Tequila: 81 Proof

[+t4e]

Interesting discussion on the fairness of date restricted challenge caches in this forum thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=262700

 

For the record, I will not be removing the date restriction on Tequila: 81 Proof.

 

When it reaches the point where it is no longer possible due to a specific combo being totally archived, I will archive the cache.

 

 

that would royally suck for anyone that has a few more to complete, not to mention for anyone that needs just one more or....extreme case...someone that has completed all the caches and needs to find the final

[+Tequila]

Interesting discussion on the fairness of date restricted challenge caches in this forum thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=262700

 

For the record, I will not be removing the date restriction on Tequila: 81 Proof.

 

When it reaches the point where it is no longer possible due to a specific combo being totally archived, I will archive the cache.

 

 

that would royally suck for anyone that has a few more to complete, not to mention for anyone that needs just one more or....extreme case...someone that has completed all the caches and needs to find the final

 

Did you read the previous two posts?

[+t4e]

Interesting discussion on the fairness of date restricted challenge caches in this forum thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=262700

 

For the record, I will not be removing the date restriction on Tequila: 81 Proof.

 

When it reaches the point where it is no longer possible due to a specific combo being totally archived, I will archive the cache.

 

 

that would royally suck for anyone that has a few more to complete, not to mention for anyone that needs just one more or....extreme case...someone that has completed all the caches and needs to find the final

 

Did you read the previous two posts?

 

yes, i did...am i not allowed to express my own thoughts?

[+Avernar]

that would royally suck for anyone that has a few more to complete, not to mention for anyone that needs just one more or....extreme case...someone that has completed all the caches and needs to find the final

Did you read the previous two posts?

yes, i did...am i not allowed to express my own thoughts?

 

Yes you are but it looked like you missed a post which raised your concern and provided a solution:

 

I suspect that at that point there will be some cachers still actively working on this challenge that already have the archived combo. You'll probably have to announce some future date for the archival to give them a fair chance to finish. I know I wouldn't want multiple contracts taken out on my life.

Good point.

[+Tequila]

For the purposes of Tequila:81 Proof, the cache GCH1MZ Silver Peak, will retain the rating it has had for the first 7 years of its existence:

 

Difficulty 2.0

Terrain 4.5

 

There is no Owner Maintenance log to explain the change to a difficulty 2.5.

 

If it was me, I would ignore this cache and use another 2.0/4.5 but that is just me. You are free to use it as a .

2.0/4.5

[+res2100]

Don't forget the atleast 3 other caches of mine that have changed in about the past month or so. As a responsible cache owner it is my duty to keep my listing up to date as things change with the cache location.

Edited November 1, 2010 by res2100

[+t4e]

 

Yes you are but it looked like you missed a post which raised your concern and provided a solution:

 

 

i read the replies, and if i don't i say so

 

i guess you don't spend much time in the rest of the forums, if you did you'd be asking "did you read the replies before?" all the time

 

anyways back on topic, either way is fine with me, there is an extremely remote chance that i will ever complete this challenge, i'm only kind of aiming at a non urgent pace towards the fizzy challenge with no date restrictions

[+Tequila]

For the purposes of Tequila:81 Proof, the cache GCB332 Crooked Creek will retain the rating it has had for the first 7 years of its existence:

 

Difficulty 2.5

Terrain 3.5

 

It has recently been changed to 3/5/3.5

 

If it was me, I would ignore this cache and use another 2.5/3.5 but that is just me. You are free to use it as a 2.5/3.5 .

[+res2100]

This was not a recent change. I updated it quite awhile ago as part of regular cache maintenance process. After almost 8 years in place the area\hide has changed and has been updated accordingly and this isn't the first time. For this specific cache, I should probably be changing the terrain rating seasonally, as fall and winter the approach is probably lowered by 1 to 1.5 in rating.

 

Anyone that has found the cache before the rating has been updated can use it as the previous rating or the current rating, it is up to the individual finder to decide. Anyone finding it after the maintenance change must use the new rating otherwise they would just be cheating themselves. And for the record no one is even using this cache for 81 Proof or any other fizzies, so it really doesn't matter.

 

It is interesting to note that you decide to comment now on this rating change now that the thread is falling down in the list instead of when the rating change took place. I have several other caches that have had their ratings updated as part of the ongoing maintenance process but I haven't seen you mention those.

