Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Your reviewer is correct, and it's not just him. With very limited exceptions*, Community Volunteer Reviewers do not review for accuracy of D/T ratings. Doing so would involve either a site visit (and an expense account) or an even more detailed dialogue about the details of the container and hiding method. It would greatly bog down the review process, and would put the reviewer in the unwanted position of subjectively questioning something that they haven't seen with their own eyes. Like your reviewer said, it's up to the community to "just say no" to inflated ratings. You can avoid Joe's caches if Joe has a reputation for ratings inflation. Eventually when Joe notices that people are skipping his caches, or logging notes instead of smilies, and are talking in whispers about him at events, and are posting about him on the local Facebook group, then Joe might change his ways. *The exceptions include event caches (always difficulty 1, on the assumption that the other participants are not hiding vs. being viewable in plain sight) and T1 caches (which must have the wheelchair accessible attribute).
  3. Thank you so much for posting this. Challenges are not meant to be so easy anyone can get them. This whole practice ruins the idea of the Fizzy Challenge and ruins the idea of looping. Zuma
  4. I think I understand your original thinking. Similar to lugging rope bags with all the "JIC..." stuff and need to use most. - But I can take a kayak across a small pond for a 5T... A 4 or 4.5T on the other hand, means I'm probably busting my can a bit.
  5. Yes, that's what I do too. I don't see what difference it makes if someone is from the area or not. I logged DNF's on caches 1000's of Km away where it's almost certain I'll never go back to but that doesn't entitle me to log a found it. DNF around the corner or halfway around the world is still a DNF.
  6. I was joking. It was clear from the beginning that the coords are bogus.
  7. But it's the best place to start and the best hope for the community to educate their members about what should be instead of what is going on. How do you expect GS to do anything about this? GS's response (listed in the very first post) is what it is so asking them to step in is a sure sign that nothing will get done. They've done all they can, meaning that the only true recourse is to go directly to the source and hope that it can be alleviated that way. What other recourse is there? That's great but the issue is those who choose to ignore these ratings and overrate or, more rarely, underrate. Most COs attempt to follow this as best they can but even within these ratings, there's going to be some variation. @L0ne.R posted a picture of an area and asked about T ratings. Most of us were within a "small" range (probably 1.5 stars at 2-3.5), but that range varied based on our own interpretations of what we saw.
  8. I've noticed a new issue with deleting a photo on a cache page and a TB page. When I click to delete it, I get an error message, but the photo is deleted anyway.
  9. but the restaurant isn't there. Nothing is. The restaurant is supposed to be in Virginia, not Asia.
  10. Thanks @L0ne.R I wad about to post the exact same verry helpful guide to rate a caches D/T. Reconsidering this property and truthfull the divergence should not be more or less then +-0.5
  11. Meh. Let's take an extreme example. The CO sneaks up to GZ and intentionally removes the cache while you're looking for it without you realizing it. After you give up and leave, he puts it back. Now, sure, you didn't find the cache, so it makes sense to say you shouldn't log the find, but there's an argument that it's not fair of the CO to not let you log it when he intentionally prevented you from finding it. More extreme example: you find the cache, but the CO runs up and snatches it away from you before you signed the log. Technically, not a find. But I think even GS would back you on being able to log the find on that one. It's not my logic, and all I was trying to do was help you get it, so I think we're done here. Nonsense. Lots of people playing games invent lots of house rules to make a game more fun than it would be if the official tournament rules were followed strictly in that environment with those people. And that's thinking about a game that actually has tournament rules. Geocaching only has guidelines, intentionally structured so that COs don't have to follow them to the letter if they don't feel like it. So if you think it's no fun when a CO lets someone log a find where they didn't sign the log, you're the one that's going against the "rules".
  12. This doesn't work. Let's discuss the human nature of these folks - they're more likely to continue simply to further irritate you. Also, they're grown adults - they don't answer to us. Until Groundspeak steps in, the trend will continue.
