Stars Written in Stone?

[+BaylorGrad]

I'm not certain if this has been addressed before (I'm sure it has), but I'm still very curious.

 

I recently created a puzzle cache (GC2R9GD) that contains both a challenging puzzle and an even more challenging search for the final. I rated the cache a 3 difficulty / 1.5 terrain.

 

A few days later, only one individual had found the cache (and this town has a very active puzzle caching community). He solved the puzzle on his own, but needed help with the final--pretty unusual for someone with 5,000 finds, I would say! Anyway, on the next two days, I received two requests from experienced puzzle cachers asking for help on the puzzle.

 

As a result of these circumstances, I decided to raise the difficulty rating to a 3.5. Don't freak out--I checked to make sure that the FTF cacher's fizzy challenge wouldn't be impacted. (He has plenty 3/1.5 AND 3.5/1.5).

 

So with that said, do you think this is taboo? Should cache owners change star ratings, as long as they don't impact the ol' fizzy challenge? (I would never change the rating if it did.)

 

Let me extend the scenario a little. Let's say my same cache isn't found in a year. Is it appropriate to bump the rating up again? Should I just leave well enough alone?

 

BaylorGrad

[TheCacheSeeker]

Well, I think that it's okay to change the rating if appopriate, but I agree that messing up a cachers fizzy challenge isn't very nice.

If its not found in a year, I think it good enough to keep the rating where it is. After all, just 'cause no one found it doesn't raise the difficulty.(in my opinion at least)

 

Just my thoughts on this subject. Hope it helps.

[GOF and Bacall]

The ratings should reflect the the cache. If the CO has under or over rated the cache then the stars should be adjusted appropriately. It really should not matter who has what combination on their grid.

[+BaylorGrad]

Two very different answers--interesting.

 

I'm listening.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I was going to research "fizzy challenge" but decided to post uninformed on the subject to align w/ the average CO out there. If I underestimate a D or T, I owe it to future finders to correct it. I would be grateful that a CO did this for me at the expense of someone's fizz.

[+BaylorGrad]

Fizzy Challenge:

 

Completing the 9 x 9 grid that represents all combinations of difficulty / terrain ratings. From 1/1 to 5/5 and all the possible (81 total) combinations in between.

[knowschad]

Plenty of cachers working on the Fizzy Challenge will be angry with me for saying this, but in my opinion, any such challenge they decide to participate in is at their own risk. I have, and will continue, to change my difficulty and terrain ratings as appropriate. Only today, in fact, I checked up on an old cache of mine, to find that it had been moved 15 feet. The terrain was no longer as difficult as it used to be, but I felt that the new hiding spot was better, so I left it there, took a new reading and updated both the coordinates and the terrain rating. Sorry, but I didn't hide my cache for your fringe game.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Fizzy Challenge:

 

Completing the 9 x 9 grid that represents all combinations of difficulty / terrain ratings. From 1/1 to 5/5 and all the possible (81 total) combinations in between.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, there are surely other appropriately rated caches out there to fill the void.

[GOF and Bacall]

Let me expand a bit on my point. If there is a debate between 3 and 3.5 stars then it really is not a big deal either way. The ratings are very subjective by nature. If you think that you have missed it by a full star or more then change it. Let those who are looking for your cache know what to expect.

 

If you have a cache that has been in place for a while and you make changes or the local parks people pave a path to it and you need to make a large change in the ratings you should archive the cache and start over.

[GOF and Bacall]

Fizzy Challenge:

 

Completing the 9 x 9 grid that represents all combinations of difficulty / terrain ratings. From 1/1 to 5/5 and all the possible (81 total) combinations in between.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, there are surely other appropriately rated caches out there to fill the void.

 

Yes, there are. The problem comes when you run into some of the fringe combinations. Like 5/5. They can be few and far between. Some folks have even gone so far as to intentionally rating a cache wrong just so they can fill a missing grid space.

[+BaylorGrad]

Fizzy Challenge:

 

Completing the 9 x 9 grid that represents all combinations of difficulty / terrain ratings. From 1/1 to 5/5 and all the possible (81 total) combinations in between.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, there are surely other appropriately rated caches out there to fill the void.

 

Yes, there are. The problem comes when you run into some of the fringe combinations. Like 5/5. They can be few and far between. Some folks have even gone so far as to intentionally rating a cache wrong just so they can fill a missing grid space.

 

VERY true. For example, when I run a query for 1/5 caches "near me," the closest one is over 75 miles away.

[GOF and Bacall]

Fizzy Challenge:

 

Completing the 9 x 9 grid that represents all combinations of difficulty / terrain ratings. From 1/1 to 5/5 and all the possible (81 total) combinations in between.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, there are surely other appropriately rated caches out there to fill the void.

