Really difficult cache...

[+hallycat]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

[+hukilaulau]

 

I got the impression that the locals were pretty harsh in their opening statements, way before the CO began replying with even the slightest negativity. If that's true, I can certainly understand him not being willing to budge. I tend to get less helpful when people who don't know me, and have never met me, treat me like I'm a jerk.

 

But that's not the way it happened. After 7 or 8 DNF's and notes, a couple of them politely asking for help, the owner responded with this:

 

"Just because it hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean it needs maintenance. I will not run out after every DNF to check it. Search harder!"

 

From a cacher who (supposedly) had only one find and no hides, this seemed unnecessarily antagonistic.

 

This local Long Island bunch is one of the nicest, friendliest, most cooperative groups I've encountered, but if you start talking smack, some of them are going to return the sentiment!

But STILL it was more the folks from outside the area who took it to another level.

 

I'm sticking with my comment that I believe Hallycat essentially has the story right. As stated, this is a forum, not a court of law. So sue us.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

There's been enough outing I think. Like the person who created a sock puppet, gave their number of finds and hides on the cache page, and was easily looked up on cacherstats.com in ummm, a NY minute. By the way, the moderators (or the person who outed them) changed the link earlier in this thread, so they are not outed any more. I'd say that's a good thing.

 

No one changed it in the original post, but I changed it when quoting it. This is a case where even I think a little censorship would be a good thing. No one knows if that stalker post was correct or not.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Would it have killed the CO to update the page with a maintenance logs such as "since nobody has found it, I am raising the difficult to 3...or 4)?

I still haven't read the cache page and/or the logs, so all I can gather is from remarks made in here. From these, I got the impression that the locals were pretty harsh in their opening statements, way before the CO began replying with even the slightest negativity. If that's true, I can certainly understand him not being willing to budge. I tend to get less helpful when people who don't know me, and have never met me, treat me like I'm a jerk.

 

Let me get this right. You are on here posting in the thread and passing judgement on peoples comments and discussions about the cache page, but you've never even looked at the cache page itself?

 

I just want to be sure I understand correctly. Here is a link to the cache under discussion.

Edited October 19, 2010 by John in Valley Forge

[knowschad]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

[+John in Valley Forge]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

 

It's either this or else watching the Yankees game.

[jholly]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

 

It's either this or else watching the Yankees game.

Well that has to be better than watching a Mariners game.

[Clan Riffster]

Let me get this right. You are on here posting in the thread and passing judgement on peoples comments and discussions about the cache page, but you've never even looked at the cache page itself?

You've got it almost right. I am passing judgement on the mooks who were hammering the cache owner.

Both on the cache page and in the forums. Is that a bad thing? Should I keep quiet and enable their bad behavior?

 

But that's not the way it happened.

Kewl! Glad to hear it. I'd hate to think that folks from New York were being pictured as being less than friendly.

 

I took John's advice and took a gander at the cache page, where I saw this:

"Something about this cache doesn't add up... The fact that the hider doesn't have any finds to their credit makes me a little suspicious."

This was in the second DNF. Maybe that's what passes for polite conversation up there?

 

Then I see this:

"Wow ... there must be something up with the coords for this cache since no one has found it yet."

That's from the 7th DNF. What? Because you can't find it, the coords must be bad? Talk about hubris.

 

Another fine example of locals spreading the love:

"Personally I'm dubious as to whether this is even a real cache ... there is no description of container type or size, no clues and no finds after 11 people have searched?

To the person who hid it ... you need to go back and see if it's still there, I don't think it is."

That's from the 8th DNF. What arrogance. Is he seriously telling a cache owner that he has to run off and check the cache simply because it hasn't been found? Is the entitlement mentality so entrenched with these folks that they can't tolerate a cacher who is better at hiding than they are at finding?

 

Then there's this gem, in the form of a Needs Maintenance note:

"After 12 logged dnf's and who knows how many others, I think the owner needs to check on the cache to make sure it's still there"

I didn't realize that 12 DNFs means a cache needs maintenance. Apparently, with that crowd, it does.

This kind of negative dog piling would raise my hackles, and I consider myself more even tempered than most.

After all that silliness, to expect the CO to bow down to the so called experts is unrealistic at best.

The locals behaved poorly, and they know it. Most of their bad behavior was due to having egos that were too large.

