Cache Ratings

[docbosh]

Today I was out, and beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be an adjustment scale as part of the rating of difficulty and terrain. It is a single questionaire, that doesn't take the individual who hides the cache's personality type into question.

 

Some one who likes puzzles, and a challenge in finding caches might be more likely to rate their own cache as easy.

 

I like a challenge to a point... Today I was out, I created a circuit that I was going to follow, got about half way through before rain dampened the day. Of the 8 I did I had 3 found, and 5 not found. Of the 5 I didn't find 3 were by the same person. Of the 16 that I've done of his, it is now an even split 8 found it, 8 didn't find it. In each case the highest rating he usually gives is about 2.5, with the average probably hovering around a 2 rating.

 

One that I didn't find today had GZ in an area densely vegetated, chainlink fence (he says not to go out of bounds), clumps of trees, tons of trash from a snow removal depot (amazing how much trash is in snow that is plowed). Frankly a real needle in a hay stack, with no hint as to where in all that one should begin to look in the 315 sf area (based on average 3m accuracy). No major marker to speak of. The hint, find a long stick to retreive it, made me think maybe in a tube, or in a tree, no such thing here.

 

The guy has 101 caches, many mystery, and multicaches. I didn't look at all 101 caches to see what the found rate looks like, of the random sample, I saw a 25% to 50% DNF rate. I think most that I've done, including finds, in my opinion should rate .5 to a whole point in difficulty more than he himself rates them.

 

If you are like me, difficulty is something you do look at when planning which caches to visit.

 

Any other stories like this? Do you do this?

 

Do people like rating caches lower in difficulty to potentially increase the visit rate?

Edited August 20, 2009 by docbosh

[+JustJackMN]

Nope they just don't have a clue how to rate. Examples: a terrain rating of 1.5 which includes going down a steep ridge to cross a creek, then up the other side and then climb a steep hill to get to the cache.

 

A difficulty rating of 1.5 where to find the cache one must climb onto a "shelf" which is about 7 or 8 feet above ground and feel along a support beam to find the cache which is tucked between the beam and the concrete.

 

These are just two examples of one cacher who claims over 4000 finds but doesn't seem to know how to rate.

[+gof1]

As you add to your caching experience two things will happen. You will begin to take individual cachers and their hiding habits into account. You'll recognize CacherX and know what to expect. You will also begin to learn all the odd tricks that make some caches seem hard now and will be old hat later on.

[docbosh]

I'm not asking for predictable, I certainly like the thrill of the chase. I try to figure in the first minute or so how the cacher approached and what they saw, what attracted them to a spot. I still think it isn't a bad way to go to use some sort of landmark, whatever that may be. Of course, there is a heck of a lot of randomness in cache locations, for various reasons, they often go where there is space.

 

I was going through the CCC thread, and wonder. Is it an objective to make a cache almost exclusively a Didn't Find It experience. I'm not sure I get the idea of hiding a cache so well that no one ever finds it, despite being less than 10 feet from it. But maybe that's just me, and yet I think to myself that some techniques are cool, and might try them, but not without significant hints. I know it is considered somewhat an "honor", to be FTF, so the thinking is, must make it impossible for FTF (after looking at CCC thread). Nevertheless, there are those that really like it this way, but then they could try to understand the rating should reflect the real situation, not just their own opinion. I decided to up one of my own ratings yesterday, will wait to see what comes of it, if there are lots of DNF, then raise it again, if there are lots of Found Its, then I will adjust accordingly. The muggle proofing arguement doesn't hold sway too much in my mind, people who aren't looking usually don't see. The super market experience, demonstrates this pretty well. I used to work in a pharmacy, years ago, made me laugh, inevitably by the time some one asks a stock clerk where something is on the shelf, they are standing right beside it. Happened to me the other day in a Dollar Store (getting some caching supplies). Even now that I know there are tons of caches, it's not like I'm suddenly seeing them all over.

 

I think in one case I'm going to suggest the owner make a plea for CITO, with a gazillion little pieces of trash, I have no clue where the cache might be, though it is a micro, and experience shows that usually means a 35mm film canister. Yet others found it, go figure.

