changing difficulty level of a cache?

[+Woletrap]

Hi all,

 

I only have one hide, and after 8 months I am still second guessing the difficulty rating I gave it. The cache has 36 finds and 10 dnf's. I gave it 2 stars for difficulty after using the "geocache rating system" on the cache listing form. but since then i really wonder if it should be more (and then i start second guessing my terrain rating too). i'd like some input as to whether or not I should change it, or just leave it be. i'm hesitant to place more caches until i get your opinions.

the cache itself is a fake rock, in what is essentially a creek bed made of river rocks in an area landscaped for a low water use desert style popular in the desert here. you can park either west or south of it, and it is then only about 30-75 feet away. you do have to stand in/on the river rocks that average tennis ball size or larger, otherwise the ground has just dry dirt/clay and a couple bushes and skinny little desert trees.

here's a pic i took of a dnf in progress, , from my apartment across the street (they left before i could get dressed and go help)...

 

what say you, oh geocaching masses - give it more stars or leave it at 2?

 

Thanks!!!

[+fairyhoney]

Look up GC11VYV. Can't say more here since it isn't my cache But I have found it!

[+fairyhoney]

By the way, I really your description on your cache page

[+scorpio_dark]

Speaking stricly from the picture and the cache description (and hint), I think you've done well. I ran it through the rating system too and got the same result.

 

IMHO, the difficulty indicates the ability to figure out the 'puzzle' or the way it was hidden. If someone decided to utlize the hint with their GPSr, I think one can readily surmise that it's likely a fake rock or at least in the rock stack.

 

Someone could probably argue to move it to a 2.5 and I might be inclined to listen. But no, I think you're right on. Nice hide! I'll try to get over there to search when I head out that way next Spring.

[+joranda]

2 to 2.5 looks about right.

[+sbell111]

I'd leave the difficulty as is. Some people will spot the fake rock immediately and others will never find it, but that's OK.

[+egami]

I would leave the difficulty rating, but maybe raise the geo-masochism rating.

[+briansnat]

I think changing the difficulty is fine. I just lowered a cache from 4 to 2 stars because people are not having nearly as tough a time with it as I expected. I've also raised the difficulty on some caches because I expected them to be easy and they turned out to be harder than I thought.

 

Looking at yours, I see 10 DNFs and 36 finds. I think something with that ratio should be higher than 2 stars. I'd probably go with 2.5. It's not quite a 3 though.

Edited January 7, 2008 by briansnat

[+GIDEON-X]

Hi, As far as ratings go I feel it's all in Eye of The Beholder ONE POINT FIVE a lot of folks contact me and say this should be 2 / 3 OH WEll.... Edited January 7, 2008 by GIDEON-X

[+scorpio_dark]

Hi, As far as ratings go I feel it's all in Eye of The Behoder ONE POINT FIVE a lot of folks contact me and say this should be 2 / 3 OH WEll....

 

Yeah I'd probably go for the lesser rating too if it was in the rocks compared to a fake rock among the rocks.

Edited January 7, 2008 by scorpio_dark

[+the hermit crabs]

One thing to bear in mind when changing D/T ratings for a cache is that it may have an unintended side effect. Certain caches, such as Well Rounded Cacher (The Fizzy Challenge), require that cachers first log other caches with every possible D/T combination. Changing a rating could mess up the eligibility of some cachers who may have been using their previous find of your cache as one of their qualifying finds.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I totally agree with briansnat (not for the first time). The DNF to find ratio is a tad high for a 2.

Call it a 2.5.

[+4props]

I totally agree with briansnat (not for the first time). The DNF to find ratio is a tad high for a 2.

Call it a 2.5.

DNFs could actually be quite higher as I'm quite sure many people do not log their DNFs.

Maybe it's a particular wel done fake rock if that is the type cache container.

[+Renegade Knight]

When you first list your cache the difficulty rating is your best guess. After finders start logging you get your first clue as to the real difficulty.

 

It's good to pay attention and adjust your difficulty to match observed reality.

