OK, this just occurred to me today. Let me give two examples:

1) You read the clue listing for a letterbox and tell yourself, "That sounds awful, I'm not even gonna bother looking for it."

2) You are on the hunt for a letterbox, and en route you realize that it's taking you someplace you have no interest in going -- a bad neighborhood, an ugly waterfront, whatever. You decide to bag it before you get anywhere near the box.

Now, here's the thing: You generally aren't going to rate letterboxes you haven't found (I'm not even sure you can, haven't tried). So, this will inherently put a bias into the distribution of your ratings -- the worst boxes, the ones that should be getting 1's from you, aren't getting any rating at all.

It's probably not a big deal; my impression is that most letterboxers will hunt just about any box regardless where it is or whether it sounds appealing.

Still, perhaps there's a fix. Maybe when a boxer selects the "Ignore Box" option -- which I presume is what you'd do when you decide never to hunt for a box -- maybe that could automagically get registered as a "1" vote for that box.

Of course, perhaps people opt to "Ignore Box" for reasons other than it sounds awful -- maybe it's too long a hike for them or whatever. So maybe it needs to ask if you want to rate this box a 1.

Quote

"1" vote for that box

But let's say that inside that box there is a really exquisitely carved stamp, which you have just chosen to ignore for other reasons . . . even if the location or clues are not appealing, would you have given it a "1" if you had discovered it?

Mama Cache

I think this is a real problem - and one I've thought about (vaguely) as well.

I don't have as much time as I would like to go out and hunt boxes. So I purposely pick the ones that have great reviews - either by BD's or word-of-mouth (or ones that are really close by). So my ratings will automatically be skewed, won't they? But hopefully most boxers are not like me and will happily go searching for all the lonely little boxes out there.

I don't think it would be fair to assign a box a "1" without having experienced it. I'd vote against that.
I'm curious to hear what others think, especially creative solutions.

Murray7

Quote

But let's say that inside that box there is a really exquisitely carved stamp, which you have just chosen to ignore for other reasons . . .

Perhaps a valid point. However, as I understand it, the usual definition of a "1" is that you recommend that others do not hunt this box -- for whatever reason. If you decide, before you even get to it, that you're not even going to try, it sounds like you already have some reason to choose not to hunt this box -- and therefore presumably to advise others to do likewise.

Let's take an even more egregious example. Let's say that, in order to get to this box, you have to pass several signs that say "Trespassers will be shot!" And there's some ornery-looking old coot sitting in a rocking chair on his front porch with a shotgun in his lap. You're probably going to opt to pass on this one. And since you didn't find it, it won't even get rated? Do you even care whether the stamp is really nice or not?

Well, of course not.

However . . . I'm going to assume that the clues did not read, ""Trespassers will be shot!" And there's some ornery-looking old coot sitting in a rocking chair on his front porch with a shotgun in his lap."

This must be the second example you gave, the one in which you change your mind on the journey. ;-)

--Mama Cache

Quote

1) You read the clue listing for a letterbox and tell yourself, "That sounds awful, I'm not even gonna bother looking for it."

Simple Solution: Click "Ignore"

Quote

2) You are on the hunt for a letterbox, and en route you realize that it's taking you someplace you have no interest in going -- a bad neighborhood, an ugly waterfront, whatever. You decide to bag it before you get anywhere near the box.

Solution: You decide to bag it before you get anywhere near the box.

Theoretically you could give a box a poor rating if you mark it Found when you didn't find it. But why would you expend any energy doing so? This is a HOBBY. Trying to degrade something you've not experienced sounds like something the letterboxing police would do.

Let's add another what-if to your possible scenarios ... let's say a letterboxer has an online disagreement with another letterboxer and wants to be vengeful. Marking the opposing letterboxers boxes with a "1" would be along the lines of your thinking, right?

I hope most letterboxers find these hypothetical situations ridiculous and would not engage in such a nefarious practice. If one, or a very small minority, choose to do so, the effect would be miniscule if the larger majority continued to rate the boxes appropriately. Personally, I could use my time in better ways. It my mind it does not reflect poorly on the placer, the previous finders, but it says alot about the individual who would spend his/her time acting in this manner.

Quote

my impression is that most letterboxers will hunt just about any box regardless where it is or whether it sounds appealing.

True; it's about discovery. I have seen some amazing spots all to the thanks of letterboxers.