 

With the thousands of caches that get updated and with all of the ongoing rule additions you put into place, how is it possible for anyone to know what counts and what doesn't. Sounds like 81 Proof is becoming very difficult to maintain and for cachers to follow, which is why most cachers much more prefer the personal fizzies which is something they do for themselves on their own terms instead of trying to be controlled by what someone else says is or isn't allowed.

[+Keith Watson]

I find it hard to tell what caches people are using for their requirement. The rules state;

 

To get credit for THE FIND you must post the following with your FOUND IT log:

 

1. A link to your bookmark list showing the 81 caches that meet the requirements with one of each cache type noted; AND

2. The screenshot of your completed terrain/difficulty chart from GSAK or similar statistics programs. Several are available on the net.

 

I see several found logs without the information. You may want to put as much effort into enforcing your own cache as you do policing other people's caches.

[+t4e]

what's the use of the bookmark when so many caches had their ratings changed?

as it stands now someone could have a bookmark showing 2 caches of the same rating and a gap in their T/D chart

and someone coming into the game now how are they supposed to know what rating the cache had before

as for finding replacements, good luck with that, unless one is willing to travel hundreds of kms for a smiley

 

and yes, i agree with res2100, the fizzies are becoming much more desirable

 

seems to me the desire to complete the 81 Proof has fizzled due to so many restrictions and lack of caches

[+entogeek]

 

seems to me the desire to complete the 81 Proof has fizzled due to so many restrictions and lack of caches

 

Interest in completing T81 has fizzled?

 

2008 = 3 finds

2009 = 5 finds

2010 = 17 finds

[+Avernar]

Interest in completing T81 has fizzled?

Apparently. Guess I have to break the bad news to the 7 or so people going with me to Noranda in a couple of weeks...

Edited November 15, 2010 by Avernar

[+KDotBlueDot]

I am new-ish to geocaching, and my favourite thing about this thread is reading all the history of this cache. What I especially like is all the subtext that always seems to ride shotgun when delivering unbiased comments, and helpful advice!

 

I never thought finding Tupperware in the woods would HAVE subtext so imagine my surprise when my sarcasm quota could be filled while enjoying a nice hike. Better insert a smilie now...that'll throw you all off!

 

On a related note...are we really posting comments just to say that this challenge isn't worth your attention? The irony...oh gawd the irony. My head is gonna explode...must...log...off!

[+northernpenguin]

Those that can, do.

Those that can't, complain about it instead.

 

--

 

I can understand Res2100 and Tequila's points. As a cache owner, I should be able to change my cache ratings without having to consult the owners of nearby (or not so nearby) challenges. If the terrain or difficulty change, it is the CO's responsibility to ensure an accurate listing for people who are planning to seek the cache (vs an accurate listing for people who have already been there).

 

Tequila, as the challenge owner maintains a list of invalid caches or invalid cache ratings, as per the parameters of his challenge. Frankly, I prefer his method of accepting caches at original ratings over the other Fizzy-challenges that maintain a blacklist of invalid caches. There should be a single source (ie web page) though where the caches are listed with original vs changed ratings rather than paging thru 8 pages of a forum topic, which is often filled with unrelated discussion. That would make things easier on the people still working on the challenge.

 

Now, if someone is changing their ratings to deliberately mess with a challenge, that's not the same as standard owner maintenance. Frankly, the solution to that situation may be to just drop all caches from that CO from qualifying for the challenge.

[+Skyecat]

what's the use of the bookmark when so many caches had their ratings changed?

as it stands now someone could have a bookmark showing 2 caches of the same rating and a gap in their T/D chart

and someone coming into the game now how are they supposed to know what rating the cache had before

as for finding replacements, good luck with that, unless one is willing to travel hundreds of kms for a smiley

 

and yes, i agree with res2100, the fizzies are becoming much more desirable

 

seems to me the desire to complete the 81 Proof has fizzled due to so many restrictions and lack of caches

 

This is just my opinion for what it is worth but I think there is something here for everyone. The Mini Fizzies are great as you can focus your efforts on 9 caches. Nine fizzies later you have completed your 81 grid and qualified for a number of other 81 grid challenges in Ontario.

 

If you also get caches that qualify for Tequila 81 Proof while doing your fizzies, whatever works. Yes, there is some travelling to do, and I know I had to do a lot of that travelling for the mini fizzies anyway. Do that travelling with some caching friends and you have a win/win situation and some great memories.

