tupperware under a rock?
  

Now, if all these criteria were rated low, the only reason to take the cache would be to, well, score a cache. But if just one of them would be a 5, it might be worth it.

 

What I'm saying is: A single rating figure would lead to arbitrary and misleading grades. A thoroughly considered combination of a few aspects of caches could come in handy.

[+Runaround]

True... but you can't query web pages comments. And it's tough to sift through 500 caches when you are in a town for only a day or two.

Contact the local caching club for that area. They'll be more than happy to give you some good recommendations. Or look at the logs for a few of the caches in the area to identify the area's power cachers. They also tend to be helpful.

[+Runaround]

What I'm saying is: A single rating figure would lead to arbitrary and misleading grades.

I agree 100%. Unless the cache was truly spectacular or absolute crap, all the scores would eventually average around the midpoint. What good is a rating where 95%+ of all caches end up with a 3?

 

I don't really care for micros. In my book, a micro would either get a 1 or 2 depending if it was lame or OK. Most would get a 1. I really enjoy long hikes. The cache itself may be poorly hidden and full of junk but if it was a nice long hike the worst it could get would probably be a 4.

 

I don't think a numerical score, even some weighted formula that makes the BCS look simple can replace the logs.

[gm100guy]

It is also believed that the simplest rating system has always been in place. It is the online logs

 

I think the best rating system is based on what your peers think of the cache.

 

And as said above read the logs.

 

[+caderoux]

True... but you can't query web pages comments.  And it's tough to sift through 500 caches when you are in a town for only a day or two.

If you're coming to Louisiana, you can use the Lagniappe List which is just getting off the ground.

 

The purpose is to provide a guide to tourists and visitors to the best caches in the area based on past visitors' ratings. It is a positive-only system. Cache owners have to place the link on their page, so only the maintained and better caches will float to the top.

[+Moose Mob]

It is also believed that the simplest rating system has always been in place. It is the online logs

 

I think the best rating system is based on what your peers think of the cache.

 

And as said above read the logs.

 

Agreed. Read the logs. But... which log should I look at first?

 

Yes, the local GA is helpful, but I tend to get responses from only a couple people. I get a list of 4/5 caches from each and (pardon me if I offend anyone), they tend to favor thier own cahces, habits, ideas. Not always bad, but I would like to a little of my own research with a well rounded system so I know what/where I am going.

[+Moose Mob]

True... but you can't query web pages comments.  And it's tough to sift through 500 caches when you are in a town for only a day or two.

If you're coming to Louisiana, you can use the Lagniappe List which is just getting off the ground.

 

The purpose is to provide a guide to tourists and visitors to the best caches in the area based on past visitors' ratings. It is a positive-only system. Cache owners have to place the link on their page, so only the maintained and better caches will float to the top.

Now that looks like a darned good system! Another column for Diff/Terr ratings and cache type... It would be perfect!

[+Moose Mob]

What I'm saying is: A single rating figure would lead to arbitrary and misleading grades.

I agree 100%. Unless the cache was truly spectacular or absolute crap, all the scores would eventually average around the midpoint. What good is a rating where 95%+ of all caches end up with a 3?

 

I don't really care for micros. In my book, a micro would either get a 1 or 2 depending if it was lame or OK. Most would get a 1. I really enjoy long hikes. The cache itself may be poorly hidden and full of junk but if it was a nice long hike the worst it could get would probably be a 4.

 

I don't think a numerical score, even some weighted formula that makes the BCS look simple can replace the logs.

Let's say... 25 visitors. 24 really enjoyed it and each gave it a 5. One person doesn't like micros and gives it a 1. [(24*5)+1]/25=4.88 I would want to read the cache page and it's logs.

 

I have met my goal of finding that 1-5% of caches in an area that stand out above the rest by popular opinion.

 

Scenario 2.

 

24 visitors, all thing that a cache should not be buried in cat poop, they give it a 1. The owner gives it a 5.

 

You see where this is going? Most caches will fall into the middle. They are supposed to.

 

I have placed relatively few caches. I hope they do good. If they do poorly (1.5 or less?), I will pull them. From the logs I have read, most should fare pretty well. I prefer the quality over the quantity, but I'll still log the tupperware under a rock when I am out and about.

Edited September 7, 2004 by Moose Mob

[sir2u]

Well the reason I asked the orignal question is I just placed this cache which I think should be a 5/5 but I want to see what finders would rate it. I think it will be a problem for anyone to find, but if you happen to live elsewhere and want to send me the coordinates if you figure them out, I would be awfully impressed.

The Dreaded Pirate Geisel the Fierce

[+Moose Mob]

Whoops, sorry about that.

 

I agree, 95% of the caches I have been to have been reasonably close to the terrain rating I would have given it. There have been some 3's that were closer to 4's and some 3's that have been closer to 2's. Even a T=4 that was along side a dirt road.

 

There are also some caches that I have approached from the wrong side. I made it a 4, where it was really a three (when I saw the other road from the other side)

 

As for difficulty ratings... way to subjective. It's tough to find a rating number that applies to experienced cachers as well as the novice. I pretty much ignore those numbers anymore.

 

So, when logging a find, it would be helpful to have the 3 options... the finders opinion on overall/terrain/overall feel?