Ratings changed after the find

[+rcm999]

I recently made a find, and so did several others, where the CO had one rating and now the rating has changed considerably. The cache is still the same. On the listing page, no explanation was offered. Which rating will stand in my profile?

[+Chokecherry]

Like on the page where it says the caches you found? The new rating will be there.

[+narcissa]

Do you mean the terrain and difficulty rating? Why would it matter that it changed? Cache owners should strive to keep their cache pages as accurate and informative as possible.

[+secretagentbill]

Sometimes after a few people find a cache, the owner gets a little bit of feedback and realizes that it was harder/easier than expected, so they change the ratings. Stats should always pull the current info, I think. After all, that's probably the most accurate (unless the owner was changing them inexplicably).

[+wimseyguy]

The listing and cache are owned by the cacher who placed it. They can make whatever changes they deem necessary. Your profile simply links back to their cache listing.

 

Did you try asking the CO why he changed it first, before posting in here which will only result in conjecture and guessing? We don't even know what cache you are asking about-how could we possibly know his motives?

[+briansnat]

Rating change. I frequently change ratings in response to feedback. The current rating is always in your statistics.

[+mwellman]

One day we looked at our profile page and there was a blank spot where none had been before! The cache owner had moved their muggled cache and had changed the ratings accordingly. We are working on our local Fizzy Challenge (all difficulty/terrain combinations) so we had to find another cache for that spot. It happens and so now I make sure that I know where a back-up cache might be, just in case.

 

Congratulations on your 5/5!

 

Enjoy your Geocaching Adventures!

[+M 5]

I know some people that change them with the seasons. I use GSAK and FindStatGen. You can lock them in GSAK, so the D/T won't change and keep your stats the same.

[Clan Riffster]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

[+narcissa]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

 

I certainly hope that cache owners have the sense to place cache page accuracy in higher priority than some "challenge" that treats terrain and difficulty ratings as awards.

[Clan Riffster]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

 

I certainly hope that cache owners have the sense to place cache page accuracy in higher priority than some "challenge" that treats terrain and difficulty ratings as awards.

I certainly hope that a cache owner who creates a 3.5/4, based on the cache placement as indicated in the ClayJar system and Groundspeak definitions, have the sense to not change that accurate rating, (possibly affecting folks who are working on a D/T challenge), just because someone failed to find the cache, or found it quicker than the average cacher.

[+briansnat]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

 

I certainly hope that cache owners have the sense to place cache page accuracy in higher priority than some "challenge" that treats terrain and difficulty ratings as awards.

I certainly hope that a cache owner who creates a 3.5/4, based on the cache placement as indicated in the ClayJar system and Groundspeak definitions, have the sense to not change that accurate rating, (possibly affecting folks who are working on a D/T challenge), just because someone failed to find the cache, or found it quicker than the average cacher.

 

It's not a good idea make a change based on the results of a single person. But if the majority of searchers report an experience out of line with the difficulty and/or terrain, they most certainly should be adjusted.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

 

I certainly hope that cache owners have the sense to place cache page accuracy in higher priority than some "challenge" that treats terrain and difficulty ratings as awards.

I certainly hope that a cache owner who creates a 3.5/4, based on the cache placement as indicated in the ClayJar system and Groundspeak definitions, have the sense to not change that accurate rating, (possibly affecting folks who are working on a D/T challenge), just because someone failed to find the cache, or found it quicker than the average cacher.

 

It's not a good idea make a change based on the results of a single person. But if the majority of searchers report an experience out of line with the difficulty and/or terrain, they most certainly should be adjusted.

[+wimseyguy]

And we base our ratings decisions on what our own experiences are.

A while back I hid a few caches that I thought were pretty routine and rated them accordingly. But when more than a few cachers with less experience than I had at the time mentioned that they thought the caches were underrated I added .5* to the D.

 

If this affects someone who is working on a challenge, so be it. It is more important to have caches properly rated for the benefit of Mr. Kite future seekers.

[Clan Riffster]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

 

I certainly hope that cache owners have the sense to place cache page accuracy in higher priority than some "challenge" that treats terrain and difficulty ratings as awards.

I certainly hope that a cache owner who creates a 3.5/4, based on the cache placement as indicated in the ClayJar system and Groundspeak definitions, have the sense to not change that accurate rating, (possibly affecting folks who are working on a D/T challenge), just because someone failed to find the cache, or found it quicker than the average cacher.

