Ratings systems for caches

[+Odek]

Would implementing a rating system to determine the difficulty/terrain score be a good idea? I think it could be applied when you log the cache. This would get rid of some of those caches that are rated completely wrong. The ratings would be an average of the finder's ratings, not just one rating by the person who put it there. I find it hard sometimes to rate a cache that has a special maneuver to it or something like that.

 

The only problem I see with that is that people could go around rating them 5/5 all the time, but some sort of suspension from rating could solve that issue.

[+StarBrand]

This has been discussed many times and the general consensus is that it would probably not help things much.

 

There is already wide regional differences in the ratings. A terrain 2 cache placed by a young athlete in the Black Hills of South Dakota 45 feet down an over grown slope might easily get a 4 in Eastern Nebraska when placed by an elderly couple. Nothing really wrong with either rating, perception rules. A wide variety of finders from different regions is going to likely result in a range of values being selected - the averager won't have a lot meaning to the next guy coming along.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Here are some previous discussions in case you want to read what others have said previously.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...4&hl=rating

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...6&hl=rating

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...3&hl=rating

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...2&hl=rating

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...3&hl=rating

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...1&hl=rating

[+Walts Hunting]

This has been discussed many times and the general consensus is that it would probably not help things much.

 

Many other times is an understatement. This is one of the top qualifers for the beating a dead horse with a stick award.

[+niraD]

Motorcycle_Mama, those threads are about rating the quality of the caches you find, not about rating the difficulty/terrain of the caches you find.

 

Odek, as StarBrand pointed out, having finders rate the difficulty/terrain of a cache has been suggested before. I'm on the side that thinks the cache owner should use the difficulty/terrain ratings to communicate with cache seekers. If you come across a cache that you think is misrated, then mention the discrepancy in your log. You might even contact the cache owner directly. But it should be up to the cache owner to change the rating (or not).

[+ace862]

One man's mountain may be another man's molehill.

[+DarkZen]

One man's mountain may be another man's molehill.

I agree. I recently placed a cache that is near parking off of a developed path. The cache is on a social trail - flat, no under brush about 20 feet off of the main trail. I generously rated this cache a 2 terrain and sure enough right off the bat I was told it should be a 3. This is a cache that should take about 15 minutes round trip. Not complaining, just sayin'.

[+Odek]

I hid a cache that you could get to within a few inches of it by wheelchair, but it requires you to hang off the side of a bridge to get it. I gave it about a 3 terrain, but I was told by some people that it should be higher. There are no guidelines for terrain rating that has to do with climbing trees or anything.

 

Averaging the cache ratings will still give a more accurate description even if someone made a mountain out of a molehill.

[+briansnat]

The rating system we have now works fine if people would only use it. Also cache owners need to be responsive to feedback. Some are. I recall finding a cache that had a 4 star terrain rating. It was an old cache so I assume it had that rating since it was placed. I mentioned in my log that I thought it was closer to a 2.5 or 3 at most and next time I looked it was changed to 3.

 

There is a variation from region to region. When I get comments that my terrain ratings are way too low, it is usually from out of state cachers, but my terrain ratings are in line with most of the other cacher in the area and I think we adhere to the accepted definitions.

 

I found a cache that was 50 feet from a parking lot, up the side of a somewhat steep hill but nothing to write home about and required that you jump over a narrow, water filled ditch (if I could jump it, most people could) and negotiate a few down trees. It was rated 4.5 stars for terrain. Another time I found a cache that required a bushwack through the woods down a steep hill side, several stream crossings and crossing a swamp by stepping on stones and clumps of swamp grass. It was rated 1 star for terrain. I'm not sure where these people are getting their ratings but it certainly isn't from the accepted definitions.

Edited November 22, 2010 by briansnat

[+Walts Hunting]

Let's not forget that changing the difficulty downward for caches that start out too high can affect someones challenge. The sudden appearance of the empty square in the stats where there was a cache before can be a big surprise.