These same egos keep them from manning up and apologizing for their bad behavior.

[+mountainman38]

Just a couple things. First, I was aware that those watching this thread would see the initial post. I wasn't trying to hide it. I had an interesting morning, logged on, and typed before thinking. Then I hit the submit button. Whoops!

I hear you -- that seems to be an easy thing to do. Post in haste, repent in leisure!

 

Your definition of censorship must be a bit different than mine. Closing a thread isn't censoring anything, it's stopping a conversation that, although has remained mostly civil, probably won't continue that way. You've been around these boards, you know the pattern. The biggest reason I proposed the closing of the thread though, I've already stated. There's been no new discussion for several pages. Recycled conversation is useful? I can't see how. By all means, is someone has something new to say, I'll be the first one to listen and consider.

I guess I saw your call for the thread to be closed as a denial for people to get a chance to post comments they felt were relevant/useful to the discussion. Believe me -- I understand how you feel about threads that don't seem to die, but rather have the same comments posted over and over, page after page. I've had to unsubscribe from a number of threads, on this and other forums, because of this. It seems like this thread is actually attracting quite a bit of diversity in thought and comment, and it seems (to me) like censorship to ask to have a thread locked. Let it die it's own death, or live on -- that's what I say!

 

I know I can choose not to read the thread, but it's like a friggin' car accident. I see the dark red box and I just have to look

Hard not to!

 

I saw your apology post, and initially took it as sarcastic. My sincere apologies for that.

Definitely not sarcastic. Maybe not worded the best, but sincere for all that.

 

Now it's off to try to get my head straight. Good luck with that.....

Good luck! Let me know if you figure out something that works.

[+lachupa]

...And, let's face it, it's the jury that determines what's vandalism.

Only in a round-about kinda way. The process is actually a lot more convoluted than that.

 

Let's apply this cache to a hypothetical scenario:

 

Step 1 ) Citizen does something. (In this case, chipping several bricks whilst replacing them)

Step 2 ) Property owner sees this and calls the cops.

Step 3 ) Cop arrives, investigates and determines the cacher's actions were not "willful and/or malicious"

Step 4 ) Cop advises property owner that the elements for criminal mischief are not there, so no arrest can be made.

Step 5 ) Property owner insists a report needs to be made anyhow.

Step 6 ) Cop writes a report describing the situation, submitting it to the State Attorney's Office.

Step 7 ) SAO reviews case law, coming to the same conclusion as the cop. No willful and malicious behavior = no criminal mischief.

 

If we change Step 4 and/or Step 7, so this does go to trial, it will be decided by a Judge, during suppression hearings, if the specific actions of the citizen meet the legal definition of criminal mischief. Assuming we change enough facts so the Judge rules in favor of continuing the process, the jury will only determine if the citizen did the actions he is accused of, not if those actions were illegal. The Judge will issue instructions to the jury, advising them that if they decide the citizen did this thing, they must vote in favor of a conviction.

 

The property owner would have a much easier time going after the hider and/or the seekers, in civil court, as the standard there does not require a persons actions to be willful and malicious.

 

Technically the property owner would have a much easier time turning on the irrigation system.

 

yoo kidz get offen my lawn

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

The CO claims that the coords were verified, but unless someone has logged a find using those coordinates, how do we know if the coordinates are really accurate, especially when the CO claims that they couldn't find the easy throw down at the published coordinate where the CO tells us are accurate.

 

Well, there was this picture posted:

 

The cacher who posted that picture wrote this about it:

The red Dot is where we got 2-3 feet to the location of the cache and the 2-3 feet was pointing to the grass area on top of the wall. The red dot is on top of the wall on the second brick from the left of the stepup. The Greeen lines mark 3 bricks that are lose and can be lifted up

 

Then there was this, titled "Overhead view under stone #2":

 

And the log:

[Write note] October 15 by Just-Do-Somethin' (1 found)

 

Enough is Enough! You asked for it, so here it is!

 

Under the SECOND stone that moves, the cache is hidden. It is a DIRT CAMO'D NANO. It is hidden down the CENTER ROW.It looks like any other little rock in there but if you lift it up, you'll see the BLACK NANO bottom clear as day. I can't believe it has come to this! You guys are unbelieveable! The cache hasn't even been out for two months!

 

So unless someone is lying, the second stone that moves is the one with the red dot over it, and the coordinates were spot-on.