 

I had a great time completing the mini fizzies and from reading the logs seems others concur, and the same goes for Tequila 81 proof.

 

Two years ago I went to Florida to visit family at Christmas and found my 250th cache. This year I hope to sign in on the Florida Fizzy if I can make it work.

[+northernpenguin]

 

Two years ago I went to Florida to visit family at Christmas and found my 250th cache. This year I hope to sign in on the Florida Fizzy if I can make it work.

 

 

Hey thanks for mentioning that. I'm heading to Cape Canaveral in 2011 (gotta get my NASA Foursquare Badge) and that's not too far away from there .....

[+Keith Watson]

There should be a single source (ie web page) though where the caches are listed with original vs changed ratings rather than paging thru 8 pages of a forum topic, which is often filled with unrelated discussion. That would make things easier on the people still working on the challenge.

 

That is a good idea. Since the owner seems to be actively policing cache, the results should be shared with everyone.

 

I would also like to see the owner be fair to everyone and disallow any find that does not meet the requirements. The owner is obligated under the guidelines to do this and if they are not going to, the listing should be archived.

[+res2100]

The problem with 81 Proof cache that many people know about is that Tequila does not treat all finders\potential finders fairly. He has allowed exceptions for people to qualify in logging 81 Proof. He offered one of his friends to log 81 Proof to ignore the date requirement completely since they had the 81 combination but didn't meet the date requirement (the person rightfully declined). He has allowed and people have used caches that missed the date requirement by 1 week. Another cacher can be said cheated on one of the qualifying caches (by their own admission in their log) that they used in order to claim 81 proof. Additionally as has already been stated, some people don't provide their proof of qualifying caches as stated in the requirements on the cache page. When cachers see things like this, it's no wonder they don't even bother with the challenge as it makes it invalid when the rules are not applied equally. I have heard many times that people would much rather cache for themselves and achieve personal goals like their own personal fizzy than to have to try and meet the requirements from what someone else dictates on a cache page.

 

For those that have legitimately found 81 Proof and other challenges, good for you and I know you had a fun time doing so and got a sense of accomplishment. Reading logs on the various challenge caches it sounds like we all have fun and that is what is important with geocaching.

[+Avernar]

I would also like to see the owner be fair to everyone and disallow any find that does not meet the requirements. The owner is obligated under the guidelines to do this and if they are not going to, the listing should be archived.

Which requirements? The challenge requirements or the proof requirements?

 

The proof requirements (matrix image and bookmark list) need not be absolute just like the name in log book rule is not absolute. The CO can allow it if he's convinced the challenge requirements have been met. This is no different than a CO allowing a found it log when the person was unable to sign the log book (frozen, wet, etc).

 

Bookmarks are a finite resource and if you are not a PM you don't have them at all.

[+northernpenguin]

 

Bookmarks are a finite resource and if you are not a PM you don't have them at all.

 

Bookmark lists can also be deleted after the burden of proof has been fulfilled. Just because you don't see a bookmark list when you scan the listing today, does not indicate it wasn't there the day the cacher logged it.

 

We get 40 bookmark lists, and there's more than 40 challenge caches in North America. You can run out pretty quickly.

[+dfx]

Those that can, do.

Those that can't, complain about it instead.

of course in this case, everybody can. it's just a matter of how much effort (and money) they want to put into it. as caches keep getting archived, it's becoming more and more.

[+northernpenguin]

Those that can, do.

Those that can't, complain about it instead.

of course in this case, everybody can. it's just a matter of how much effort (and money) they want to put into it. as caches keep getting archived, it's becoming more and more.

 

If you don't have time to do it, then you "can't"

If you don't have the money to do it, then you "can't"

 

If you can, and choose not to, well that's your decision and not Tequila's problem. That's sort of the point of a challenge cache - you accept the challenge, and then complete it. If you don't accept the challenge, the other part is of no consequence. There's several challenge caches nearby that I have not accepted for various reasons - I'm not running around complaining about those challenges.

 

At least one individual has completed T:81 Proof without even owning a car.

[+Keith Watson]

If bookmark lists are a problem, then just provide a list in the found log, pretty simple. I do have a watch on this cache and have noticed a few finders have not provided the required information let alone deleted it later. Easy to tell when there is no edit date on the log entry so the argument that the data was once provided and removed doesn't hold any water for some of the logs.