Quote

Still, perhaps there's a fix. Maybe when a boxer selects the "Ignore Box" option -- which I presume is what you'd do when you decide never to hunt for a box -- maybe that could automagically get registered as a "1" vote for that box.

I completely disagree with this idea. I have chosen to ignore a number of boxes for a variety of reasons. I won't be rating them ever. Thinking I could visit and rate 100% of the letterboxes in existence is futile. My reasons for ignoring boxes are my comfort level with the environment around the letterbox. For example: if the clues specifically states ... Watch out for (mountain) lions, tigers and bears and poisonous snakes ... I will probably ignore it only if I think the chance I'll ever visit that state is quite remote. As much as I want to visit Hawaii, it'll probably be years and years before I can. I might ignore boxes there now. I can always "unignore" them later.

Just my early morning thoughts before some caffeine,
speedsquare

Quote

Quote

"1" vote for that box

But let's say that inside that box there is a really exquisitely carved stamp, which you have just chosen to ignore for other reasons . . . even if the location or clues are not appealing, would you have given it a "1" if you had discovered it?

Mama Cache

The rating system doesn't provide enough information to make an informed decision. But that's not what it was designed to do. It was designed to inform letterboxers about only the cream-of-the-crop boxes.

I thought if you rated a box a "1" that no one would see the rating, i.e. finders don't see a lump of coal next to the box that gets rated poorly. The rating system was designed to point out acceptional boxes not to advise others of poorly planted boxes.

We need a system that allows finders to inform other letterboxers that the area may be unappealing (dumpster hide, in a garbage-strewn ditch) or dangerous (bad neighborhood, area that is a hangout for drug users, on a small shelf on the edge of a cliff, etc.). This type of information would be especially important for visitors/tourists who do not know the area and have limited time and resources when searching for boxes.

Lone R

Quite simply, if you dont find 'em, dont rate 'em. And only rate 'em if you want to (or not).
No biggie. Its just one more aid here at AQ to help w/boxin'.

There is the N/A rating. When I find a box with a store bought in it, and the clue was too obvious, and the location was cheesy I give it a N/A. If one of the last three criteria was objective or if there was the complimentary cheesburger in the box I will give it a 1. If 2 of the criteria were a positive reflection, a 2. If there was a particularly nice job done on the stamp and logbook it rates a 3. It doesn't get a 5 until it is more fun than I've had in a month. The stamp and the logbook have to be spectacular, the find itself has to be intriguing, the hunt has to be challenging...etc. Still if a box is the worst box you,ve found in two months and you can't think of a reason to give it a rating, or if it puts you in danger I think a no rating speaks volumes, I says to me, "It wasn't worth the effort."

Post this kind of info about stinker boxes on message boards. I agree that purpose for the rating system is to give serious seekers a heads up on the cream of the crop.

Quote

The rating system doesn't provide enough information to make an informed decision. But that's not what it was designed to do. It was designed to inform letterboxers about only the cream-of-the-crop boxes.

I think the rating system was actually designed to predict future ratings?

speedsquare

Quote

Post this kind of info about stinker boxes on message boards. I agree that purpose for the rating system is to give serious seekers a heads up on the cream of the crop.

Exactly. Doesn't matter if a box gets all 1's or all 3's... the system doesn't rate bad boxes. There is not icon to distinguish average, mediocre, and darn near awful. It's not a flaw, but just not what the system was designed to do. Guess that makes this thread a moot point?

~HP~

Quote

There is the N/A rating. When I find a box with a store bought in it, and the clue was too obvious, and the location was cheesy I give it a N/A. If one of the last three criteria was objective or if there was the complimentary cheesburger in the box I will give it a 1.

You seem to be using the N/A as though it's a 0 on a 0-to-5 scale. I don't believe that is the intention.

Quote

Doesn't matter if a box gets all 1's or all 3's... the system doesn't rate bad boxes. There is not icon to distinguish average, mediocre, and darn near awful. It's not a flaw, but just not what the system was designed to do. Guess that makes this thread a moot point?

You seem to be forgetting that the system normalizes the data. That means that when you give consistently faulty responses on the bottom end of the scale, it stops paying any attention to your ratings at the top end of the scale!

I agree, I don't think it was the intention either, but if the box is a dud I am not going to give it a rating. N/A seems to cover the bases in regard to that.

Only if you give consistent low-end scores.

Quote

...if the box is a dud I am not going to give it a rating. N/A seems to cover the bases...

I don't understand. Isn't a dud the very definition of a "1" rating?