Rating Difficulty - Rate for hint or no hint?

[+flaffle]

I have finally placed my first three caches after a year and about 200 finds. I thought that would be more than enough to "know what I'm doing". Now that they're out there, I'm really confused on how to rate one of them. No, I haven't checked the Active box so they haven't been reviewed yet.

 

My confusion is on one that's a micro in the woods. I have done a lot of these but I've never seen one like this though I'm sure they are out there.... Also, the camo turned out a lot better than I thought. It's in plain sight but you may not even realize you're looking at it.

 

If you use the hint, I'm pretty sure you would have the guy in hand within 20 mins tops. If you don't use the hint, you could be looking for a very long time. While I was averaging the coords I noticed about five other really goods spots to stick something. If someone doesn't fixate on the right thing they're just not going to find it. It should be mentioned that there is heavy tree cover in the area in the summer. While I was getting +/- 9 ft. I don't know what it will be like once all the leaves come back in.

 

I would rate this a 2 or 2.5 with the hint, probably 3.5 or 4 without. Which way should I go? Should I just pick the middle ground at 3?

 

This may seem silly but poorly rated caches really get my knickers in a bind. I don't want to be that person.

[+J the Goat]

I have to start out by saying that I'm not a micro in the woods fan. That being said, I have also just recently started hiding caches and am unsure about difficulty ratings. I'd go without the hint and put in the description that using the hint drops the diff from a 4 to a 2. That way, those who want a 2 star cache can have it, those who want the challenge can ignore the hint and look on their own.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Whether or not to hint? Is totally up to you.

 

We enjoy the challenge, many others do also. OTOH, many don't and just want to score a "find".

You're going to have both types looking for your caches. If you do not supply a hint, expect somebody to email and ask for a hint or nudge. Perfectly acceptable, it is your choice whether to provide it or not.

 

We don't mind providing a nudge. When they ask "where is it?", we will give them a nudge, but we do not tell them right out where it is. Our perspective of this activity is the hunt. If otherwise, we would place knee-jerk park & grabs only.

 

You rate it as you see fit. If it is a toughie, rate it based upon how long you expect them to have to search at GZ and not worry so much about their hunting abilities.

[+flaffle]

I have to start out by saying that I'm not a micro in the woods fan. That being said, I have also just recently started hiding caches and am unsure about difficulty ratings. I'd go without the hint and put in the description that using the hint drops the diff from a 4 to a 2. That way, those who want a 2 star cache can have it, those who want the challenge can ignore the hint and look on their own.

 

Micros in the woods - you either love them or hate them. I personally love them. I can find a micro in the woods like nothing but I could be standing on top of an ammo can and not find it.

 

Thanks for your input and I like your idea. I don't know why it's so hard to pick a difficulty rating. I've changed it back and forth about five times so far. I hate overrated caches since you look in very unusual places while it's sitting under a log... but under rated caches are equally as frustrating.

[+briansnat]

If you have enough people searching for the cache for "a very long time" consider what effect it will have on the surrounding area. That's why I don't care for micros in the woods. That said I rate my caches assuming that the searcher will eventually look at the hint.

[+ecanderson]

If your hint is reducing your difficulty rating by 1.5 points, perhaps you should rethink the hint a bit. There have been long threads about the use of hints here. I've seen "hints" that describe the hide location so that one could find it blindfolded, and I've seen hints that provide no help at all. Getting yours in the sweet spot will be the trick. If I include a hint, it's often directed toward helping someone avoid the wrong spots vs. aiming them directly at the right one, especially when GZ is in a very "cluttered" area where there are a million wrong places to look and one that is correct. Try reconfiguring your hint to help in that way and see what you think of it.

[+Knight2000]

Another local cacher and I discussed this last summer. This is why he doesn't give out hints and I rarely do.

 

I see little point in having a cache with a difficult rating only to have it found quickly because of the hint. Besides- if I give a hint how will I get that DNF that I crave?

[+niraD]

The first "micro in the woods" that I found was rated without the hints, and the cache description mentioned that you should subtract one star from the difficulty for each hint you used.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I would rate this a 2 or 2.5 with the hint, probably 3.5 or 4 without. Which way should I go? Should I just pick the middle ground at 3?

 

 

I would probably decide how to rate the cache depending on how many other difficult caches are in the area. If there aren't a lot of of them, a 4 star difficulty micro in the woods would stand out as a challenge for those that like to be challenged. A 2.5 micro with hints would just be another cache in the woods. If your area already has a lot of 4 star and higher caches placing something that is a little easier might provide a break from the harder ones. Personally, I'd probably leave off the hint and rate it a 3.5 to 4. While you might not get as many finds, those the succeed in finding are going to remember it.