 

I also agree that there is a big difference between those who can't and those who chose not to.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Keith Watson

[+KDotBlueDot]

The problem with 81 Proof cache that many people know about is that Tequila does not treat all finders\potential finders fairly. He has allowed exceptions for people to qualify in logging 81 Proof. He offered one of his friends to log 81 Proof to ignore the date requirement completely since they had the 81 combination but didn't meet the date requirement (the person rightfully declined). He has allowed and people have used caches that missed the date requirement by 1 week. Another cacher can be said cheated on one of the qualifying caches (by their own admission in their log) that they used in order to claim 81 proof. Additionally as has already been stated, some people don't provide their proof of qualifying caches as stated in the requirements on the cache page. When cachers see things like this, it's no wonder they don't even bother with the challenge as it makes it invalid when the rules are not applied equally. I have heard many times that people would much rather cache for themselves and achieve personal goals like their own personal fizzy than to have to try and meet the requirements from what someone else dictates on a cache page.

 

For those that have legitimately found 81 Proof and other challenges, good for you and I know you had a fun time doing so and got a sense of accomplishment. Reading logs on the various challenge caches it sounds like we all have fun and that is what is important with geocaching.

 

Wow...there goes the subtext. I cannot confirm the validity of any of this, and I don't think I want to.

 

In the end it's just one cache. One smilie. It seems to represent too much to some and has caused a rift. Tequila is NOT the doorman of Shangri-la! He is a CO who's cache you can find or not. In the end ALL finds are based solely on your own integrity, not the COs. If you fudge the requirements and get away with logging the 81 grid, are you REALLY cheating other cachers?

 

I will never qualify, but once I get the grid filled, I will go find it and post a nice note. One less find, but all the sense of accomplishment, by my standards. I won't qualify by Tequila's rules, but I don't cache for him or any other CO. I cache for me.

 

I don't care if someone else cheated on ANY cache or if the CO let them. Why are we worried about who did what or how they logged the find, or solved the puzzle? (BTW, Tequila I really need a hint for "Walls of a Prison"...I am sooooo close...we'll talk).

 

To those who don't qualify, might I suggest going for Fish and KDot's 81 grid for the new kids? (Shameless, aren't I?) I was thinking of starting my own thread to discuss that one, but why put on milkbone underwear in front of a pack of dogs?

 

It's funny...one day this cache will be archived (the way this thread is going that might be TODAY) and all posturing and proof and validity of your accomplishments will be wiped away. Might I suggest we cache for the memories and not the logs?

[+thebruce0]

On proofs: Ideally, they should have a summary of the qualifying caches' stats on the day they were found, for the record.

* Bookmark lists allow you to customize the bookmark names, and due to changing ratings, I recommend adding the D/T into each bookmark name. Then if something changes, it can be taken up with the owner - it's the finder's word vs the CO's. But yes, bookmark lists can be removed, so that's not a definitive 'proof'.

* One could post an image of the grid, ideally including the list of caches by D/T. Sure the image can be generated or 'shopped, but that would be word of honour, and a 'proof' that would remain static and not likely removed by the finder for lack of profile space (like the bookmark list limit).

* Of course the easiest may be just providing the full 81+ cache list with D/T ratings in the find description.

 

Any way you cut it, there's no static 'proof' that will last in perpetuity for future finders to verify. And really, it's not up to the finders to verify past finders' logs. It's really up to the CO alone.

 

And then it comes back to - what do you care if you someone else logs a find on the challenge cache, which you don't think is legitimate? How is it unfair? It's not a competition, it's a personal goal.

 

The only real complaint I see as legitimate is when a cache owner changes their cache rating, and I've already found or will soon find, the cache for the grid at the old combo. In which case, any of the above 'proofs' would help support my defense about whether the cache qualifies when I found it.

I don't care if someone else can't use the cache in the future, or if now someone else can with the new D/T. What does it matter to me?

Maybe I find it, then the D/T changes to another combo I need, but I can't log another find. Well, I likely already have a candidate cache for the new D/T anyway, so I could find that or switch which D/T they fill, so again - what does it matter to me?

 

Ultimately, it's a personal challenge, and as the life of T81 draws to a close, it'll get easier for the CO to maintain a list of "qualifying" caches and changed D/T's (based on raised disputes or concerns). If I'm about to go for a cache D/T I need and it's changed, I could dispute whether I can still use it, and it's up to the CO to decide (based subjectively, of course, on the legitimacy of said cache's D/T alteration). That could go one way or the other on a case by case basis.