[+42at42]

 

Would it have killed the CO to update the page with a maintenance logs such as "since nobody has found it, I am raising the difficult to 3...or 4)?

 

 

Now that the cache has been revealed, would you say it deserves a rating of 3 or 4. I would say 2.5 at the most. I initially thought it might be a three, but I don't think so.

 

The CO claims that the coords were verified, but unless someone has logged a find using those coordinates, how do we know if the coordinates are really accurate

 

The coords were proven to be right on the money.

 

It does turn out that the difficulty was actually a 5. It took special equipment called archiving for someone to find the cache.

Edited October 19, 2010 by 42at42

[+hallycat]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

 

Hardly new, I don't generally take part in these long drawn out discussions. Just that this happens to be in my hood and our community is pretty tight. Not that we don't welcome newcomers, we welcome all new, valid hiders and finders with open arms.

[+mountainman38]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

 

Hardly new, I don't generally take part in these long drawn out discussions. Just that this happens to be in my hood and our community is pretty tight. Not that we don't welcome newcomers, we welcome all new, valid hiders and finders with open arms.

 

Sounds like a pretty poor welcome. When you set yourselves up to judge newcomers based on your preset criteria, you take a rather unwelcoming stance.

 

It would seem that a cacher who's new to your area and does things a little differently than you're used to is apparently deemed unworthy of being welcomed.

 

How about y'all just play the game, and don't worry about whether someone fits exactly into your definition of a proper cacher.

 

This is the problem with too small of a group who gets used to doing things their own way all the time -- it's easy to lose sight of how life comes in many different flavors.

[+42at42]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

 

Hardly new, I don't generally take part in these long drawn out discussions. Just that this happens to be in my hood and our community is pretty tight. Not that we don't welcome newcomers, we welcome all new, valid hiders and finders with open arms.

 

Sounds like a pretty poor welcome. When you set yourselves up to judge newcomers based on your preset criteria, you take a rather unwelcoming stance.

 

It would seem that a cacher who's new to your area and does things a little differently than you're used to is apparently deemed unworthy of being welcomed.

 

How about y'all just play the game, and don't worry about whether someone fits exactly into your definition of a proper cacher.

 

This is the problem with too small of a group who gets used to doing things their own way all the time -- it's easy to lose sight of how life comes in many different flavors.

 

Well said!!

 

Turns out it was a Valid Hider and a real hide. Wow there must be a bunch of embarrassed cachers in your area.

Edited October 19, 2010 by 42at42

[+Jeepster++]

Would it have killed the CO to update the page with a maintenance logs such as "since nobody has found it, I am raising the difficult to 3...or 4)?

Now that the cache has been revealed, would you say it deserves a rating of 3 or 4. I would say 2.5 at the most. I initially thought it might be a three, but I don't think so.

The CO claims that the coords were verified, but unless someone has logged a find using those coordinates, how do we know if the coordinates are really accurate

The coords were proven to be right on the money.

It does turn out that the difficulty was actually a 5. It took special equipment called archiving for someone to find the cache.

 

Actually, no one has claimed to have found it and I don't think the coordinates can be proven to be "right on the money" until someone does.

[+hukilaulau]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

 

Hardly new, I don't generally take part in these long drawn out discussions. Just that this happens to be in my hood and our community is pretty tight. Not that we don't welcome newcomers, we welcome all new, valid hiders and finders with open arms.

 

Sounds like a pretty poor welcome. When you set yourselves up to judge newcomers based on your preset criteria, you take a rather unwelcoming stance.

 

It would seem that a cacher who's new to your area and does things a little differently than you're used to is apparently deemed unworthy of being welcomed.

 

How about y'all just play the game, and don't worry about whether someone fits exactly into your definition of a proper cacher.

 

This is the problem with too small of a group who gets used to doing things their own way all the time -- it's easy to lose sight of how life comes in many different flavors.

 

Well said!!

 

Turns out it was a Valid Hider and a real hide. Wow there must be a bunch of embarrassed cachers in your area.

lol... this thread has gotten so bizarre I can't even tell if you're being facetious anymore. Acting as the unappointed spokesmodel for the local geocachers, I can tell you that NO ONE is embarrassed. Everyone except me and Hallycat have moved on. (I don't know what her excuse is... but I've got a few minutes to kill before the Yankees-Rangers game )

I have 2500 finds in 26 different states, and I am satisfied that this was NOT a new hider just playing the game differently. If you believe what this hider has been saying on the cache page, I'd love to play poker with you. I'd have all your money in an hour.

