cache rating - request for comments [closed]

[Chookies]

I saw this thread, & thought Yes, -At last! Then I saw how large it had gotten & thought Good Grief! I have had a brief look at the comments, but forgive me if I mention something already discussed.

I would love the ability to VERY briefly write why a cache is great/recommendable. I would also very much appreciate reading why someone else has recommended a cache, but IN THEIR OWN WORDS (say 50 or less). I would find this far more useful than a score. It also allows me to see if their reasons, are also reasons for me to want to go there!
I would find this invaluable!

[swampgecko]

I agree with your three points swampgecko, and I respect your wish to maintain the status quo. I also understand the futility of butting heads over it. BTW, why is self nomination still allowed?:?

As far as adopting a system where the maximum number of cache nominations is a direct proportion of each cacher's finds, I can only hope that enough others agree that it's a good idea, and are willing to say so in this thread. If not, then that's fine too.

Cheers,
Donovan.

Self recommendations do occur, but they have been blocked from listing(showing that they are self-promoting). Naturally people are trying to promote their own caches... I could name quite a few examples here, but I don't want to embaress anyone.

I would love the ability to VERY briefly write why a cache is great/recommendable. I would also very much appreciate reading why someone else has recommended a cache, but IN THEIR OWN WORDS (say 50 or less). I would find this far more useful than a score. It also allows me to see if their reasons, are also reasons for me to want to go there!
I would find this invaluable!

I believe that if a person wants to recommend a cache that is fine, but what you are suggesting is in effect a second log against the cache, now before you say.. no thats not what I meant, I want to place a comment with my recommendation. Haven't you already done that in your log for the cache? What I do is look at the recommended cache list, pick the caches that interest me, look at who has nominated them, and then go look at their cache logs, normally players rave about a cache in their log for it, why have what is effectively a second page of logs for the the same cache? As per normal, all of the above is my opinion only

[Nemesis]

Yeah, swampgecko has a point Chookies. It does seem a bit redundant to have what amounts to a second log for each nominated cache. Even so, I think that your contribution is useful, as it encourages us to include more detail in our logs for recommended caches (I tend do that anyway ). I would expect that if a cacher was going to recommend a cache, then they would also need to be willing to state in their log why that cache is special (that may be one way to discourage lame cache nominations).

Cheers,
Donovan.

[Map Monkey]

I, like chookies (and others) have been watching this topic with interest, however was reluctant to say anything until it starts to settle down a bit with the mathematical side of things

I bet we have covered all of this previously, though i'll go again just in case..

Getting back to basics with the problem, could we not just have a checkbox somewhere allowing a finder to "rate this cache"....maybe a 1 to 10 (?) scale. After doing some high-faluting mathemical whizbanging geeko stuff, if the cache gets above a certain number, then it is a "recommended cache". Maybe this would help all instead of the "Yes/No" response to a recommended cache as it would allow to generate lists for various reasons later on. Recommended lists could have better weighing as it may include both a numerical strength of recommendations and a numerical weighing for cachers somehow.

Seems simple to me (most things do ) and you guys/gals can go off and work out formulas etc

BTW swampgecko, i'll be the first to put my hand up with the recommending my own cache though it may seem wrong now, i was merely recommending caches i had seen and thought were worth doing. It just happened that i thought that mine was one of them...incidently i did not recommend the other I was only trying to do the right thing in my eyes as there weren't any guidelines that i saw anyway

I have no problem with stopping this practice even though i now think that it should be possible somewhere (other than the GC/GA cache page) to recognise a good cache site as recommended by the owner. Maybe if you had >10 caches hidden etc you could have 1 recommended as your personal favourite (ie "My Favourite Hide" or words to that effect ) and could be seen by all.

I also agree with Swampy that just because i have less than 100 caches that i should be heavily penalised, as we are trying to encourage these people to be part of our activity. I for one will not use 10 recommended caches just beacuse they are available, rather will select caches based on a personal feeling of needing recommending. If i was then to hit my threshold i will have to reconsider my "top 10" or whatever number people come up with .