  13. No. Of course not but there's little that can be done by either finders or reviewers. I'll certainly make note in my log of what I believe to be a discrepancy with regard to D/T rating but that's really about it. I can only think of a few caches I've found I believed to be either inflated or deflated more than a full point. On one, I contacted the CO and they based their T rating on the fact that they thought about it from the point of a person in a wheelchair. Made sense, but that's not how the rating should be arrived at. Another one, the ratings were inverted, meaning that the D was the T and the T was the D. I see @dprovan has already commented and I don't completely agree it's not a problem but I don't think it's as big a problem across the entire community as it might be in a few areas. As they've mentioned, the most direct thing that can be done is to contact the CO to determine their reasons behind their ratings as well as to help them understand that inflated (or deflated) ratings can influence whether or not seekers will even consider going after their caches. Need? Nothing. Replace it with "could" and it comes down to trying to get each CO to rate things accordingly, but even that has its own issues. There's no real solution to this. As a finder, the only thing you can do is choose to avoid logging D/T rated caches you feel are artificially increased or decreased if you believe it be in your best interest to have an accurate loop. As mentioned above, you could also contact the COs and attempt to figure out some things that might help alleviate these issues. Nope. Not their call nor should it be. Edited to add that in some situations where the rating is obviously wrong, they might be able to offer up a recommendation but it's still up to the CO to make the change. Could a reviewer not publish a cache if they believed the D/T rating to be grossly misrepresented? What about them? I've changed a couple of mine, realizing they were underrated. If it was more than .5 either way, I archived the old one and posted a new one at the same coordinates. If it was .5, I attempted to contact the finders to see if it might mess up their fizzy stats (many of my hides don't have lots of finders so it's relatively easy to do so). As far as others changing their ratings, it's really not my concern as it's not my cache. Sure, I'd be a bit upset if it was the only D/T combo I had and it got removed but there are more out there. No to all of these. The assumption is that the CO is attempting to rate them accurately to provide seekers the best information needed when they go out to find the cache (or solve the puzzle or do the Wherigo). You remove the ratings, you remove ALL the information that tells you what you might expect about that cache. Even your easy, hard, difficult standards are open to individual interpretation which means that you'll get some COs who underrate their caches and others who overrate their caches. Just because some COs choose to inaccurately rate their caches doesn't mean the system needs to be "fixed" to address all the rest of the caches from COs who choose to accurately rate their caches, based on their expectations. Nope. Again, not a reviewer's job nor do I want them to do that. That means that they'd be putting their own personal beliefs about a D/T rating onto a cache that they have only secondhand information on. Unless you want them to physically visit each and every hide that is submitted, this is an unrealistic expectation. Again, not really sure what you want anyone to do about this. You want a reviewer to review a cache and change the D/T if the next few cachers rate it differently than it's rating. How is that any different?
  14. I'm with you on this, wademercer. I know of two in my area whose rating is only to help people complete their grid. One is a parking lot skirt lifter, rated with a very high T. The other is a 5/1, but specifically listed as a 1/5 (or something like that) to help people fill their grid. The cache page does clearly state to read instructions carefully, though.
  15. Great! The discussion is over. I wouldn't, but other people would. They consider the mere charge of being abandon to make the cache unworthy of existence and go out of their way to get rid of them. If that's not you, try not to sound like that's you. The problem is that you've argued vehemently against the rest of us, and we've been talking about caches, not bits of plastic. That made us all think you were one of those people that only see the logical designation "abandoned" and uses it as an excuse to ignore the physical condition of the container. I'm glad we've sorted that out, although I'm a little puzzled that the argument seems to be continuing.
  16. That also applies to another issue we recently discussed
  17. Good time to consider what you mean by "it". If you mean the "problem" of poorly chosen ratings, I deny it's a problem. If you mean those specific examples of badly rated caches, what you should do about it is talk to the CO and other members of your community that support badly rated caches. Make your arguments for accurate ratings to them and try to talk them out of rating caches arbitrarily. Among other things, remind them that challenges based on ratings are based on ratings because the ratings reflect the challenge of the caches, so their bogus ratings aren't really helping people meet those challenges, they're just giving them a way to lie about whether they've met them in spirit.
  18. Today
  19. No - it is actually not. To be useful the ratings must be coherent. One leg or arm = T1 Two legs or arms = T2 Both legs and one arm = T3 All limbs used = T4 Tools required = T5
  20. You must consider attributes as additional hints. There is no policy for hints etc. What you can do is tell about your experience in your FI or DNF log. That's all
  21. I'm totally on your page. I also don't like bogus or false ratings. No matter under- or overrated. In my region fishing caches are a fancy thing these days. They are sprouting like weeds. These are caches placed 6-10 meters up in a tree on tiny weak branches. The idea is to fiddle them off and back by a fishing pole or similar. Most of them are rated strangely D1,5/T5. That's plain wrong on my book. But reviewers don't care. I even logged NM on some, stating the listing is broken because they are wheel chair acessable but hard to get. So a D5/T1 would be more adequate. It's a fight against windmills
  22. Do the officers at Advertizers need another officer to assist with controlling the fake waymarks? If so, I will join the group. I do like the category.