[+hallycat]

*yawn*

do you people ever tire or this?

Not really. You're new here, right?

 

Hardly new, I don't generally take part in these long drawn out discussions. Just that this happens to be in my hood and our community is pretty tight. Not that we don't welcome newcomers, we welcome all new, valid hiders and finders with open arms.

 

 

Sounds like a pretty poor welcome. When you set yourselves up to judge newcomers based on your preset criteria, you take a rather unwelcoming stance.

 

It would seem that a cacher who's new to your area and does things a little differently than you're used to is apparently deemed unworthy of being welcomed.

 

How about y'all just play the game, and don't worry about whether someone fits exactly into your definition of a proper cacher.

 

This is the problem with too small of a group who gets used to doing things their own way all the time -- it's easy to lose sight of how life comes in many different flavors.

 

Well said!!

 

Turns out it was a Valid Hider and a real hide. Wow there must be a bunch of embarrassed cachers in your area.

lol... this thread has gotten so bizarre I can't even tell if you're being facetious anymore. Acting as the unappointed spokesmodel for the local geocachers, I can tell you that NO ONE is embarrassed. Everyone except me and Hallycat have moved on. (I don't know what her excuse is... but I've got a few minutes to kill before the Yankees-Rangers game )

I have 2500 finds in 26 different states, and I am satisfied that this was NOT a new hider just playing the game differently. If you believe what this hider has been saying on the cache page, I'd love to play poker with you. I'd have all your money in an hour.

 

It's like a train wreck like someone said earlier. I will cease and desist. I have better things to do....really...I just downloaded Angry Birds to my iPhone

 

Oh yeah, and the ballgame is on.

Edited October 20, 2010 by hallycat

[Clan Riffster]

Acting as the unappointed spokesmodel for the local geocachers, I can tell you that NO ONE is embarrassed.

There's a shocker.

[+briansnat]

Another fine example of locals spreading the love:

"Personally I'm dubious as to whether this is even a real cache ... there is no description of container type or size, no clues and no finds after 11 people have searched?

To the person who hid it ... you need to go back and see if it's still there, I don't think it is."

That's from the 8th DNF. What arrogance. Is he seriously telling a cache owner that he has to run off and check the cache simply because it hasn't been found? Is the entitlement mentality so entrenched with these folks that they can't tolerate a cacher who is better at hiding than they are at finding?

 

I think it is reasonable to conclude that there may be issues with the cache after 11 consecutive DNFs, some by very experienced cachers, on a supposed 2.5 star difficulty hide.

Edited October 20, 2010 by briansnat

[Clan Riffster]

I think it is reasonable to conclude that there may be issues with the cache after 11 consecutive DNFs, some by very experienced cachers, on a supposed 2.5 star difficulty hide.

Perhaps I am just less of an entitlement junkie than those who sought the cache? When I look for a cache, I do so with the assumption that it is right where the cache page claims that it is, within the normal variances given by today's modern handheld GPSr units. If I fail to locate the cache, I assume that the cache owner is better at hiding things than I am at finding things. I certainly would not assume that a cache, with such a high difficulty rating, might have issues simply because I, (I consider myself to be a somewhat experienced cacher, with over a thousand finds and roughly 5 years spent playing), could not locate it. Unless you live in an area where the difficulty rating is consistently inflated, a 2.5 is supposed to be a challenge. When I ran the cache through the ClayJar D/T generator, my numbers were the same as the CO. Could he have bumped it up half a star to pacify those who were grumbling at failing? Sure. Should he have? Only if he wanted to.

 

Should those folks who turned his cache page into an insult forum apologize for their bad behavior? Absolutely.

 

Will they? Apparently not.

[+Castle Mischief]

Should those folks who turned his cache page into an insult forum apologize for their bad behavior? Absolutely.

 

Will they? Apparently not.

 

For the life of me, I don't know why the CO didn't delete the notes the locals posted.

[+L0ne.R]

Should those folks who turned his cache page into an insult forum apologize for their bad behavior? Absolutely.

 

Will they? Apparently not.