::Sits back down and pulls out the popcorn ::

Agsmky

[Nemesis]

...could we not just have....a 1 to 10 (?) scale....Recommended lists could have better weighing as it may include both a numerical strength of recommendations and a numerical weighing for cachers somehow.

The ability to rate every cache on a 1 to 10 scale would be great, as you gather more useful information that way. Additionally, the problem of how may recommendation to get totally disappears, as you can only rate your finds. Also, you wouldn't need to do any weighting, just treat every cacher's opinion equally. Choosing recommended caches would be a simple matter of choosing the caches with the top 10% of ratings.

On the down side, it would mean a complete change to the existing nomination system, and there is a strong preference for the status quo. More importantly, owners of lame caches may get very offended with low ratings, and they may attack the originator of the low rating. Whereas, the nomination system, being limited to 10 or 20% of a catcher's finds, will tend to avoid the problem (i.e., people won't be that offended if their cache is not nominated by every cacher that comes along).

...i'll be the first to put my hand up with the recommending my own cache....i now think that it should be possible somewhere....Maybe if you had >10 caches hidden etc you could have 1 recommended as your personal favourite...

I agree that the owner's opinion is useful. But, I think that self recommendations should be handled separately (i.e., allow them on their cache page, and colour them differently, but don't include them in the total number of recommendations in any ranking of caches).

...I for one will not use 10 recommended caches just beacuse they are available...

That's great. But, other's may not be so responsible. The main reason that I'm a proponent of allocating recommendations in direct proportion to a catcher's finds, is to reduce the impact of abuse when it occurs. I don't think it's any kind of punishment for cachers with low finds, merely a fair and equitable system.

[swampgecko]

BTW swampgecko, i'll be the first to put my hand up with the recommending my own cache though it may seem wrong now, i was merely recommending caches i had seen and thought were worth doing. It just happened that i thought that mine was one of them...incidently i did not recommend the other I was only trying to do the right thing in my eyes as there weren't any guidelines that i saw anyway

I have no problem with stopping this practice even though i now think that it should be possible somewhere (other than the GC/GA cache page) to recognise a good cache site as recommended by the owner. Maybe if you had >10 caches hidden etc you could have 1 recommended as your personal favourite (ie "My Favourite Hide" or words to that effect ) and could be seen by all.

Sorry if it seems that I am against self-recommendations, there's nothing wrong with a bit of self-promotion, we do it all the time, job hunting, seek a life partner etc etc...

Just with the recommendation system when it was originally setup it was suppose to be for you the player to recommend those caches that you have done tha you think are an outstanding example of a cache by a fellow cacher. I know I got a kick out of seeing three of my caches being recommended, and if any one is interested all my caches slipped down to the bottom of the new cache list as they each only have one recommender, where as before they were high on the list just due to the nature of the way the list was structured.

As for the favourite hide.... they are all my favourites, otherwise I wouldn't have done them... yes I do have senitmental favourites but they have all nearly been archived now and I am not one to keep rehiding caches in spots that are now known to muggle trouble makers[/quote]

[Map Monkey]

I agree that the owner's opinion is useful. But, I think that self recommendations should be handled separately (i.e., allow them on their cache page, and colour them differently, but don't include them in the total number of recommendations in any ranking of caches).

Agree....My suggestion was just a spur-of-the-moment thought not about blowing ones trumpet, rather having another ( ) selection on a cachers page and/or the GA cache page where people could at see what a cacher thinks as their best hide It would not be added to any recommended caches stats, maybe treat as a seperate idea. Not that i want to digress from the thread (Apart from the GSAK thread, this must a record for a thread staying somewhat on track with its topic )

Back on topic, I'm all for keeping it simple Front End, as well as having the Back End calculations encouraging people to contribute to the site. I think that the we need to ecourage people to recommend caches and not restrict them. Some sort of process where all Cachers can recommend all Caches in some form (if they want to) would be nice.