 

tl;dr:

 

To anyone who's already found T81 - why do you care so much about how the challenge is carried out in these final days?

To anyone who owns qualifying caches people still want and you're (legitimately) altering the D/T regularly, then for the context of this challenge cache and fairness and peace, I say: choose a single D/T combo for use in T81, or negotiate perhaps two qualifying D/T combos.

Make it easy. Simple. Fair.

 

I don't see why this has to be such a big deal. But that's just me...

 

Also, this:

It's funny...one day this cache will be archived (the way this thread is going that might be TODAY) and all posturing and proof and validity of your accomplishments will be wiped away. Might I suggest we cache for the memories and not the logs?

Edited November 15, 2010 by thebruce0

[+dfx]

If you don't have time to do it, then you "can't"

If you don't have the money to do it, then you "can't"

meh. everybody can find the time and money to do it if it's important to them. for some people it's harder than for others, but it's never impossible (as you state yourself, even without having a car).

 

and who's complaining anyway? i was just stating a fact. if i'll ever complete it, then only by pure chance, but most likely that won't ever happen because the remaining qualifying caches will probably get archived before i get around to doing them. well, too bad. it's only then that i "can't" complete the grid.

[+dfx]

The only real complaint I see as legitimate is when a cache owner changes their cache rating, and I've already found or will soon find, the cache for the grid at the old combo. In which case, any of the above 'proofs' would help support my defense about whether the cache qualifies when I found it.

actually, according to the rules, the ratings that the cache had when you found it don't matter at all. what matters is the ratings that the cache had on the day when T81 was published. in other words, there would have to be a snapshot of all caches wordwide together with their ratings, and only those ratings could be used to fill the grid. i'm quite confident that such a snapshot doesn't actually exist.

 

for example, if today i find a 2005 cache with a 3/4 rating, then i would use that to fill my 3/4 square. but if that cache had its ratings changed from 2/3 to 3/4 a year ago, then according to rules it would only qualify for the 2/3 square and not for 3/4. i could not possibly know that.

[+thebruce0]

actually, according to the rules, the ratings that the cache had when you found it don't matter at all. what matters is the ratings that the cache had on the day when T81 was published.

Good point.

 

What would solve this?

An option to view a cache's original rating. This doesn't help for minor adjustments post-publish, unless it were perhaps the rating after 1 week maybe.

 

But another idea I had that would be a very good addition, I think, to GC.com would be to add the D/T rating to cache logs, as at the time of the log. If ratings change over time, I'm sure that history is maintained in their massive database - if you post a log for 2 months ago, GC can still look up the D/T as at that date.

 

It would be backwards compatible - all stats generators can still use D/T as it's reported now, and updates can use find logs' D/T ratings for more accuracy. That would have the same effect as the 'lock listing' ability in gsak, since the d/t for logs will/should never change even if the cache listing does. Stat generation would remain static. Stats for challenges could use the D/T of the find logs.

 

It's a minor addition that would only add to statistical capabilities, and reduce arguments and debates about CO rights and ethics of D/T alterations and all that... it may not have been an issue when geocaching was young, but now that challenges are abundant, date restrictions and grid challenges, heck even just statistics on profile pages (which can change dramatically right now just with an owner or two updating a rating). I think statistics should have always used ratings stored with the find logs, not the current cache stats.

 

tl;dr:

 

Seems like a conflict here - COs are allowed to update ratings, but cachers can generate statistics based on cache ratings through their entire caching history. Something's broken. Historic stats should not change. The easiest, and smoothest way for that to happen is simply to store the cache rating with any log that's posted to a cache. Dated logs can pull the rating as it was at that date based on the rating history for the cache.

Edited November 15, 2010 by thebruce0

[+Avernar]

But another idea I had that would be a very good addition, I think, to GC.com would be to add the D/T rating to cache logs, as at the time of the log. If ratings change over time, I'm sure that history is maintained in their massive database - if you post a log for 2 months ago, GC can still look up the D/T as at that date.

I had a similar idea where the D/T (and size) change would be a log type like the update coordinates. That way people could see the history like a "change log".

 

For speed of My Finds generation, recording the current D/T, size and perhaps coordinates in the Find log entry would be better.