  23. Of course they are. I never said they're not. However, your actions for the remote caches show that you're willing to be responsible for another CO's caches instead of making the CO the one responsible. Basically you're saying that a CO is responsible for their caches only when it's convenient for them to maintain them. When it's not convenient, then others can and should do the maintenance for the CO. There's nothing in the guidelines about maintenance of a cache being done only when it's convenient. You and I are in agreement about this. I agree that COs should be held responsible for maintaining their caches but I'm also not averse to helping out by replacing a full log. I am averse to throwdowns and not filing NM or NA logs if they're needed. I don't "expect" you to replace the logs. I would hope that you might consider doing it but I would never expect anyone to do so unless they wanted to. You've shown that you're willing to do so for other caches and forego the customary NM/NA logs for those. Yet you won't for these and you'll even go so far as to notify the reviewer that you'd like them to archive this cache because the CO hasn't replaced a full log. Again, the contradictory actions with regard to maintenance expectations. Convenience of maintenance isn't mentioned anywhere in the maintenance expectations of a CO. So it's not nice for cachers to have a cache to sign on any other regular mundane cache? I'm hung up on the fact that your actions for one cache are completely opposite to what you'd do for another cache. On one hand you're saying that the CO is fully responsible for maintenance and on the other hand you're saying that it's OK for anyone else to help out the CO with maintenance. You are attempting to justify that it's the remoteness of the cache that determines this but the maintenance expectations listed in the guidelines don't say anything about that. They only specify that the CO is the one responsible for maintenance. You even started off this post with those EXACT words, quoted at the top of this post. Irrelevant. It's a throwdown if you do it without the CO's permission. It's maintaining someone else's cache without their permission, as you've stated you've done.
  24. There are many geocaches around the DFW metro area with DT ratings that are grossly overrated. This phenomena seems to be the result of locals hunting loops - filling in the 81 DT grid over and over. Check out these runs and their cache ratings: Letters in a Box from Kealia GC87VTPEBIT #0405 GC7W7BFTexas Adventure Cacher Insane Trail cache GC80D5CThe Lone Star State - Dallas County GC80XAG4/2 - Fo Shizzle My Fizzy Looping Nizzle GC87KD7Texas Challenge 2018 - A Galactic Empire #21 GC7AB83Texas Challenge 2018 - The Logo Series GC79THT Don't get me wrong, I do love a good cache run. But I am bothered by the vast quantity of caches with inflated DT ratings. When i go for a cache I use the DT ratings to help me find it. I have different expectations when I get out of a car looking for a 2-2 then when looking for a 4.5-4.5. A few days ago I went with a friend to find this cache: The Lone Star State - Crane County - GC80XA5 It is rated 2-5 Check out our video of us getting this cache (remember .. this is a 2-5 rated cache): I contacted Groundspeak to ask their guidance on this matter, but didn't get much from them. Here is their latest reply: "Hello Wade- Thank you for contacting Geocaching HQ. Unfortunately, Geocaching HQ is not able to police Terrain and Difficulty ratings of caches. As long as they are legitimate hides and they are operating under the same guidelines as everyone else there's nothing that says they cannot do that. They are really only cheating themselves if this is the case. Geocaching isn't about the numbers, only some make it about the numbers. Best regards, Freddie Geocaching Community Coordinator" http://prntscr.com/p7scom The Groundspeak guidelines for placing caches were written with the assumption that geocachers will rate caches accordingly. But what about when that doesnt happen? My thoughts were that reviewers have some control over what is published and will evaluate the cache description and look at the given DT ratings and make a judgement call if they match and either publish or reject the cache until the DT ratings more closely match the actual cache. But according to one of the Texas reviewer this isnt the case: "I understand your frustrations, I'm not a fan of this garbage either, between the bogus D/T's on caches, and worse the bogus terrains on events, it's for sure getting out of hand. I'll be having a Reviewer Q&A at the event in Weatherford I'll be sure to bring this sort of thing up to those in attendance there, but the only real change would have to come from the COs understanding they are killing the game, or HQ deciding to enforce it, I've talked with HQ on it some, but it's been awhile I may need to bring that conversation up again. Thanks, Travis" http://prntscr.com/p7sgjj I was wondering what the geocaching community thinks about all of this. Is everyone OK with inflated DT ratings so that the few that hunt loops can make it look like they have 100's of loops? I just dont get this ... I dont get why having stats that show 100 or more loops can mean anything to you when most of them are bogus, and everyone knows it! What do you think we need to do about it? Do we just leave it alone and hope those responsible for it gets bored and moves on or away? Do we expect Reviewers to intervene until the DT rating is closer to the actual cache rating? What about changes in DT AFTER the cache has been published? Do we need more reviewers? Should reviewers be expected to pay attention to DT ratings and actual caches before publishing a cache? Do we need to get away from using ratings all together? maybe just rate them.. easy.. hard .. difficult? if its not about the ratings (as a Groundspeak rep stated) why not remove the ratings all together?? What about adding a feedback loop whereby cachers can rate each cache... if a cache is published with say 4-4 and the next 5 cachers to log it rate it 2-2, then it will be flagged for a reviewer to review. What about cachers who significantly change multiple DT ratings after a cache has been published? Please share your thoughts.
  25. Here's a crazy thought. Maybe they are being silent because they play to surprise us with an announcement? I sure with they'd respond with something!
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...