S/G, Agree with your comments made and thanks for the history lesson...Maybe i should bring up the topic of "My Humdinger Cache" selection later when the basics are sorted out

:: Goes off and grabs a Slurpy ::

Agsmky

[Nemesis]

Yeah, that would work Agsmky.

I also meant that other cachers would be able to see your self recommendations too, along with everyone else's recommendations. But, recommendations by owners would need to be separated from other recommendations in some way (as the owner would nominate their cache only once, even though it's currently possible to nominate any cache a number of times (should that be allowed?)). Maybe by adding them under a seperate sub heading below the listing of other recommended caches. That would mean that some caches would appear on both lists (i.e., they have been nominated by both the owner and others).

On the cache page, self nomination are currently suppressed. Maybe the owner's nomination could be shown again, but at the top of the list of nominations and/or in bold (to single it out from other nominations)? I think that it would be useful information to have, because new caches may not have any nominations, but their owner may think it's a special cache.

Again, the owner would need a larger allowance of nominations to accommodate self recommendations. Maybe somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5 of their hides would be a good maximum, or the total maximum number of recommendations could simply be in the same ratio of the sum of the finds and hides for the cacher (that may be easier to implement).

It may be a bit fiddly to flag self nominations and to treat them differently. Maybe that's something that can go on the back burner until more important issues have been sorted out.

[Nemesis]

I've just noticed that some cachers are recommending caches that they haven't found yet (not singling out anybody in particular). Is that a desirable state of affairs? I assume that it would be difficult to prevent in practice.

Cheers,
Donovan.

[riblit]

Are you sure they haven't found them? Some cachers have been known to log only in the cache log book.<br>If they haven't found the cache I wouldn't place much credence in the recommendation.

[Mind Socket]

I've just noticed that some cachers are recommending caches that they haven't found yet (not singling out anybody in particular). Is that a desirable state of affairs? I assume that it would be difficult to prevent in practice.

Cheers,
Donovan.

Perhaps their log hasn't been imported.

There has been a good deal of scope creep with this topic, so I doubt we'll settle on a consensus here. I like the idea of ratings, but that's a separate issue to recommendations and how many can be made.

- R

[The Garner Family]

I've recommended "The Forgotten Lookout". We tried to do it & logged a DNF, just didn't get it on the day. We still thought it was worth recommending though... I think a find shouldn't be compulsory to recommend a cache, but *perhaps* at least a DNF should be compulsory...

[Nemesis]

Maybe you are right riblit. Also, it seems that a cacher I was looking at didn't have a valid Groundspeak profile, and stopped finding caches last year. But, they did also have a good mate that had found the same caches up until the same time. So, I suspect that a cacher has an old geocaching account that they used to recommend some caches found only under their new account by mistake.

[Nemesis]

There has been a good deal of scope creep with this topic, so I doubt we'll settle on a consensus here. I like the idea of ratings, but that's a separate issue to recommendations and how many can be made.

Yeah, we don't seem to be able to settle on a definite plan of action. There seem to be four or five different agendas that end up skewing the thread off in a slightly different direction with each post.

Maybe we could separate a poll off from this thread, just to try to get some kind of consensus. What does everybody think of the following poll question?...

If I had the option to change the current system for recommending my favourite caches on the Geocaching Australia website, then I would choose to:

A. Leave it as it is. A blanket 10 recommendation is enough for anyone.

B. Give everyone an allocation of recommendations that increases in direct proportion to their number of finds (let us say, somewhere between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5).

C. As with B, except give new cachers a couple of extra recommendations when they start off.

D. Totally change it to a 1 to 10 rating system for all caches.

So far I would expect one vote for A, two for B (that's my favourite ), two for C, and two for D.

Cheers,
Donovan.

[Mind Socket]

Let's run a poll to see what the poll questions should be

- R