 

For the life of me, I don't know why the CO didn't delete the notes the locals posted.

 

Maybe he enjoyed the angst that he created.

[Clan Riffster]

For the life of me, I don't know why the CO didn't delete the notes the locals posted.

 

Maybe he enjoyed the angst that he created.

Looking at the time line, I'd say it was the locals who started the mud slinging.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I think it is reasonable to conclude that there may be issues with the cache after 11 consecutive DNFs, some by very experienced cachers, on a supposed 2.5 star difficulty hide.

Perhaps I am just less of an entitlement junkie than those who sought the cache? When I look for a cache, I do so with the assumption that it is right where the cache page claims that it is, within the normal variances given by today's modern handheld GPSr units. If I fail to locate the cache, I assume that the cache owner is better at hiding things than I am at finding things. I certainly would not assume that a cache, with such a high difficulty rating, might have issues simply because I, (I consider myself to be a somewhat experienced cacher, with over a thousand finds and roughly 5 years spent playing), could not locate it. Unless you live in an area where the difficulty rating is consistently inflated, a 2.5 is supposed to be a challenge. When I ran the cache through the ClayJar D/T generator, my numbers were the same as the CO. Could he have bumped it up half a star to pacify those who were grumbling at failing? Sure. Should he have? Only if he wanted to.

 

I guess that your neighborhood has not been overrun by new cachers with iPhones and Droids, which are often very inaccurate. I see such caches easily 50+ feet off target all the time. When that many experienced cachers cannot find a cache (especially with a rather easy rating), it is reasonable to question whether the coordinates are accurate.

 

Should those folks who turned his cache page into an insult forum apologize for their bad behavior? Absolutely.

 

Will they? Apparently not.

 

From my reading of the thread and the original (now deleted) logs it started out as friendly enough questions about the accuracy, even emails to the CO. These inquiries were met with taunts and jabs from the CO. The whole thing went downhill from there, which is very unfortunate as I agree that the log is no place to argue.

 

Have you read the thread yet? I recall you mentioning that you hadn't read it before jumping in earlier.

[Clan Riffster]

...(especially with a rather easy rating)...

Maybe that's the root of all this debate? The difficulty of that cache was a 2.5. That's not an easy rating, according to the ClayJar system. Heck, anyone that can count to 5 will tell you that 2.5 is halfway there, assuming a 1 is right in your face and a 5 is going to take several days to find. Halfway on that scale would be pretty darn challenging, and apparently it was. If I go hunting, knowing that a hide is going to be a challenge, and I fail to find it, and the owner has responded saying the coords are good, (which he did), I'm going to look harder. Wasn't that the advice he offered? At this point, I have to wonder if that area has been bombarded with inflated D/T ratings, if folks walk up to a 2.5 thinking it'll be easy. Personally, I think it was accurate, given the way the whole rating system is subjective. I would also think a 3 would be accurate, though that would be on the more difficult end of the spectrum.

 

Have you read the thread yet?

Yup. Read it. Shook my head in embarrassment at the way the locals treated the CO.

[+briansnat]

For the life of me, I don't know why the CO didn't delete the notes the locals posted.

 

Maybe he enjoyed the angst that he created.

Looking at the time line, I'd say it was the locals who started the mud slinging.

 

Mud slinging? They were only questioning the existence of a supposed 2.5 star difficulty cache. Had the CO rated it correctly in the first place, perhaps none of this would have happened. Instead he insisted that the rating was correct. His intransigence in this matter and his taunts contributed to the situation.

 

When you are new to an activity (regardless of what it is) and a good number of experienced participants tell you are wrong, is it reasonable to disregard their input? If it were me, I would certainly not be so haughty as to dismiss the input of experienced participants. I suspect you wouldn't either.

Edited October 21, 2010 by briansnat

[+CTForester]

Denton, The home of happiness. Someone will get that one. I hope.

 

Dammit Janet!

[Clan Riffster]

Mud slinging?

Yes. You read it correctly. Mud slinging. The locals were disputing the cache owners honesty and integrity, which, (if they are really whiny), is perfectly acceptable behavior amongst themselves. They could gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes, in PMs, to one another, firing up the local Entitlement Junkie Network, and no one would have said a thing. But to spew such idiocy on a cache page is reprehensible. Does that mean I think the CO is entirely blameless? No, it does not. But he was not the primary antagonist in this foolishness. Those would be the local cachers whose pride wouldn't let them see that maybe, just maybe, there was someone who was better at hiding than they were at finding. They drew first blood. I remember a book I read a while back; "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten". Robert Fulghum, I believe? Lots of good life lessons there, including the need to apologize when you are wrong. I'm betting the locals never read that book.