Edited August 21, 2009 by docbosh

[+niraD]

I was going through the CCC thread, and wonder. Is it an objective to make a cache almost exclusively a Didn't Find It experience. I'm not sure I get the idea of hiding a cache so well that no one ever finds it, despite being less than 10 feet from it.

As someone who enjoys extremely well-camouflaged caches, I'll say that I think the point is the "Aha!" moment when you find the cache. In general, owners of such caches really aren't trying to create a DNF experience. They're trying to create a Find experience with a big "Aha!" moment.

[docbosh]

I suppose, but this was part of my point, some game geocachers get the aha moment from simple caches a lot of times. I know that after looking for a good 20 mins half hour, if you don't find it, it has quite the opposite effect, wouldn't you think?

[+niraD]

My record so far is 6 DNFs prior to finding the cache. Each of those DNFs represented 30-90 minutes of searching.

 

Now that I've got more experience, I usually find 4-star caches in less time that that. But clearly I'm not one to get discouraged just because I haven't found the cache after half an hour.

[+ecanderson]

I was going through the CCC thread, and wonder. Is it an objective to make a cache almost exclusively a Didn't Find It experience. I'm not sure I get the idea of hiding a cache so well that no one ever finds it, despite being less than 10 feet from it.

There's certainly a great place in geocaching for caches like this IF the hide isn't a "needle/haystack" but is difficult due to the creativity of the cache owner. Most experienced cachers who place these will accompany them with an appropriately high number of stars in the difficulty rating, and do expect quite a few DNFs. Beats the heck out of "YALCs" (yet another lampskirt cache).

 

As a cacher, I take these on as I find the time available to devote to them, understanding from the listings what it is I'm getting into. They're just a "special challenge" -- your wits against those of the owner. And when I say "wits", it's my attempt to differentiate a silly 4* cache (a nano buried under 5 tons of rocks - I don't usually even bother with these) from a cleverly concealed 4* cache. The absolute worst (best) are those that are staring you right in the face in a relatively public place but where the camo is so incredibly good that you don't even realize what you're looking at until ... then you want to kick yourself for missing it!

 

I've had fun finding them, and have placed one of these myself. I've been at ground zero with a couple of local finders who were about to give up after a 4th trip. I had them stand in a certain place with me and pointed to a clearly artificial bit of container deliberately sticking out of the "camo" and said "See that?" There's no emoticon for the sound of a "dope slap", but ...

 

It can be annoying when the ratings (either difficulty or terrain) don't match up to local norms. If I find myself in a situation where I believe the cache is a FULL star out of whack, I'll usually make note of that in my online log. There are examples of this found by others above. If it is necessary to climb 8' up on a rock wall to reach the keyholder stuck to the back of the lamp on the wall ... don't call it a 1.5, even if you CAN walk right up to the wall. My log would include something on the order of "Not a 1.5 terrain", or "Terrain rating could use a bump". Hides are the same way. Sometimes new owners forget that just because they know where the cache is, that doesn't mean that they haven't picked a real bugger of a spot for someone trying to find it! This is especially true in "high clutter" areas -- especially those that are perennial CITO projects (or should be).

 

Like someone above said, you get used to the posting habits of your fellow cachers after a while and you learn to add your own 'windage' to their ratings if need be.

[+ecanderson]

I suppose, but this was part of my point, some game geocachers get the aha moment from simple caches a lot of times. I know that after looking for a good 20 mins half hour, if you don't find it, it has quite the opposite effect, wouldn't you think?

All depends upon the cache. I saved one 4* by Mondou for my #1000. Spent about an hour looking for that bad boy. Unlike about 75%+ of the prior finders, snagged it without resorting to a "lifeline". Wouldn't have been nearly as much fun if I had -- which is why I don't.

 

Again, if you get into a legitimate 4* creative hide, and once you've cached in an area long enough to know who places them, they can be a real kick.