 

Yes, there are. The problem comes when you run into some of the fringe combinations. Like 5/5. They can be few and far between. Some folks have even gone so far as to intentionally rating a cache wrong just so they can fill a missing grid space.

 

VERY true. For example, when I run a query for 1/5 caches "near me," the closest one is over 75 miles away.

 

That is still no reason to misrepresent the difficulty or terrain.

[+edscott]

I'd rate my cache based on the merits of my cache.

[+Walts Hunting]

Plenty of cachers working on the Fizzy Challenge will be angry with me for saying this, but in my opinion, any such challenge they decide to participate in is at their own risk. I have, and will continue, to change my difficulty and terrain ratings as appropriate. Only today, in fact, I checked up on an old cache of mine, to find that it had been moved 15 feet. The terrain was no longer as difficult as it used to be, but I felt that the new hiding spot was better, so I left it there, took a new reading and updated both the coordinates and the terrain rating. Sorry, but I didn't hide my cache for your fringe game.

 

I'm with you dude. Your cache should be rated appropriately.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

I have a puzzle cache in the middle of nowhere on a steep mountainside. I initially designated it a 5/5.

The cache was found by 2 cachers together in September 2007. This year I decided that the puzzle was not too hard so I changed it to a 4.5/5. The 4.5 difficulty caches in Oregon seem to be more rare than 5's.

I've seen all kinds of puzzles rated at a 5. Some of them can be figured out in less than 10 minutes and some leave people baffled after 10 hours. I'm asking nicely-if the puzzle is not too hard, make it a 4.0 or 4.5 to help cachers trying to finish the Fizzy Challenge. I have 7 boxes to fill and own a couple of the boxes that I'm missing.

[Clan Riffster]

I'd rate my cache based on the merits of my cache.

That's my thoughts as well. While I'm not willing to have a cavalier attitude about buggering someone's fizzy challenge, the D/T should accurately match the hide. I'll add that someone with 5000 finds needing help, or a cache that sits feeling lonely for months at a time doesn't necessarily equate a change in the D/T.

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't think it is about anyone having "a cavalier attitude" about challenges.

[Clan Riffster]

I think I'm not reading my post the same way you are...

(Being dumber than a bag of hammers, this happens a lot)

[knowschad]

I don't think it is about anyone having "a cavalier attitude" about challenges.

Never did care about cavalier myself. Fish eggs are way too fishy tasting for my palette.

[+tozainamboku]

Once upon a time there was no fizzy challenge. There was not even such a thing as a challenge cache. Back in those days there was never an argument. If you felt your cache needed a different rating you changed it.

 

I don't really care that some people like challenge caches and worry about filling in some silly grid. My caches are going to be rated as I see fit to rate them and if I think the difficulty or terrain needs to changed then I will change it.

[+M 5]

If someone decided to rehide a cache, or the terrain changes and they subsequently change the D/T, I'll just lock it in GSAK to reflect what it was when I found it, if it really affects statistic that I care about. If they change it pretty quickly after they put it out from feedback, I'll leave it as they changed it too.

[+fizzymagic]

I wouldn't hesitate to re-rate a cache that didn't seem right. The only consideration for the Fizzy challenge stuff would be if the cache had an extremely rare rating, like 4.5/5 or something. But even then I would consider the first couple of months to be a trial period.

 

Ratings should be adjusted to be more accurate when possible.

 

On the other hand, I am not a big fan of the practice of releasing a puzzle at one rating, and then adding a hint and reducing the difficulty later. IMO, that cheats the early finders who did the harder version of "credit" for their effort.

[+niraD]

Here's another vote for keeping the difficulty and terrain ratings as accurate as possible. Their primary purpose is to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience to potential seekers. Any other use is purely secondary. If the nature of the geocache experience changes (or if your understanding of it changes), then you should update the ratings accordingly.

 

If someone wants to play a meta-game using the difficulty/terrain ratings (e.g., the Fizzy Challenge), then they need to deal with changes to the ratings.

[+MikeAndHike]

As a newbie to geocaching I hope that all of the star ratings are as accurate as possible because that is a huge factor as to whether or not I attempt it yet. So mark me down for a vote for the stars not being in stone!

[+Don_J]

Here's another vote for keeping the difficulty and terrain ratings as accurate as possible. Their primary purpose is to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience to potential seekers. Any other use is purely secondary. If the nature of the geocache experience changes (or if your understanding of it changes), then you should update the ratings accordingly.

 

If someone wants to play a meta-game using the difficulty/terrain ratings (e.g., the Fizzy Challenge), then they need to deal with changes to the ratings.

 

I agree, and I appreciate the accomplishment of those that have completed the Fizzy Challenge, fairly.