[+bittsen]

Add me to the list of people who don't really enjoy a micro in the woods. I'm really not into the super difficult hides. Yes, I want that smiley. Yes, I hate to DNF a cache.

 

With a hint or without a hint, I don't want to be skunked. For me it might as well not even have a cache there to find, if I can't find it. That's not to say I give up after a few minutes of looking but a micro in the woods will probably get me to stop looking after 15 minutes or so. WAY too many variables for me to keep searching a 60 foot circle around bouncing coordinates.

 

In the woods, I hide larger caches. But that's just me. Everyone likes their own thing.

 

How to rate it? Rate it as if it's the hardest. Hint or no hint, like the terrain, rate it for the hardest part, not the average. If it's a 4 without the hint, it's a 4.

[+Panda Inc]

Rating is a tough one and completely at the behest of the owner. For instance, not too far from home is a "liars" cache. It is rated a difficulty of ... mmmm ... really difficult lets say. The story posted for the cache is quite fantasmagorical and once you find it ... well it's not what the numbers say it is, but to claim the cache you have to write in your geocaching.com log an equally fantasmagoric adventure story as to how you found it. It's really quite fun. And on the other hand last summer we (and about 20 others, at different times) went up to be FTF on a difficulty 4. It took us 7 trips and all summer to finally find it. It became a bit of a challenge for us locals to be FTF and as the weeks wore on the owner would drop a cryptic hint, and then we found it ... first. More weeks passed until someone else found it and finally the owner put in a hint that gave it away and anyone that looked, found it. So to my way of thinking, we actually found a "difficulty 4" but everyone else found something less. Believe me, this cache was clever.

So ... it's all arbitrary and whatever you say, goes ... period. But, expect EVERYONE to read the clues .

Count on the game being fun and don't worry about the small stuff.

Cheers,

Panda Inc

 

I have finally placed my first three caches after a year and about 200 finds. I thought that would be more than enough to "know what I'm doing". Now that they're out there, I'm really confused on how to rate one of them. No, I haven't checked the Active box so they haven't been reviewed yet.

 

My confusion is on one that's a micro in the woods. I have done a lot of these but I've never seen one like this though I'm sure they are out there.... Also, the camo turned out a lot better than I thought. It's in plain sight but you may not even realize you're looking at it.

 

If you use the hint, I'm pretty sure you would have the guy in hand within 20 mins tops. If you don't use the hint, you could be looking for a very long time. While I was averaging the coords I noticed about five other really goods spots to stick something. If someone doesn't fixate on the right thing they're just not going to find it. It should be mentioned that there is heavy tree cover in the area in the summer. While I was getting +/- 9 ft. I don't know what it will be like once all the leaves come back in.

 

I would rate this a 2 or 2.5 with the hint, probably 3.5 or 4 without. Which way should I go? Should I just pick the middle ground at 3?

 

This may seem silly but poorly rated caches really get my knickers in a bind. I don't want to be that person.

[+DarkZen]

I hide my caches to be found. I don't put micro's in the woods (or like them) but in places where it makes sense to put a small cache in the woods I give two hints:

[Hint]

 

 

The spoiler being the exact description of where to find it. Getting good coordinates can be tricky in the woods as it is and if you are searching a 20 -30 ft radius in the woods, there are potentially hundreds of places to put a

micro. Remember that the general GZ won't be as obvious to finders as it is to you. I looked for one recently in some woods nearby and despite being a new listing the surrounding area was totally trampled.

[+simpjkee]

I don't dig micros in the woods desert. When I'm out caching along a trail or whatever, I want to hike and get an ammo can along the way. I don't really want to hunt for half an hour and I frown on what briansnat said about how people spending a lot of time searching might affect the enviroment. In my view, the 'hunt' is not being at GZ and looking for the cache. The 'hunt' is planning the hike, leaving your house, getting to the trailhead, making the hike, seeing the sights along the way, getting to the cache site, etc. Doing all that just to end up looking for a microcache is kind of not the idea to me.

 

I dont really put hints in the hint section of my cache pages, I leave it blank. I tend to base the difficulty of the hide on the hide alone, regardless of anything on the cache page. I do however, tend to make my cache easily findable because I want people to find them. Sounds crazy I know, but it's true. I recently put out a new ammo can and because I think the cache is well hidden and I'd hate to get a DNF on it, as a 'hint', I described the hiding spot on the cache page and posted a picture of the hiding spot called "hint picture".

