cache rating - request for comments [closed]
Posted: 09 September 04 12:42 pm
we are thinking of implementing a cache rating system
the purpose is to highlight those "don't miss!" caches
we are aware of the keen people rating system (thanks, ecodave) but it only rates whether or not a person enjoyed it. we'd like something a little more specific than that. for example, some people enjoy puzzle caches, others don't.
rating caches
we think it's a good idea because it means that on a reasonably nice day (like this) we might do a quick scan of nearby caches, see that one is rated really highly, and go for it. at the moment, it's a bit hit or miss. your thoughts?
anonymity
we'd prefer that it's public because it will be trivial to work out who voted. even if we don't display ratings until there is a quorum (eg 3 finders), if the result is in one direction, then it's obvious that they have all voted that way.
rating dimensions
the nsw cache awards (thanks again, ecodave) had categories of best traditional, multi, puzzle, location, waypoint and innovation. what does "best" mean? everyone has different opinions. should we try to deconstruct "best"? we think that it would take too long to fill in the rating if that was the case.
keeping it positive
we'd like to keep this positive. perhaps a two-ended scale might help, eg not measure something in terms of "innovation" as if more is better, but measure it on a scale of "traditional <-> innovative" so that a cache rated as traditional doesn't look un-innovative (if that makes sense)
proposal
the best we can come up with so far is three "wow-factors":
- eyes / location "wow" factor - irrespective of urban or country. is it a place that you were glad to visit irrespective of the cache?
- brain / hiding technique / puzzle "wow" factor - was there some cleverness involved in hiding the cache? could be physical or mental
- cache "wow" factor - was it a cool container, filled with great stuff, etc
the problem with these is the positiveness. maybe the lowest is "good" or something?
your thoughts?
the purpose is to highlight those "don't miss!" caches
we are aware of the keen people rating system (thanks, ecodave) but it only rates whether or not a person enjoyed it. we'd like something a little more specific than that. for example, some people enjoy puzzle caches, others don't.
rating caches
we think it's a good idea because it means that on a reasonably nice day (like this) we might do a quick scan of nearby caches, see that one is rated really highly, and go for it. at the moment, it's a bit hit or miss. your thoughts?
anonymity
we'd prefer that it's public because it will be trivial to work out who voted. even if we don't display ratings until there is a quorum (eg 3 finders), if the result is in one direction, then it's obvious that they have all voted that way.
rating dimensions
the nsw cache awards (thanks again, ecodave) had categories of best traditional, multi, puzzle, location, waypoint and innovation. what does "best" mean? everyone has different opinions. should we try to deconstruct "best"? we think that it would take too long to fill in the rating if that was the case.
keeping it positive
we'd like to keep this positive. perhaps a two-ended scale might help, eg not measure something in terms of "innovation" as if more is better, but measure it on a scale of "traditional <-> innovative" so that a cache rated as traditional doesn't look un-innovative (if that makes sense)
proposal
the best we can come up with so far is three "wow-factors":
- eyes / location "wow" factor - irrespective of urban or country. is it a place that you were glad to visit irrespective of the cache?
- brain / hiding technique / puzzle "wow" factor - was there some cleverness involved in hiding the cache? could be physical or mental
- cache "wow" factor - was it a cool container, filled with great stuff, etc
the problem with these is the positiveness. maybe the lowest is "good" or something?
your thoughts?