 

Let's be serious though. There are plenty of caches out that that are intentionally mis-rated so that a friend can fill in a difficult block in their grid. Heck, I have attended a 5/5 that was an event in a bowling alley. Weekend before last, eight of us got together to find a bunch of lonely roadside P&Gs. Almost all were rated 2/1.5, or 1.5/1.5. One was a 4/1.5. A film can under a rock pile, ten feet from the roads shoulder. We all kind of wondered what local cacher needed that combo.

 

Personally, I will adjust my ratings based on input from the first several finders. If that screws someone up on a challenge, too bad. I'm not going to screw up all of the future finders because one guy might have his grid affected.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Piling on here.

 

The ratings should describe the cache conditions as accurately as possible, and certainly can be altered if conditions warrant a change, or if you come to a different understanding about the difficulty of your puzzle or your hide.

[+A & J Tooling]

It's yours right? If you believe it needs changed, change it. If someone disagrees, let them argue it.

[+edscott]

I don't think it is about anyone having "a cavalier attitude" about challenges.

Never did care about cavalier myself. Fish eggs are way too fishy tasting for my palette.

 

Not only that but licking your palette can give you overdoses of mercury, cadmium and loads of other nasty things.

[+BaylorGrad]

Thanks everyone for the opinions, I appreciate it!

 

BaylorGrad

[+TeamDadcubed]

Newby here but doesn't the Fizzy challenge (it does in california) require your 81 slot caches to be published before the challenge cache's publication date?

[+kpanko]

As an analogy, imagine if we set speed limits on roads based on what other roads are near, and some people have a goal to drive on one road of each speed limit from 5 to 120 mph. Normally a particular road would be 75 mph, but this county needs a 110 mph road, so we'll just use that instead.

 

I think it's clear that a cache should be rated based on what it is. It might be hard to determine the best rating until after some people have already looked for it, so a new cache needs to have a trial period.

 

After a cache has been out there for a while and rated properly, then it should be rare to need to change the ratings. If the cache changes in a big way (like 100 feet away, or the hiding place has been destroyed), it should be archived and a new cache can start in the same general area.

 

Remember, the fizzy challenge is not going to be easy. That's why it's called a challenge!

[GOF and Bacall]

Newby here but doesn't the Fizzy challenge (it does in california) require your 81 slot caches to be published before the challenge cache's publication date?

 

Some do and some don't. It depends on who placed the challenge cache.

[+bflentje]

I am a geocacher that takes any and all challenges seriously. But the bottom line is, THE FIRST PRIORITY is that your cache listing is truthful, or as close to reality as you can get it. If that affects someone's Fizzy Challenge, TOO BAD. Don't care who blasts me so bring it on.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

First and foremost is that the D/T, description, and hint are as accurate as possible. Caches can change over time, so that information should be updated. If the changes are significant, the cache should be archived and a new listing created. Changing the D/T by a half star isn't really significant. Does it mess with stats? Sure, but that shouldn't stop you from keeping your cache page updated.

[+briansnat]

I think the ratings should accurately reflect the terrain and difficulty of the cache. As a cache owner sometimes its difficult to gauge the difficulty in particular. I've hidden caches that I thought would be a cinch find that people had trouble with and caches that I thought would be hard that were found fairly easily.

 

Feedback is a large part of what the what the logs are there for. If the feedback from the logs do not reflect the actual rating of the cache then I think the ratings should be updated.

 

Just yesterday I knocked a star off the terrain rating of one of my caches. It has been in place for over a year and when I placed the cache it involved a difficult bushwack, as there were no trails in the area. A trail was recently built that passes within 10 feet of the cache, making it a much easier walk. The old rating did not reflect the current situation so I updated it.

 

If I screw up someone's little side game, that is not my concern. The ratings aren't there to support these side games.

Edited April 18, 2011 by briansnat

[+TerraViators]

Probably should know this..but why is called 'fizzy?'

[+Sol seaker]

It's called "fizzy" because it was "fizzy magic" who started these types of challenge caches.

 

I'd love to eventually have my terrain/ difficulty chart filled in, but I am aware of the idea that caches change.

 

A cache difficulty should be based on the cache, NOT on the people who find it.

 

 

It is normal for caches to be adjusted as finders either find them easily or can't find them at all. It's not easy for the cache owner to determine all the time, what the difficulty is. After all, they placed it/ made the puzzle, so they know the answers.

 

The rating needs to reflect the cache. Change it to suit the cache, not who finds the cache.

[+A & J Tooling]

I had one recently with a rating of 3 for difficulty and as soon as I stepped out of my car, I said "Oh, there it is". and it was. How anyone rated it a three, I'll never know.

[+tozainamboku]

It's called "fizzy" because it was "fizzy magic" who started these types of challenge caches.

Not entirely true. fizzymagic did write some software (FindStats) early on that computed some statistics. Among other things, it tracked how many of the 81 combinations of terrain/difficulty you had found. In honor fizzymagic's work, Kealia hid the first Well Rounded Cacher challenge (and subtitled it the fizzy challenge). The name stuck.