[+M 5]

Let's not forget that changing the difficulty downward for caches that start out too high can affect someones challenge. The sudden appearance of the empty square in the stats where there was a cache before can be a big surprise.

 

Don't know about other cache stat generators, but you can lock in your D/T in GSAK. If the cache owner changes it, it won't matter.

[+BlueDeuce]

The rating system we have now works fine if people would only use it. Also cache owners need to be responsive to feedback. Some are. I recall finding a cache that had a 4 star terrain rating. It was an old cache so I assume it had that rating since it was placed. I mentioned in my log that I thought it was closer to a 2.5 or 3 at most and next time I looked it was changed to 3.

 

There is a variation from region to region. When I get comments that my terrain ratings are way too low, it is usually from out of state cachers, but my terrain ratings are in line with most of the other cacher in the area and I think we adhere to the accepted definitions.

 

I found a cache that was 50 feet from a parking lot, up the side of a somewhat steep hill but nothing to write home about and required that you jump over a narrow, water filled ditch (if I could jump it, most people could) and negotiate a few down trees. It was rated 4.5 stars for terrain. Another time I found a cache that required a bushwack through the woods down a steep hill side, several stream crossings and crossing a swamp by stepping on stones and clumps of swamp grass. It was rated 1 star for terrain. I'm not sure where these people are getting their ratings but it certainly isn't from the accepted definitions.

 

We've got a local LPC cache that was bumped up to a 4.5/1 because a muggle encounter. A few of us mentioned that it really wasn't worth that high of a rating.

 

Nothing has changed since then.

Edited November 22, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+M 5]

We've got a liars cache that is probably a 1.5/1 that is rated a 5/5. Not really much of a point to that since ALR's were disallowed.

[+BlueDeuce]

So, I would have to say that the majority of caches have the D/T listed accurately (or close enough) and the majority of caches that are initially listed inaccurately are adjusted after a few polite postings.

 

While there are a few that really need to be fixed, in my opinion it's not necessary to have the public rate the D/T for the owner.

[+bflentje]

Let's not forget that changing the difficulty downward for caches that start out too high can affect someones challenge. The sudden appearance of the empty square in the stats where there was a cache before can be a big surprise.

 

As a guy that hides a lot of caches AND participates in as many challenges as possible, adjusting ratings so that they are more accurate is much more important than some chumps cache stats. I say too darn bad.

[+narcissa]

Let's not forget that changing the difficulty downward for caches that start out too high can affect someones challenge. The sudden appearance of the empty square in the stats where there was a cache before can be a big surprise.

 

That is not the cache owner's concern. The cache owner should strive to keep the cache description as accurate as possible, without reference to somebody else's stats.

[+rockotter]

I figure people can put what they want...what matters to me is the cache, not the rating. Although I was a little surprised that Peak-A-Boo: Mt. Whitney was only a terrain of 4.5...I would think 11 miles to get there and close to 7,000 ft of elevation gain would warrant a 5/5!

[+StarBrand]

I figure people can put what they want...what matters to me is the cache, not the rating. Although I was a little surprised that Peak-A-Boo: Mt. Whitney was only a terrain of 4.5...I would think 11 miles to get there and close to 7,000 ft of elevation gain would warrant a 5/5!

Well maybe a terrain 5 although that is usually reserved for caches that require special equipment. You certainly don't give enough information to determine the difficulty of the hide once you arrive there.

[+rockotter]

I figure people can put what they want...what matters to me is the cache, not the rating. Although I was a little surprised that Peak-A-Boo: Mt. Whitney was only a terrain of 4.5...I would think 11 miles to get there and close to 7,000 ft of elevation gain would warrant a 5/5!

Well maybe a terrain 5 although that is usually reserved for caches that require special equipment. You certainly don't give enough information to determine the difficulty of the hide once you arrive there.

 

Oh, the hide was nothing special, although anyone who does it would find the cache memorable (it is the highest cache within the continental U.S). And no, special equipment is not required, so I guess that's why its a 4.5.