 

It's not a good idea make a change based on the results of a single person. But if the majority of searchers report an experience out of line with the difficulty and/or terrain, they most certainly should be adjusted.

Unless, of course, the D/T rating was correct from the beginning, and the searchers were wrong in their approach.

Seems like we've seen that before, eh?

[+tozainamboku]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

 

I certainly hope that cache owners have the sense to place cache page accuracy in higher priority than some "challenge" that treats terrain and difficulty ratings as awards.

I certainly hope that a cache owner who creates a 3.5/4, based on the cache placement as indicated in the ClayJar system and Groundspeak definitions, have the sense to not change that accurate rating, (possibly affecting folks who are working on a D/T challenge), just because someone failed to find the cache, or found it quicker than the average cacher.

The bigger problem with challenge caches is where some cache owners intentionally misrate their caches in order to provide regionally rare D/T ratings for people to use for the challenge. As far as I'm concerned, fizzy challenges are no longer meaningful (if they ever were) because people make up ratings to provide opportunities to meet the challenge instead of using the correct ratings. Of course I don't like alphabet challenges either because they promote atrocious spelling and cache names that have nothing to do with the cache or the location. IMO, we should get rid of challenge caches since they are degrading the game

[+dfx]

As far as I'm concerned, fizzy challenges are no longer meaningful (if they ever were) because people make up ratings to provide opportunities to meet the challenge instead of using the correct ratings. Of course I don't like alphabet challenges either because they promote atrocious spelling and cache names that have nothing to do with the cache or the location. IMO, we should get rid of challenge caches since they are degrading the game

not all challenge caches suffer from that problem though. the best setups (IMO anyway) are those which are geographically and chronologically independent and don't use any of the easily user-changeable parameters of a cache listing. cache-a-day challenges or clean-sweep challenges are examples.

[+Avernar]

The bigger problem with challenge caches is where some cache owners intentionally misrate their caches in order to provide regionally rare D/T ratings for people to use for the challenge. As far as I'm concerned, fizzy challenges are no longer meaningful (if they ever were) because people make up ratings to provide opportunities to meet the challenge instead of using the correct ratings.

That's why some fizzy challenges have the "only caches published before this one" rule to prevent that sort of thing. But that has sparked a large debate in another thread.

 

Having the D/T change be a log entry like the position change would solve this issue completely.

[+dfx]

That's why some fizzy challenges have the "only caches published before this one" rule to prevent that sort of thing. But that has sparked a large debate in another thread.

it's the fundamental flaw of the fizzy challenges. either it keeps getting easier over time, or it keeps getting harder. it's never really fair.

[+Avernar]

it's the fundamental flaw of the fizzy challenges. either it keeps getting easier over time, or it keeps getting harder. it's never really fair.

Only if you're competing against someone. Geocaching isn't a competition, is it?

[+dfx]

it's the fundamental flaw of the fizzy challenges. either it keeps getting easier over time, or it keeps getting harder. it's never really fair.

Only if you're competing against someone. Geocaching isn't a competition, is it?

i agree, but obviously a lot of people are concerned about it, otherwise there would be no discussion.

[+Team Dromomania]

Sometimes change is good. Once I found a standard LPH with a terrain rating of 3.5 and another time after several attempts I found a cache hidden on the side of a cliff (scary climb required) with a terrain rating of 1.0. The CO's changing those made me happy.

[+Team Dromomania]

Duplicate.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Team Dromomania

[+Don_J]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

 

I certainly hope that cache owners have the sense to place cache page accuracy in higher priority than some "challenge" that treats terrain and difficulty ratings as awards.

 

The only time that I have changed ratings is when my cache is in it's infancy. If it is obvious from the comments of the first five finders that I have badly over/under estimated the ratings, I will change them. This affects very few people. If a cache has a 100 finds on it, I can't think of any reason why it should be changed. If I made a change to the cache itself that would warrant such a thing, I would archive the cache and create a new listing.

[+Don_J]

 

The bigger problem with challenge caches is where some cache owners intentionally misrate their caches in order to provide regionally rare D/T ratings for people to use for the challenge.

 

You mean like the 5/5 that was at an event at a pizza pub?

[+captnemo]

I've changed rating several times on my caches as things change. Such as road washing out, Bridge closed for repair, Bridge repaired.