 

I doubt anyone here gets too much of a thrill out of a 4* rockpile cache. The only reason I'll occasionally touch one of those is to just get the bleeping icon off my map. There's one unapologetic 4* rockpile in the area that I still have to get out of the way, but it will have to wait for cooler weather and a few of us may do it as a group grope with each of us responsible for a small section. It was a local cacher's answer to all of the rockpiles he has searched in his day, I guess. It's called "Rockpile Revenge". He||, half the time even he can't find it! He certainly blames no one for not dropping by, and it isn't in an area where it would likely ever interfere with another decent cache placement. Like I said, an unapologetic 4* rockpile cache.

[+Walts Hunting]

OMG. Time to get the stick and beat the dead horse again. It really is amazing how many newbies continue to bring up lond dead issues that have been resolved for years. Maybe a little research instead of just blabbing would help.

[docbosh]

OMG. Time to get the stick and beat the dead horse again. It really is amazing how many newbies continue to bring up lond dead issues that have been resolved for years. Maybe a little research instead of just blabbing would help.

 

Thanks for all the constructive things you've said here, as usual, I was expecting one of these, I just can't believe that it took a whole two days this time. I'm glad for the most part that this is a solo activity, because I feel the love of inclusion.

 

For the record, I did a search, and, boom, no results. so, if it existed at one point, I was not able to find the thread, despite trying. I'd rather add a comment than be the one who gets sniped at by other cachers, merely because they too can hit a "reply" button, and not because they actually have something to say. Riddle me this Batman, do you look for threads such as mine, only to call people newbies, for a sense of superiority? Because I might be a newbie, but as I geocache that will no longer be the case... You on the other hand, insert insult here (sorry I'd be more creative but I don't like having threads shut down), you will never change. But I know people like that.

 

I realize a big problem with the forums is that some people don't know when to keep their mouths shut.

 

Thank you oh geocaching lord, for taking time out of your, oh so busy schedule, to berate and belittle.

Edited August 22, 2009 by docbosh

[+Gcap]

I've been caching for 8 months now, 450 finds and counting. I'm learning every time out and mostly having a great time. It's true, you cache in an area and "learn" the hides of certain CO's. Some of them are quite inspiring, most are pretty much the same, and some are very disappointing.

There are a couple of CO's that I've put on my "ignore" list, and a few others on my "low priority" list. Some people can't resist an area that doesn't have any caches nearby, and they pull the old Bison Tube out and hang it in a handy evergreen tree... Very little originality, nothing particularly interesting about the location, just "one of THOSE" again. Or the cutsie "needle in a haystack" with a 2-star difficulty, I suppose these CO's think they're very clever or something...

I've places a few caches, and I always consider the things that I like AND the things that I HATE before I place a cache out there. The "bad" ones inspire me to do better.

[docbosh]

I've been caching for 8 months now, 450 finds and counting. I'm learning every time out and mostly having a great time. It's true, you cache in an area and "learn" the hides of certain CO's. Some of them are quite inspiring, most are pretty much the same, and some are very disappointing.

There are a couple of CO's that I've put on my "ignore" list, and a few others on my "low priority" list. Some people can't resist an area that doesn't have any caches nearby, and they pull the old Bison Tube out and hang it in a handy evergreen tree... Very little originality, nothing particularly interesting about the location, just "one of THOSE" again. Or the cutsie "needle in a haystack" with a 2-star difficulty, I suppose these CO's think they're very clever or something...

I've places a few caches, and I always consider the things that I like AND the things that I HATE before I place a cache out there. The "bad" ones inspire me to do better.

 

I hear ya, each time I see something new, ok, not always new, but I usually learn something.

 

I have also learned, while I have preferences in where I look, I like the nature walk with the kids while we look for a few geocaches, it has been explained that the game isn't necessarily about stunning vistas. It's about caches that are hidden, in stunning vistas or otherwise, and people who are going to go looking. I have to imagine that I'm not alone in having certain preferences to geocaching out in the woods. The city caches kinda lack something.

 

Despite that I have recently tested a new cache container, a electric junction box against a real power pole. Not bad for the urban cache.

[POLE POSITION]

I understand you're problem, I've run into it as a cache owner. When a person submits a cache next to terrain and difficulty ratings there's a little link that says "rate you're cache" and you can rate you're cache's d/t. It's imperfect but it gives you a good basis. If the owner gets a lot of DNFs or logs saying "this one took me forever! (more than 30 minutes)" they should change the difficulty.