 

Had the CO rated it correctly in the first place...

I believe you have mentioned a few gazillion times in the past that the ClayJar D/T rating system is subjective. Shall we do the math again? A 2.5 is halfway between 1 & 5. Even the locals should be able to figure out that halfway between "As easy as it gets" and "Dang near impossible" is going to be challenging. Heck, Even the ClayJar system says a 2.5 is challenging. It was a blinky under a brick. How would this rate anything higher than a 2.5? Unless, of course, your area is so inundated with overly inflated D/T ratings that you think a film can under a lamp post kilt should be a 2. After seeing the cache, I ran it through the ClayJar system. I got a 2.5. Would you say I am inexperienced? While I haven't been playing as long as you have, I think that 5 years and almost 1500 finds would teach me something. Perhaps that's because I am still willing and able to learn? That's a lesson the locals could benefit from.

[Clan Riffster]

Dammit Janet!

Janet! Dr Scott! Janet! Brad! Rocky! (ugh..)

[+scaramedic]

Great Scott!!!!

[+John in Valley Forge]

Mud slinging?

Yes. You read it correctly. Mud slinging. The locals were disputing the cache owners honesty and integrity, which, (if they are really whiny), is perfectly acceptable behavior amongst themselves. They could gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes, in PMs, to one another, firing up the local Entitlement Junkie Network, and no one would have said a thing. But to spew such idiocy on a cache page is reprehensible. Does that mean I think the CO is entirely blameless? No, it does not. But he was not the primary antagonist in this foolishness. Those would be the local cachers whose pride wouldn't let them see that maybe, just maybe, there was someone who was better at hiding than they were at finding. They drew first blood. I remember a book I read a while back; "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten". Robert Fulghum, I believe? Lots of good life lessons there, including the need to apologize when you are wrong. I'm betting the locals never read that book.

 

Had the CO rated it correctly in the first place...

I believe you have mentioned a few gazillion times in the past that the ClayJar D/T rating system is subjective. Shall we do the math again? A 2.5 is halfway between 1 & 5. Even the locals should be able to figure out that halfway between "As easy as it gets" and "Dang near impossible" is going to be challenging. Heck, Even the ClayJar system says a 2.5 is challenging. It was a blinky under a brick. How would this rate anything higher than a 2.5? Unless, of course, your area is so inundated with overly inflated D/T ratings that you think a film can under a lamp post kilt should be a 2. After seeing the cache, I ran it through the ClayJar system. I got a 2.5. Would you say I am inexperienced? While I haven't been playing as long as you have, I think that 5 years and almost 1500 finds would teach me something. Perhaps that's because I am still willing and able to learn? That's a lesson the locals could benefit from.

 

Is it that much different than the way you are spewing insults here at every person that does not "Respect Your Authoritie" as Cartman would say, and accept your opinion as fact.

 

I still don't understand your obsession with the word Entitlement and how it applies here. I suppose I never will.

Edited October 21, 2010 by John in Valley Forge

[+briansnat]

I believe you have mentioned a few gazillion times in the past that the ClayJar D/T rating system is subjective. Shall we do the math again? A 2.5 is halfway between 1 & 5. Even the locals should be able to figure out that halfway between "As easy as it gets" and "Dang near impossible" is going to be challenging. Heck, Even the ClayJar system says a 2.5 is challenging. It was a blinky under a brick. How would this rate anything higher than a 2.5? Unless, of course, your area is so inundated with overly inflated D/T ratings that you think a film can under a lamp post kilt should be a 2. After seeing the cache, I ran it through the ClayJar system. I got a 2.5. Would you say I am inexperienced? While I haven't been playing as long as you have, I think that 5 years and almost 1500 finds would teach me something. Perhaps that's because I am still willing and able to learn? That's a lesson the locals could benefit from.

 

A cache that stymies all searchers including ones with extensive experience is much closer to "dang near impossible" than a 2. If I see a 2.5 difficulty I expect to see mostly finds along with some DNFs. 2.5 is just a notch above "The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting." So if nobody can find it including highly experienced cachers, some of whom made multiple trips, it's a 2.5? Nah.