[+northernpenguin]

The easiest, and smoothest way for that to happen is simply to store the cache rating with any log that's posted to a cache. Dated logs can pull the rating as it was at that date based on the rating history for the cache.

 

Yup, that would solve a lot of the angst. Definitely.

Cache finders can *currently* do something like lock the listing in GSAK on the day they find it, but that won't settle the "cache changed" disputes. Now, to get this into the minds of TPTB.....

[+dfx]

I had a similar idea where the D/T (and size) change would be a log type like the update coordinates. That way people could see the history like a "change log".

except when the CO deletes the log afterwards, as you can do now with the "update coordinates" log as well.

[+Avernar]

except when the CO deletes the log afterwards, as you can do now with the "update coordinates" log as well.

Those logs should really be locked. Don't see how deleting those fall under the "bogus logs", etc. part of the maintenance guidelines.

 

Let's not get started about the neat freaks who only want to see found logs on their cache page.

[+entogeek]

On proofs: Ideally, they should have a summary of the qualifying caches' stats on the day they were found, for the record.

* Bookmark lists allow you to customize the bookmark names, and due to changing ratings, I recommend adding the D/T into each bookmark name. Then if something changes, it can be taken up with the owner - it's the finder's word vs the CO's. But yes, bookmark lists can be removed, so that's not a definitive 'proof'.

 

Oh, you mean like this? These were the first 9/81 combos listed in my bookmark, nicely organized and numerical in order and everything is kept nice and neat for me. But yes, if the rating had changed subsequent to T81 being published and prior to my finding the cache, I wouldn't know about it unless someone was kind enough to bring it to my attention.

 

FWIW, I'll keep this bookmark list up as long as I can so others can refer to it if they like. I can easily free up some of the 40 limit by simply copying smaller bookmark lists into my original Found It logs and letting the CO know why I am doing it.

 

01 (1.0/1.0) Welcome Home Tequila (08/23/2009)

Attended 23 Aug 2009

 

02 (1.0/1.5) Go Active Gold

Found 26 Oct 2008

 

03 (1.0/2.0) OPERATION COYOTE II

Found 25 Jan 2009

 

04 (1.0/2.5) Batten Disease Memorial

Found 16 Aug 2008

 

05 (1.0/3.0) Gwendolyn's Green

Found 7 Nov 2009

 

06 (1.0/3.5) THE FLOO NETWORK - Ron Weasley

Found 24 Dec 2009

 

07 (1.0/4.0) Hockley Hollow

Found 24 Dec 2009

 

08 (1.0/4.5) Oink!

Found 6 Feb 2010

 

09 (1.0/5.0) Big E

Found 25 Sep 2009

[+Keith Watson]

Who is to say the the previous or the new combination is the correct one? It could be that people claim to have all 81 combination when in reality they don't deserve it. Big flaw in the rating system if you think about it.

[+dfx]

Who is to say the the previous or the new combination is the correct one? It could be that people claim to have all 81 combination when in reality they don't deserve it. Big flaw in the rating system if you think about it.

that's pretty much implied. every rating system is flawed, simply because it's always subjective.

[+Treknschmidt]

Who is to say the the previous or the new combination is the correct one? It could be that people claim to have all 81 combination when in reality they don't deserve it. Big flaw in the rating system if you think about it.

 

True, buts lets say you picked apart my bookmark list and found a single discrepancy in this whole combo rate change thing. Would you really say I don't deserve it? I would beg to differ, I worked very hard for that smiley.

 

Mrs T.

[+northernpenguin]

Who is to say the the previous or the new combination is the correct one? It could be that people claim to have all 81 combination when in reality they don't deserve it. Big flaw in the rating system if you think about it.

 

The fourth dimension, time.

 

When the rating is changed, if the cache is being rated honestly by the CO (which is a requirement for 81 Proof) then the new rating reflects a change in the cache. The correct rating is the rating when YOU found it, is it not?

 

If the old rating was honest, and the new rating is also honest then BOTH ratings would be correct. In the case of 81 Proof, it is well established that caches with rating changes are accepted at the old rating (vs not at all, like the NY or Florida fizzys)

[+dfx]

When the rating is changed, if the cache is being rated honestly by the CO (which is a requirement for 81 Proof) then the new rating reflects a change in the cache. The correct rating is the rating when YOU found it, is it not?

