cache rating - request for comments [closed]

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 23 March 05 6:04 pm

I agree for the most part Swampy.

I think a couple of corrections need to be made so noobs don't recommend their first 10 finds, so that highly recommended ones get noticed and so that single recommendations don't dilute the overall concept. Beyond that, there are a few features we can add to exploit the information better, but that won't change how the system works.

Ratings (as opposed to recommendations) should be recorded and reported separetely, IMHO. I have lots of ideas for this that go way beyond the scope of what recommendations can and should do.

- Rog

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » 23 March 05 7:50 pm

I'm sorry that you find our ramblings difficult to understand Team Red Devil. We were simply suggesting enhancements that would allow easier interpretation of the existing recommendations, and it isn't necessary to fully understand the details to make good use of the results.

I understand others wanting to keep the current system. I didn't intend to step on anybody's toes by jumping in and making suggestions out of the blue.

I still agree that it would be a good idea to change the number of recommendations allocated to each cacher in proportion to their finds, that may help reduce the problem with new cachers recommending all of their finds.

Edit for spelling.

rediguana · Post by **rediguana** » 23 March 05 7:59 pm

swampgecko wrote:why over complicate a system that seems to be working?...

Its mostly working, but the ability to only recommend 10 caches is a major failing. There needs to be some refinement to the current system, I'm not really pushing for a new system, I'd just like to see a couple of subtle refinements.

1. 10 Cache recommendation limit is too low. I can't honestly be bothered to go around and update this list. But, it would be handy to have a pool of recommendations that are somewhat proportional to your finds, so once you recommend a cache you don't have to go back and revisit it. I would also trust recommendations significantly more from cachers that have found many caches - than those that have only just started, yet can recommend the same number of caches.

2. To accomodate the increased number of recommendations, I think that caches with only 1 or 1-2 recommendations should not be marked as gold. They will still appear as recommended by cachers etc. Just not marked in gold until they hit 3.

swampgecko wrote:I check two things when I look at the recommended caches, who recommends it and how many people are recommending it. Self recommenders have been weeded out, so that makes it easier.

I don't see this changing, except that only those cache with more than 3 recommendations are highlighted.

swampgecko wrote:If one cache one has one person recommending it why penalise it?

I wouldn't see that as penalised, in terms of recommendations, I don't see them creating any real value until 2-3 minimum have recommended them.

swampgecko wrote:Please leave the system the way it is... it works for me.....

Well it doesn't work for everyone, but I believe with just some minor tweaks to the current system (and not change to a new system) we can make it even better.

It seems that no-one to date has an issue with increasing the number of recommendations that can be made. In the principles Kaizen, what about the following small step for starters.

Reconsider the number of recommendations that can be made by a cacher, ideally implementing a system that provides recommendations based on the number of finds a cacher has.

Even just taking this step would be a good step in the right direction. Then if we find there are too many caches being marked in gold, a small step could be taken to up the threshold to 2 reccs to print in gold. But that could wait.

But it means very little change to the current system.

Cheers Gav

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 23 March 05 9:00 pm

I don't care for a formula that limits or gives extra recommendations.... that strikes me of another way of making finds count... making the number of finds a player has important.. if that was the case for me I would have asked "Stargiver" to put my 300th star up... I asked for a removal of my stars... but I digress.....

So hows this for an idea....

up the number of recommendations to a blanket twenty.... I think most people would be flat out filling that. As for limiting how many caches you can recommend based on the number of finds you have strikes me of descrimination, what happens to the new player who decides that she/he decides to complete the recommended list, and wants to make their recommendations too?? A pretty extreme example I know. It would annoy me that I couldn't add my "vote" to the list until I had found X number of caches.

Change the way the recommendations are listed. Instead of alphabetical, list them under the number of recommenders that each cache has. But this listing is only visible when you select the recommended caches page for a state/island/territory, that way the highly recommended caches are the top of the page for ease of viewing....

rediguana · Post by **rediguana** » 23 March 05 9:33 pm

swampgecko wrote:But this listing is only visible when you select the recommended caches page for a state/island/territory, that way the highly recommended caches are the top of the page for ease of viewing....

Nice idea!

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » 23 March 05 9:57 pm

I agree, that's a great way of doing the same sort of thing swampgecko.

Maybe the number of recommendations and finds (i.e., the popularity) could be displayed beside the cache name on the list too? That would allow others to take popularity into account by eye (or export the data for further manipulation, if they so wished

).