Edited October 22, 2010 by briansnat

[Mr.Yuck]

Denton, The home of happiness. Someone will get that one. I hope.

 

Dammit Janet!

 

Hey thanks. Only took a week.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I believe you have mentioned a few gazillion times in the past that the ClayJar D/T rating system is subjective. Shall we do the math again? A 2.5 is halfway between 1 & 5. Even the locals should be able to figure out that halfway between "As easy as it gets" and "Dang near impossible" is going to be challenging. Heck, Even the ClayJar system says a 2.5 is challenging. It was a blinky under a brick. How would this rate anything higher than a 2.5? Unless, of course, your area is so inundated with overly inflated D/T ratings that you think a film can under a lamp post kilt should be a 2. After seeing the cache, I ran it through the ClayJar system. I got a 2.5. Would you say I am inexperienced? While I haven't been playing as long as you have, I think that 5 years and almost 1500 finds would teach me something. Perhaps that's because I am still willing and able to learn? That's a lesson the locals could benefit from.

 

A cache that stymies all searchers including ones with extensive experience is much closer to "dang near impossible" than a 2. If I see a 2.5 difficulty I expect to see mostly finds along with some DNFs. 2.5 is just a notch above "The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting." So if nobody can find it including highly experienced cachers, some of whom made multiple trips, it's a 2.5? Nah.

 

I hadn't thought of looking for it that way.

 

I just created a pocket query on a city in Illinois and set it to return a list of traditional caches which a difficulty of exactly 2.5. I randomly clicked on 2 or 3 from the first few pages on the listing and came up with the following Find/DNF numbers:

 

10/0

77/11

21/6

28/1

107/13

35/2

4/9 (3 of the DNFs mentioned calling off their search due to poison ivy)

35/2

19/0

14/1

 

I suspect that if you picked almost any location in the world and did a pocket query to show caches with a 2.5 difficulty the found/dnf ratios would be about the same. Next, I did a PQ with a center point in a town in LI, but set the cache difficulty to 4. Randomly picking a couple of caches from the first few pages I got.

 

30/2

29/4

131/2

108/6

35/16

12/2

80/25/

12/19

91/3

 

IMHO, the Find/DNF ratio is probably is a lot more accurate indicator of the relative difficulty, so with 0 finds and 14 DNFs I'm going to have an awfully hard time being convinced that it was rated correctly.

[+Ashallond]

a Difficulty 3 geocache in the foothills of Nevada is MUCH harder than a diff. 4 that I have seen in Arkansas where I live. I asked the CO after he took me up the mountain in a 4x4 jeep if this wa sa typical 3, and he said no, many people would put it as a 2.5 because you could still see the city below.

 

Difficulty is different area by area. people should realize this.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

a Difficulty 3 geocache in the foothills of Nevada is MUCH harder than a diff. 4 that I have seen in Arkansas where I live. I asked the CO after he took me up the mountain in a 4x4 jeep if this wa sa typical 3, and he said no, many people would put it as a 2.5 because you could still see the city below.

 

Difficulty is different area by area. people should realize this.

 

That sounds like you're talking about the terrain rating, not the difficulty rating. I've found caches in 21 states and 10 countries and haven't noticed much of a difference in difficulty ratings from one place to another.

[+Big Doggie and Lil Pup]

Turns out it was a Valid Hider and a real hide. Wow there must be a bunch of embarrassed cachers in your area.

 

Wow, seven pages of this and I took a look at some of the online cache logs, whew that is some argument!

The thing definitely went too far and tempers got too hot. Both sides are to blame, regardless of a cache being there. There is no reason to be attacking, put downs and yelling in caps.

 

Until Geocaching.com has a Nano tag, (when making a cache) the cache owners should mention the size of container so people have an idea what they're looking for.

 

I don't see this new guy doing anymore caching or at least in that area with what has happened.

[+SixDogTeam]

There is no reason to be attacking, put downs and yelling in caps.

 

 

IT'S WHAT WE DO, MAMBIE-PAMBIE!!

[Clan Riffster]

2.5 is just a notch above "The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting."

True. It is also just a notch under

"Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."

which is the initial ClayJar definition of a 3, and

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

which is the Groundspeak definition of a 3.