 

If the old rating was honest, and the new rating is also honest then BOTH ratings would be correct. In the case of 81 Proof, it is well established that caches with rating changes are accepted at the old rating

so when a cache that was rated 5/5 before T81 got published, then got changed to a 1/1 (exaggerating of course) for whatever reason and THEN i go and find it, i could use it as 5/5 for my grid, even though the correct rating for it was 1/1 at the time when i found it.

 

it never adds up, no matter which way you turn it.

[+northernpenguin]

When the rating is changed, if the cache is being rated honestly by the CO (which is a requirement for 81 Proof) then the new rating reflects a change in the cache. The correct rating is the rating when YOU found it, is it not?

 

If the old rating was honest, and the new rating is also honest then BOTH ratings would be correct. In the case of 81 Proof, it is well established that caches with rating changes are accepted at the old rating

so when a cache that was rated 5/5 before T81 got published, then got changed to a 1/1 (exaggerating of course) for whatever reason and THEN i go and find it, i could use it as 5/5 for my grid, even though the correct rating for it was 1/1 at the time when i found it.

 

it never adds up, no matter which way you turn it.

 

I'd love to see a cache that could be honestly rated 5/5 then honestly re-rated as a 1/1. This would likely involve the cache owner knocking down the forest the cache is hidden in, and using the lumber to build a bridge across that class 5 rapid filled river, then a plank road to the cache.

 

The key word here is honestly - as in the cache owner made an effort to rate it properly, not rerated it so it would magically fill a rare square, not a liar cache, not pulled out of a hat.

[+Treknschmidt]

When the rating is changed, if the cache is being rated honestly by the CO (which is a requirement for 81 Proof) then the new rating reflects a change in the cache. The correct rating is the rating when YOU found it, is it not?

 

If the old rating was honest, and the new rating is also honest then BOTH ratings would be correct. In the case of 81 Proof, it is well established that caches with rating changes are accepted at the old rating

so when a cache that was rated 5/5 before T81 got published, then got changed to a 1/1 (exaggerating of course) for whatever reason and THEN i go and find it, i could use it as 5/5 for my grid, even though the correct rating for it was 1/1 at the time when i found it.

 

it never adds up, no matter which way you turn it.

 

I'm pretty sure thats covered under rule #10. "Caches hidden but never intended to meet their D/T rating are ineligible. They're pretty obvious. Specifically, liar caches are not eligible."

 

My head hurts

[+Avernar]

so when a cache that was rated 5/5 before T81 got published, then got changed to a 1/1 (exaggerating of course) for whatever reason and THEN i go and find it, i could use it as 5/5 for my grid, even though the correct rating for it was 1/1 at the time when i found it.

That's why Tequila recommends you find another cache to fill that square.

[+dfx]

I'd love to see a cache that could be honestly rated 5/5 then honestly re-rated as a 1/1. This would likely involve the cache owner knocking down the forest the cache is hidden in, and using the lumber to build a bridge across that class 5 rapid filled river, then a plank road to the cache.

that's why i put the "exaggerating" comment in my post, but i guess it didn't help

 

it happened with a cache around here. originally it was placed on the ground and rated T1.5 or so, then the CO moved it up the tree and now it's rated T4 (D rating increased as well). of course it didn't happen within a timespan that would've made a difference to T81, but it could just as well have been. all the finders who found it before the change now get a T4 in their stats, even though they don't really "deserve" it. and all future finders would not be able to use it in a T81-style challenge, even though they would "deserve" it. of course none of those finders would know about that until somebody pointed it out to them. that's why rating based challenges are always flawed in one way or another.

Edited November 15, 2010 by dfx

[+Keith Watson]

When the rating is changed, if the cache is being rated honestly by the CO (which is a requirement for 81 Proof) then the new rating reflects a change in the cache. The correct rating is the rating when YOU found it, is it not?

 

If the old rating was honest, and the new rating is also honest then BOTH ratings would be correct. In the case of 81 Proof, it is well established that caches with rating changes are accepted at the old rating

so when a cache that was rated 5/5 before T81 got published, then got changed to a 1/1 (exaggerating of course) for whatever reason and THEN i go and find it, i could use it as 5/5 for my grid, even though the correct rating for it was 1/1 at the time when i found it.

 

it never adds up, no matter which way you turn it.

 

I'd love to see a cache that could be honestly rated 5/5 then honestly re-rated as a 1/1. This would likely involve the cache owner knocking down the forest the cache is hidden in, and using the lumber to build a bridge across that class 5 rapid filled river, then a plank road to the cache.