I understand the the elitism of frequent finders could be a bit of a turn off for new cachers. But, I'm sure that new cachers would understand the logic of allowing a number of recommendation in direct proportion to their number of finds.

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » 23 March 05 10:11 pm

Now I feel stupid...

I've just had a look at the recommended cache listing for the SI. It's not listed alphabetically, they are already listed in descending order of the number or recommendations! I'm not sure how they are sorted where there are equal numbers of recommendations, maybe the newest is at the top?

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 23 March 05 10:16 pm

Allowing cachers with more finds to recommend more caches seems more like simple statistics than any sort of elitism.

If you've found 20 caches, what are the odds that 10 of them are exceptional? (And how would you know what 'exceptional' is?)
If you've found 500 caches, what are the odds of finding _only_ 10 of them worthy of recommendation?

ideology · Post by **ideology** » 23 March 05 10:21 pm

swampgecko wrote:But this listing is only visible when you select the recommended caches page for a state/island/territory, that way the highly recommended caches are the top of the page for ease of viewing....

great idea - we've implemented it!

Nemesis wrote:Now I feel stupid...

no need, we just implemented it and were about to post to this thread when the ideophone rang so we were chatting on that for half an hour or so

it was just a quick bit of programming so it doesn't list the number of recommendations on the screen, but it did show us that there's some very highly recommended caches out there that we haven't done!

as for the raising the recommendation limit, we are happy to make it a proportion (eg top 10%) if there is broad agreement. we recognise swampy's opinion so are keen to hear everyone's views

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 23 March 05 10:31 pm

Even 5% or 7.5% would be good.

I think the proportional representation is a good idea, as long as you get about two to start with as a minimum.

Cached

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » 23 March 05 10:56 pm

ideology wrote:great idea - we've implemented it!

Wow, that was quick!:D

rediguana · Post by **rediguana** » 24 March 05 12:16 am

ideology wrote:great idea - we've implemented it!

Good service indeed!

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 24 March 05 6:13 am

ideology wrote: great idea - we've implemented it!

Nice one George:)

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 24 March 05 9:53 am

Bear_Left wrote:Allowing cachers with more finds to recommend more caches seems more like simple statistics than any sort of elitism.

If you've found 20 caches, what are the odds that 10 of them are exceptional? (And how would you know what 'exceptional' is?)
If you've found 500 caches, what are the odds of finding _only_ 10 of them worthy of recommendation?

Exactly. I don't think it's a matter of elitism, it is letting people recommened the caches they've found in proportion with how many finds there are to choose from. There's no elitism in being able to recommend more caches, there may be incentive for some to find more just so they can give kudos to more caches, which is a good thing. It's kind of silly that maccamob can recommend 0.5% (or 1 in 180) of their finds when a new cacher can recommend 100% of theirs.

- R

Nemesis · Post by **Nemesis** » 24 March 05 12:17 pm

I agree.

I think the current system is a matter of comparing apples to oranges, in that, a new cacher's recommendations is less valued than that of a more experiences cacher. What do we do when a cache has a mixture or recommendations? Do we simply ignore any recommendations from new cachers? But, that seems like elitism too.

Additionally, if you are an outsider to an area (and choosing some holiday caches), you may not know whose recommendations to trust.

Next, consider the system where the number of recommendations is some proportion of a cachers' finds. New cachers would not get any recommendations until they reached a threshold number of finds of maybe five or ten (depending on the proportion chosen), that would give them enough experience to choose a recommendation wisely. I don't think that we should try to placate newcomers by giving them a couple of recommendations before they even find their first cache, that may simply lead to their recommendation being used inappropriately (e.g., recommending two caches before ever finding two

). Another advantage with starting with a small number or recommendations, is that cachers can quickly change their existing recommendations as their experience increases (e.g., if they later feel that the first few caches they recommended were unusually lame).

I earlier suggested a proportion of recommendations to finds of 10% (or higher, at say 20%). Maybe that's too high, but I'm not convinced. As I would expect that most cachers would recommend the same group of caches (with some exceptions). So, even if as many as 50% of caches received at least one recommendation, we would still be able to use the information to choose the most recommended caches easily (the recommended caches are now sorted by their number of recommendations). I would expect that the bottom 50% of caches wouldn't get many recommendations at all, as who would recommend an average caches for their precious top 10% of their finds that they have been allocated?:?

At a later date, if the number of caches recommended becomes excessive, then some kind of modified colouring scheme could be used to single out the best caches (see the two slightly different suggestions that rediguana and I made earlier).

Edited for formatting and grammar.