 

Oh, and I post a note to explain what and why.

Edited November 2, 2010 by captnemo

[+M 5]

 

The bigger problem with challenge caches is where some cache owners intentionally misrate their caches in order to provide regionally rare D/T ratings for people to use for the challenge.

 

You mean like the 5/5 that was at an event at a pizza pub?

 

or liars caches. I like the stories in liars caches, just not the ones that have false D/T ratings.

[+narcissa]

 

I certainly hope that a cache owner who creates a 3.5/4, based on the cache placement as indicated in the ClayJar system and Groundspeak definitions, have the sense to not change that accurate rating, (possibly affecting folks who are working on a D/T challenge), just because someone failed to find the cache, or found it quicker than the average cacher.

 

Whether or not it affects people working on some "challenge" should not be a factor in a cache owner's decision to change the terrain and difficulty rating.

 

The Clayjar system is useful in some situations, but flawed, and it is not prescribed in the guidelines. Soliciting advice from the first few finders - especially experienced finders - is a far better way to ensure that the D/T ratings conform to local norms.

[Clan Riffster]

Soliciting advice from the first few finders - especially experienced finders - is a far better way to ensure that the D/T ratings conform to local norms.

My concern with this is the part about "Local Norms". Once you peck your way through the ClayJar D/T Generator, you get a set of definitions, from Groundspeak, regarding what each D/T rating means. Those definitions don't change simply because someone's geography changes. A cache which is a 2/2 in Tibet should also be a 2/2 in Hoboken, minus the subjectivity factor.

[+narcissa]

Soliciting advice from the first few finders - especially experienced finders - is a far better way to ensure that the D/T ratings conform to local norms.

My concern with this is the part about "Local Norms". Once you peck your way through the ClayJar D/T Generator, you get a set of definitions, from Groundspeak, regarding what each D/T rating means. Those definitions don't change simply because someone's geography changes. A cache which is a 2/2 in Tibet should also be a 2/2 in Hoboken, minus the subjectivity factor.

 

The Clayjar system is far from robust enough to ensure uniformity. A big part of the subjectivity inherent in that system is due to regional differences. I've noticed that cachers in mountainous areas seem to try to express more nuance within the scale than cachers in flatter regions, for example. The D/T scale itself is too simple and numerically short for global uniformity, so cachers naturally adjust the system for their area.

 

Remember, the Clayjar system is simply an admirable attempt to attach meaning to the D/T numbers. It's not required by the guidelines, and in many ways, it's flawed. While it can be a good starting point, it's not the only thing a good cache owner should consider when rating a cache.

 

Local norms are more important than adherence to the optional Clayjar system because local cachers will select or ignore your cache based on the ratings you give it. Experienced cachers are usually familiar with the Clayjar system and the local rating conventions, and can give much better advice about ratings than the Clayjar application alone.

 

Regardless, it is blatantly irresponsible to encourage a cache owner to keep a misleading cache rating because of a challenge cache. Keeping the D/T rating meaningful for new finders is obviously more important than somebody else's "matrix."

[+northernpenguin]

 

Whether or not it affects people working on some "challenge" should not be a factor in a cache owner's decision to change the terrain and difficulty rating.

 

 

Absolutely correct. When I place a cache, I am the cache owner. What I rate my cache, and what's in the description is in no way tied to what some other cacher does with their cache.

 

If you include my cache in your challenge or puzzle, it is up to YOU to keep up with the changes that occur on my cache. It is NOT up to me to ensure my cache is in compliance with an unknown number of caches that use it in some way.

[+redsox_mark]

Soliciting advice from the first few finders - especially experienced finders - is a far better way to ensure that the D/T ratings conform to local norms.

My concern with this is the part about "Local Norms". Once you peck your way through the ClayJar D/T Generator, you get a set of definitions, from Groundspeak, regarding what each D/T rating means. Those definitions don't change simply because someone's geography changes. A cache which is a 2/2 in Tibet should also be a 2/2 in Hoboken, minus the subjectivity factor.

 

Ideally, I agree; but there is an element of subjectivity in the Clayjar system itself. E.g. what someone in Tibet considers "Steep elevation changes", might be different than someone here in southern England.

[GPS-Hermit]

On a new cache I ask finder for feedback on the ratings and adjust if I agree with their reason. Also it is fine to say in the cache listing why you determined your rating. Tuff puzzle, one tuff hill, many places to look, great container. I have adjusted rating before but only about .5 to 1 point.