 

The key word here is honestly - as in the cache owner made an effort to rate it properly, not rerated it so it would magically fill a rare square, not a liar cache, not pulled out of a hat.

 

You didn't answer the question. The question was what rating do you use when finding the cache. I am lucky that I don;t have to keep two sets of stats as people hunting a challenge would have to. The answer is for your personal stats, you would use the rating at the time you found it. I am lucky enough that i don;t have to fudge with any of my numbers as my stats are taken directly from GoundSpeak. I don't have to keep a second set of stats because of someone else's rule.

[+dfx]

The answer is for your personal stats, you would use the rating at the time you found it. I am lucky enough that i don;t have to fudge with any of my numbers as my stats are taken directly from GoundSpeak.

which means your stats get the ratings the cache currently has, and not the ratings the cache had when you found it. so that's not really right either. see my example above.

[+northernpenguin]

 

You didn't answer the question. The question was what rating do you use when finding the cache. I am lucky that I don;t have to keep two sets of stats as people hunting a challenge would have to. The answer is for your personal stats, you would use the rating at the time you found it. I am lucky enough that i don;t have to fudge with any of my numbers as my stats are taken directly from GoundSpeak. I don't have to keep a second set of stats because of someone else's rule.

 

For Tequila: 81 Proof? You use the original rating as found on this forum and repeated several times by the CO. Or you use another cache.

 

Which rating is correct? The rating as listed when you found it. Of course, if you feel the cache is misrated - a terrain 4.5/difficulty 5 that's a flourescent pink ammo can in the middle of a paved trail 3 metres from parking, well you would consider that misrated and not use it for the challenge qualification, wouldn't you?

 

At the end of the day, the pursuit of 81 Proof is a personal challenge. There is no prize money, at least I haven't received my prize money yet if there is any. If someone wants to spend several hours tearing apart my qualification list to satisfy themselves that is their perogative. I know I had a hell of a lot of fun getting that smiley, and that I satisfied the CO that I met the challenge.

 

If you want to get 81 Proof, you can do it. 17 people have done it this year, and I know 7 more who should qualify before the year is out. If you're griping about technicalities on the cache, are you doing this to improve the experience for others, or are you trying to make the game less fun for others? Or are you simply being spiteful because you can't take a shortcut?

 

I'm starting to grow weary of all the "this cache should be archived because of <insert technicality here>" talk. When did geocaching become more about picking apart other people's caches and caching styles than actually finding the darned things?

[+Treknschmidt]

AMEN and Thank You Northern Penguin ... Good night all

[+thebruce0]

Oh, you mean like this? These were the first 9/81 combos listed in my bookmark, nicely organized and numerical in order and everything is kept nice and neat for me.

Exactly

And mine - http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...b9-bb5e6de5df8b

 

For Tequila: 81 Proof? You use the original rating as found on this forum and repeated several times by the CO. Or you use another cache.

 

Which rating is correct? The rating as listed when you found it. Of course, if you feel the cache is misrated - a terrain 4.5/difficulty 5 that's a flourescent pink ammo can in the middle of a paved trail 3 metres from parking, well you would consider that misrated and not use it for the challenge qualification, wouldn't you?

This.

 

I'm starting to grow weary of all the "this cache should be archived because of <insert technicality here>" talk. When did geocaching become more about picking apart other people's caches and caching styles than actually finding the darned things?

And this.

[+Keith Watson]

are you trying to make the game less fun for others?

 

There are plenty of people out ther taking care of that.

 

 

Or are you simply being spiteful because you can't take a shortcut?

 

Don't need to shortcut what I have no intention of doing.

 

When did geocaching become more about picking apart other people's caches and caching styles than actually finding the darned things?

 

That happened the day cachers started believing they were better than others and decided they would decide what caches others would do.

 

If people want to run around yelling hey look at me me, I am great, my caching experiences are better than others, they can go right ahead. At the end of the day it isn't hard to see that those are the people who also complain when it is suggested that what they hold highest really doesn't matter to most people. And when you do suggest it to them, they will return by attacking anyone who makes the suggestion.

 

If you are getting tired of the complaining I suggest you stop participating in this forum. Last time I checked there were no restrictions on personal opinion.

[+dfx]

At the end of the day, the pursuit of 81 Proof is a personal challenge.

not really, as you agree to do it by someone else's rules.