[+Trucker Lee]

After I popped the hint, I decided the rating is fine as is. You have effectively narrowed the search area.

[+briansnat]

I totally agree with briansnat (not for the first time). The DNF to find ratio is a tad high for a 2.

Call it a 2.5.

DNFs could actually be quite higher as I'm quite sure many people do not log their DNFs.

Maybe it's a particular wel done fake rock if that is the type cache container.

 

That's probably true. I bet that as many as 1/3 to 1/2 of searchers don't log their DNFs. Of course there are

finders who don't log their Fount Its, but I think the ratio is much lower,

[+bflentje]

One thing to bear in mind when changing D/T ratings for a cache is that it may have an unintended side effect. Certain caches, such as Well Rounded Cacher (The Fizzy Challenge), require that cachers first log other caches with every possible D/T combination. Changing a rating could mess up the eligibility of some cachers who may have been using their previous find of your cache as one of their qualifying finds.

 

I would call that a cost of doing business.

[+Woletrap]

wow thanks for all the input! so I'm gathering that those of you that think it should be higher would go with 2.5 generally. i'm leaning toward just leaving the rating as is at this point, or possibly altering the fake rock itself like putting a scratch or a little dab of paint or something identifying like that but still hard to find. but what are the ramifications of changing the rating "midstream", other than affecting people doing a multi cache challenge of some sort as the hermit crabs said?

[+egami]

Well, if you read the descriptions in the rating system on the submission form here is how 2 and 3 level of difficulty reads:

 

**Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

So, I could see where maybe 2.5 is maybe right on...

 

Here is the form I am talking about: http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

Edited January 7, 2008 by egami

[+sbell111]

Well, if you read the descriptions in the rating system on the submission form here is how 2 and 3 level of difficulty reads:

 

**Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

So, I could see where maybe 2.5 is maybe right on...

 

Here is the form I am talking about: http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

Two sounds right, to me. After all, in thirty minutes you could hand check every rock in the search area.

[+StarBrand]

Looks about 2.5 to me. I see no problem changing the difficulty based on feedback in the logs.

[+briansnat]

Well, if you read the descriptions in the rating system on the submission form here is how 2 and 3 level of difficulty reads:

 

**Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

So, I could see where maybe 2.5 is maybe right on...

 

Here is the form I am talking about: http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

Two sounds right, to me. After all, in thirty minutes you could hand check every rock in the search area.

 

If you're an octopus maybe

[+egami]

Two sounds right, to me. After all, in thirty minutes you could hand check every rock in the search area.

 

It's a subjective rating...if you can do it 30, great. I am not sure the "average" cacher could, but I know the 's' stands for s(uper)bell111, so that's not really fair.

Edited January 7, 2008 by egami

[Dinoprophet]

I'd say up it to 2.5. I've been looking at that picture for three hours now and haven't found it yet.

[+PhxChem]

here's a pic i took of a dnf in progress, , from my apartment across the street

 

Please tell me I don't look like that while caching.........

[+sunburykids]

Isn't the guy on the right looking directly at it? ha IMO The change is totally up to you as the cache owner!

[+sbell111]

Two sounds right, to me. After all, in thirty minutes you could hand check every rock in the search area.

If you're an octopus maybe

I'll ignore your standard snarkiness and suggest that you might not have actually looked at the picture in the opening post.

[+sbell111]

Isn't the guy on the right looking directly at it? ha IMO The change is totally up to you as the cache owner!

I was wondering if it was with the other rocks, at all.

Edited January 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

here's a pic i took of a dnf in progress, , from my apartment across the street

Please tell me I don't look like that while caching.........

[+ZSandmann]

Hahahahahaha. Is it really the rock by the palm?

[+sbell111]

Hahahahahaha. Is it really the rock by the palm?

Probably not.

[+ZSandmann]

Drats because if it were, that is so typical of what I find myself doing now. I get within 50 feet of a cache and my brain just starts searching, and I forget I'm holding a device meant to pinpoint the location.

 

Rule 1: Trust thy GPSr.