[+flaffle]

You've all given me a lot to ponder. I enjoy micros in the woods because they can be a surprise. Oddly, I DNF them less than ammo cans. 90% of the time they're off the ground and most of the time they come with a hint that gives you a reasonable search area.

 

I've always thought micros in the woods without a general guidance are just mean. Even with a good hint, you can still spend a decent amount of time searching one of these guys out. And given the amount of tree cover, accuracy could be a serious problem in the summer.

 

After looking at the cache again and having a hard time seeing it even though I know where it is, I think the hint may not be quite the spoiler I originally thought. It will just direct the seeker to a 20 ft. long complex object. It should still keep them busy for a few. I'm probably going to start with a 3 and see what happens? I want people to find it but at the same time make them feel like they earned a little something.

[+simpjkee]

I think the 'hunt' aspect is what caching is about. Originally caches were placed out in the woods, desert, etc. The 'hunt' was not in finding the cache, the 'hunt' was planning the trip, hiking to the cache, etc. When caches started being placed in parking lots and stuff, the 'hunt' aspect was gone (hence why people frown at LPCs and the like). Naturally, people wanted to reintorduce the 'hunt' by making the cache hard to find or creating really tricky cammo. When you decide to place a cache in the woods, the 'hunt' aspect is already there and making a cammo'd micro to search for is just "artificial" hunt tacked on for no real reason.

 

The best geocaching 'hunt' I've ever been on took hours of planning and consideration, an hour of driving to the trailhead, about 5 hours of hiking to the cache site (sightseeing along the way), about 30 seconds to make the find, 30-45 minutes reading and signing the log, 4-5 hours of hiking back, an hour drive home, and 45 minutes logging it online with pictures. That was the most 'well earned' cache I've ever found and the search only lasted 30 seconds.

 

Of course, everyone elses experience can and will vary. The variety makes caching fun even though some look down upon certain hides.

[+DarkZen]

The best geocaching 'hunt' I've ever been on took hours of planning and consideration, an hour of driving to the trailhead, about 5 hours of hiking to the cache site (sightseeing along the way), about 30 seconds to make the find, 30-45 minutes reading and signing the log, 4-5 hours of hiking back, an hour drive home, and 45 minutes logging it online with pictures. That was the most 'well earned' cache I've ever found and the search only lasted 30 seconds.

Seconded.

[+briansnat]

So ... it's all arbitrary and whatever you say, goes ... period. But, expect EVERYONE to read the clues

 

Nearly everyone will read the clue. Many will before they start the hunt. Others will wait until they are stumped. I used to rate difficulty based on the hide assuming the searcher did not read the clue. When I learned that reading the clue ahead of time was common and realized that nearly everybody will eventually read it, I changed and now rate difficulty assuming that the searcher has read the clue.

 

After looking at the cache again and having a hard time seeing it even though I know where it is, I think the hint may not be quite the spoiler I originally thought. It will just direct the seeker to a 20 ft. long complex object. It should still keep them busy for a few. I'm probably going to start with a 3 and see what happens? I want people to find it but at the same time make them feel like they earned a little something.

 

Also keep an eye on the area. These hides increase the potential for damage and you want to limit that.

[+Isonzo Karst]

But, expect EVERYONE to read the clues

Not everyone reads the clues until they've hunted for a while.

Hints should be written as further information after a search has failed.

 

As to the OP, I've come to think that the rating should be for cache with hint, as most people are going to have it. Many with devices to auto decrypt, and others with the print out with the hint already decrypted. Still, keep it short. I recently encountered a couple on the trail manually decrypting a hint. I decrypted it for them, as it ran way too many words. It could have just been "low" or "lo"

[+Walts Hunting]

My confusion is on one that's a micro in the woods.

 

Actually to me it wouldn't matter how you rated it. One of those goes to the ignore list when published so it doesn't clutter up my map of real caches.

[+Larry the pool guy]

If you have enough people searching for the cache for "a very long time" consider what effect it will have on the surrounding area. That's why I don't care for micros in the woods. That said I rate my caches assuming that the searcher will eventually look at the hint.

Micros in the woods...You are worried that the rating will be to low....Some things bother me just my opinion if you have cachers walking long ways to find your cache would it be fair to have a micro looking like wood placed in a pile of wood after the cachers walked a mile to get to your spot I would say NO. If they are driving and you bring them a short distance that they can look more than once it might be right.

Wait on the hint till you see alot of did not finds then you give a little at a time like candy. Some cachers are better than others and need a challege. Also a rating of a four to you can be a easy two for me so it is up to the skill of the cacher. Hope this helps...