I can't envision anyone, (with an open mind), taking more than a couple hours to find that.

A couple hours falls a little short of "most of an afternoon", making the 2.5 rating accurate.

With the subjectivity of the D/T system, I would have also accepted a 3 as an accurate rating.

To me, for that cache, a 2 would be too low, and a 3.5 would be too high.

 

Our debate on this matter tells me we may be coming at this from two entirely different perspectives.

 

You see the cache hunting process as integral in determining the D/T rating of a cache. I can't say you are wrong, as many of our peers agree with you. In your eyes, if I create a 1/1, and experienced cachers DNF it, their failure somehow automatically bumps the D/T rating up. It's a strong argument, and one I can't dismiss lightly, as I respect you and agree with your reasoning in most things. You've been playing this game longer than I have.

 

However, I am coming at this from a slightly different angle. I see the D/T rating as something that is established, by the cache owner, during the submission process, based on their knowledge of the cache. Going back to that same hypothetical 1/1 I mentioned. In my eyes, it's a 1/1 because that's what the ClarJar system, and the Groundspeak definitions, say it was, based on the actual hide itself, not the hunts that come later. Naturally, this is subject to change if the actual conditions of the cache and/or general area change, but that didn't happen in this case. I can't see how a bunch of locals, (even tantrum throwing childish locals like those guys), failing to search thoroughly, because they decided to arrive at ground zero with their assumptions firmly in place, changes the set D/T rating. In the end, it's just a blinky under a brick. The picture showed it pretty clearly. I imagine several of the locals lifted the brick, glancing down, but none of them noticed the unnaturally round object in the sand. To me, that speaks to a failure on their part, not a failure of the D/T rating.

 

Just a different perspective.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Clan Riffster

[+M 5]

I'm pleasantly surprised when a cache is harder than i thought it would be. I much rather have it that way than easier than I expected. That being said, I doubt the cache was as easy to see as the picture posted by the CO leads you to believe. I'm sure it was covered by loose dirt that had to be brushed off. A friend of the CO pretty much confirmed that in a post after the hide was revealed. I still don't get all the angst about rating. I would get it if I hunted for it and really thought it wasn't there, but unless I have a reason to believe it is gone I'll just hunt harder. Some hunters would argue that they had good reason to believe it wasn't there, but that's for each to figure out for themselves. I like how some get on their moral high-horse and say it shouldn't be there (and it probably shouldn't), but If they are going to play that card, then they should only hunt caches that specifically state they were hidden with permission. If you choose to hunt for it, you should not harm anything in the area. I used to believe that cachers were a very respectful lot when I first started and thought they would always leave an area better, or at least the same, as when they found it. I no longer feel that way, actually quite the opposite.

[+TomToad]

I have to agree with Riffster here. We really can't know if the cache was properly rated because no one found the cache. I mentioned before about caches being DNFed one after another until someone finds it, then the finds start to stack up.

 

If the cache had not been archived, eventually someone would've found it; someone going with a more opened mind, or someone who didn't read the cache logs and didn't know about the string of DNFs. Then everyone would know that the cache really was there, the finds would start being logged, and then the find to DNF ratio would better illustrate the true difficulty of the cache.

 

I just recently had to phone a friend on a lamppost hide. The CO never does lamppost hides, so I didn't expect it to be there. I actually looked there early on just to eliminate that chance that it might be there, but I didn't see it. My expectations of what the CO would hide closed my mind to the fact there was a cache there. Only after PAF, did I look there with the proper frame of mind and found the film can. If a cacher with near 500 finds can miss a lampost hide, then how easilly could an experienced cacher miss a nano under a brick when he already has his mind set that it is not there?

 

I have found that experience has actually been more of a hinderence than a help. As my expectations become more defined, the more easily I look over obvious, but unique hides. Sometimes when i can't find a cache, I step back and try to clear my mind. Then quite often find the cache and think, "Why didn't I look there first?"

 

The list that NYPaddleCacher posted seems it might indicate the cache was under rated, but I wonder about the distribution of those DNFs? I have seen caches with a ratio similar to 100/10, but 8 of those DNFs are within the first couple of months. After people begin to trust that the cache isn't missing, and as the PAF network grows, the finds start being logged more often and the DNFs less often. If I get some time this afternoon,I might see if the pattern follows with the caches NYPC refers to.