[knowschad]

And then there is my "fuzzy" challenge where you have to find caches that are, were at one time, or may eventually be approximately the given rating for all or most of the spaces on a difficulty/terrain matrix. If you want to, that is.

Edited April 18, 2011 by knowschad

[+fizzymagic]

It's called "fizzy" because it was "fizzy magic" who started these types of challenge caches.

Not entirely true. fizzymagic did write some software (FindStats) early on that computed some statistics. Among other things, it tracked how many of the 81 combinations of terrain/difficulty you had found. In honor fizzymagic's work, Kealia hid the first Well Rounded Cacher challenge (and subtitled it the fizzy challenge). The name stuck.

That's true. Actually, Kealia hid it after we had a local discussion about how filling in all 81 combinations would be a cool thing to do. The idea of a challenge cache was not mine; that was all Kealia.

[+BaylorGrad]

^ Wow. Geocaching really is kinda a small world. At least the forums definitely are. How cool is that! I'm a newbie and get to chat with all these Geocaching legends!

[AZcachemeister]

Plenty of cachers working on the Fizzy Challenge will be angry with me for saying this, but in my opinion, any such challenge they decide to participate in is at their own risk. I have, and will continue, to change my difficulty and terrain ratings as appropriate. Only today, in fact, I checked up on an old cache of mine, to find that it had been moved 15 feet. The terrain was no longer as difficult as it used to be, but I felt that the new hiding spot was better, so I left it there, took a new reading and updated both the coordinates and the terrain rating. Sorry, but I didn't hide my cache for your fringe game.

 

+1

The ratings should reflect the true conditions.

Early on, they may need adjustment.

If that impacts someone's meta-game, tough cookies.

 

Sooner or later, someone will come along to provide a mis-rated cache to fill the void.

[+Ry Dawg]

 

So with that said, do you think this is taboo? Should cache owners change star ratings, as long as they don't impact the ol' fizzy challenge?

 

 

What exactly is the ol' fizzy challenge???

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

See post #6 above.

[+palmetto]

And then there is my "fuzzy" challenge where you have to find caches that are, were at one time, or may eventually be approximately the given rating for all or most of the spaces on a difficulty/terrain matrix. If you want to, that is.

 

mmm, Fuzzy Challenge, wouldn't this also need to involve some moving cache(s). Or at least some temporal shifting? I guess you could approximate a find as "plus or minus X miles from near wanting to find that cache", or something like that to achieve Proper Fuzziness.

 

I'll go check the Knowledge Books article.....

[+briansnat]

It's called "fizzy" because it was "fizzy magic" who started these types of challenge caches.

Not entirely true. fizzymagic did write some software (FindStats) early on that computed some statistics. Among other things, it tracked how many of the 81 combinations of terrain/difficulty you had found. In honor fizzymagic's work, Kealia hid the first Well Rounded Cacher challenge (and subtitled it the fizzy challenge). The name stuck.

That's true. Actually, Kealia hid it after we had a local discussion about how filling in all 81 combinations would be a cool thing to do. The idea of a challenge cache was not mine; that was all Kealia.

 

That's a good thing. Fizzy Challenge sounds so much better than Kealia Challenge.

[+hzoi]

To echo what's above: the Fizzy challenges normally have a "published before" due date to avoid cache owners stacking the deck. Some don't -- the Alabama one does not, for example, and as a result I know of a few caches out there with conveniently uncommon, and inflated, ratings. But I digress.

 

At any rate, there is always an adjustment period for new caches that are more than just park and grabs. A half star or star up or down is to be expected.

 

What I don't like is when a hard cache vanishes and the owner replaces it with an easy one and edits the listing. Wrong answer -- if you are substantially changing the character of the hide, it's a new cache, it needs a new listing.

[+niraD]

What exactly is the ol' fizzy challenge???

See http://cacheopedia.com/wiki/Fizzy_Challenge

[+roziecakes]

Plenty of cachers working on the Fizzy Challenge will be angry with me for saying this, but in my opinion, any such challenge they decide to participate in is at their own risk. I have, and will continue, to change my difficulty and terrain ratings as appropriate. Only today, in fact, I checked up on an old cache of mine, to find that it had been moved 15 feet. The terrain was no longer as difficult as it used to be, but I felt that the new hiding spot was better, so I left it there, took a new reading and updated both the coordinates and the terrain rating. Sorry, but I didn't hide my cache for your fringe game.

 

I agree, and I'm working on the Fizzy Challenge myself. Just because folks are working on the fizzy challenge doesn't mean that everyone needs to be affected because a cache isn't rated properly. Most cachers aren't doing the fizzy challenge, so I think that one should cater to the majority.