[Clan Riffster]

Regardless, it is blatantly irresponsible to encourage a cache owner to keep a misleading cache rating because of a challenge cache.

It is equally irresponsible to suggest someone change what they feel is an accurate D/T rating just because some mook couldn't find it.

[+narcissa]

Regardless, it is blatantly irresponsible to encourage a cache owner to keep a misleading cache rating because of a challenge cache.

It is equally irresponsible to suggest someone change what they feel is an accurate D/T rating just because some mook couldn't find it.

 

It's not irresponsible to mention your experience in your log or in a message to the owner. The owner shouldn't change the rating based on an outlying data point, but if there is consistent mention that the rating didn't match the cachers' experiences, the owner should look into it. Is the rating inconsistent with local norms? Are people taking a different route to get to the cache? Has the cache location changed? Are seasonal changes making the terrain easier or harder? Around here, heavy snow is the great terrain equalizer - easy caches become harder to get to, hard caches become easier to get to.

 

There are many factors to consider, but challenge caches should not be a factor in the rating.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I would change the rating on a new cache I placed, after getting feedback from cachers.

 

I would change the rating on a cache that was placed years ago if the vegetation has grown or the path is harder/easier.

 

I've done a few caches here that said T 1.5. By the time I did them (2-5 years later) the T was more a 2.5-3.5. They caught me a bit off guard because I hadn't properly planned for tougher T.

[+hzoi]

Had this happen many times, mostly from finds in places that did not yet have a well-rounded cacher/fizzy challenge (Germany, for example). All of them except for one decreased the overall D/T rating, one went as far as going from a 4.5/4.5 to a 2/2. (Of course, it always should have been a 2/2, and I knew that, so counting on it for WRC was a risk on my part.)

 

It's frustrating, but at the end of the day, they're not my caches, I can't do much about it.

 

For caches that get muggled/lost and are replaced in a significantly different area, thus requiring an adjustment to the D/T rating, I would much prefer the old listing be archived and a new listing be published in its place. Had to do that twice for one of our caches in Charlottesville. But different owners have different approaches. C'est la vie.

[+zsdeng15014]

 

The bigger problem with challenge caches is where some cache owners intentionally misrate their caches in order to provide regionally rare D/T ratings for people to use for the challenge.

 

You mean like the 5/5 that was at an event at a pizza pub?

 

or liars caches. I like the stories in liars caches, just not the ones that have false D/T ratings.

 

Can you give the GC code of some liars caches?

[+M 5]

 

The bigger problem with challenge caches is where some cache owners intentionally misrate their caches in order to provide regionally rare D/T ratings for people to use for the challenge.

 

You mean like the 5/5 that was at an event at a pizza pub?

 

or liars caches. I like the stories in liars caches, just not the ones that have false D/T ratings.

 

Can you give the GC code of some liars caches?

 

Alley Cat Liars GC1VNCC

Big Fat Liar! GC11Z37

Big Fat Liar! GC196P2

Fish Tales (A Liar’s Cache) GC1Q349

HNY10 - Why You bunch of LIARS GC21DC0

Liar GC1B5MH

Liar Liar! GC1DDM3

Liar Liar GC1FXR3

Liar Liar GC19W03

Liars Cache GCY36P

Liars' Cache GC5D2C

You Lousy Liar! GC1KN3K

....pants on fire GC2393A

 

and many others. Some are 5/5 some are not. Like I said before, I like the idea, just not the false ratings. Most, especially after the ALR's were removed, tell you that they are liars caches. The first few I saw were secretive and you had to follow the instructions in the cache itself or your find and log were deleted. The instructions said to lie about how difficult the cache was. I could see the reason back then at least for the 5/5 misrating, but now most imply or blatatly state that they are liars caches and have absolutely no reason to misrate. Except for cheap D/T numbers.

[+Renegade Knight]

Why would it matter that it changed?

The only time I can think of where changing the D/T would matter would be if it was a regionally rare D/T rating that folks were nabbing to fulfill some kind of Fizzy challenge. For instance, if there were only one 4.5/1 in a two hundred mile area, and folks had logged it to meet the challenge, once it got changed, the find would no longer qualify.

I suspect Fizzy would grandfather ya. At least if you knew which one changed. Especially if it was that critical one.