Challenge Cache Difficulty

[+Warturtle]

I want to make a challenge cache for finding every cache in a particular canyon. Should the difficulty include how hard it will be to find all these caches, or just simply how hard it is to find the physical container for the challenge cache alone?

[+Spraginator]

From the knowledge books: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

"Requiring cachers to find an explicit list of caches (rather than a broader category of caches) will likely prevent the cache from being published."

 

but, to answer your question, The difficulty of meeting the requirements is usually part of the difficulty of the challenge cache find.

[+Warturtle]

From the knowledge books: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

"Requiring cachers to find an explicit list of caches (rather than a broader category of caches) will likely prevent the cache from being published."

 

but, to answer your question, The difficulty of meeting the requirements is usually part of the difficulty of the challenge cache find.

Whoops! I was planning on reading the Knowledge books to find out if this was kosher, but I probably should have done that before I posted!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

From the knowledge books: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

"Requiring cachers to find an explicit list of caches (rather than a broader category of caches) will likely prevent the cache from being published."

 

but, to answer your question, The difficulty of meeting the requirements is usually part of the difficulty of the challenge cache find.

Whoops! I was planning on reading the Knowledge books to find out if this was kosher, but I probably should have done that before I posted!

 

I've seen a couple of "challenge caches" that seems to fit somewhere in between "an explicit list of caches" and a "broader range of caches". In one case, the challenge was to find at least one cache from a short (in some cases only two) list of caches in several different geologically similar areas. I think there were about 20 caches on the list, but one only had to find 5 of them. Another one required you to find 5 of the 10 oldest caches in the area.

 

In other words, requiring someone to find *every* cache in a canyon might not fly, but require a smaller subset of those might. Ask your reviewer.

[+donbadabon]

To answer your original question, I think the terrain should be the highest terrain in the bunch.

The difficulty should be at least the highest difficulty in the bunch, plus at least 1 star for having to get them all.

 

This challenge is similar to what you are wanting to do, I think:

 

Santa Ana Triangular Challenge

 

Maybe that can help you set yours up.

[+mwellman]

Hi UtahnBirder,

 

Or you could create a Unknown bonus cache where the clues for the coordinates are hidden in the other canyon caches.

[+Sol seaker]

That's interesting to see that in the knowledge books.

 

We have a lot of challenge caches around here that require a specific set of caches, such as the SEattle blackout challenges, and the shoreline blackout challenges.

 

But then, the knowledge books also say that another cache being published does not mean that your similar cache will get published. (to paraphrase)

 

There is a new Island challenge cache that might be more appropriate to look at.

It requires that you get a cache off of 23 different Islands in Washington State.

You can pick any of the islands you like. He gives a number of lists of islands in the area. We have a lot.

The WA State Island challenge cache

The problem with this example is that he's got the wrong terrain rating on it. Boat caches are 5 terrain because they require special equipment. His terrain is based on the final. Most challenge caches take into account all the caches you have to get to log the cache. That is only fair.

so you have to watch out when you take other caches as examples, because every one is different.

 

this is a better example of rating a challenge cache:

WA State cities and towns challenge cache

 

You can look on any of these challenge cache pages and find under "bookmarks" bookmark lists for lists of challenge caches in your area.

 

One of our WA state challenge cache bookmark lists: bookmark list

 

You can take a look at these and get some ideas on what is going to work and what is not.

For your area, just find a challenge cache (especially older ones) and see if you've got a bookmark list for your area.

 

Good luck,

have fun!!

[Andronicus]

To answer your original question, I think the terrain should be the highest terrain in the bunch.

The difficulty should be at least the highest difficulty in the bunch, plus at least 1 star for having to get them all.

 

This challenge is similar to what you are wanting to do, I think:

 

Santa Ana Triangular Challenge

 

Maybe that can help you set yours up.

I think the terrain should be related only to finding the actual challange cache, not the rest of the bunch. What the searchers want to know when looking at the terrain is what kind of gear/effort etc. they need to prepair for the trek.

[+lamoracke]

That's interesting to see that in the knowledge books.

 

We have a lot of challenge caches around here that require a specific set of caches, such as the SEattle blackout challenges, and the shoreline blackout challenges.

 

But then, the knowledge books also say that another cache being published does not mean that your similar cache will get published. (to paraphrase)

 

There is a new Island challenge cache that might be more appropriate to look at.

It requires that you get a cache off of 23 different Islands in Washington State.

You can pick any of the islands you like. He gives a number of lists of islands in the area. We have a lot.

The WA State Island challenge cache

The problem with this example is that he's got the wrong terrain rating on it. Boat caches are 5 terrain because they require special equipment. His terrain is based on the final. Most challenge caches take into account all the caches you have to get to log the cache. That is only fair.

so you have to watch out when you take other caches as examples, because every one is different.

 

this is a better example of rating a challenge cache:

WA State cities and towns challenge cache

 

You can look on any of these challenge cache pages and find under "bookmarks" bookmark lists for lists of challenge caches in your area.

 

One of our WA state challenge cache bookmark lists: bookmark list

 

You can take a look at these and get some ideas on what is going to work and what is not.

For your area, just find a challenge cache (especially older ones) and see if you've got a bookmark list for your area.

 

Good luck,

have fun!!

 

Heh. You mentioned my bookmark list and my challenge. I am blessed. Originally when I came up with this challenge, you were not required to do a boat cache, you could drive to enough of them, but you are right....when I added you needed to do one true boat cache, the terrain should be 5. I will change that. IMHO, a challenge difficulty is based on the difficulty of getting all the caches and the terrain should reflect the fact of the maximum of the toughest terrain of the caches required in the challenge. Hence, I require at least 1 5 terrain cache, thus, the challenge should be 5 terrain. The hide itself is only 2.5 terrain.

Edited June 29, 2011 by lamoracke

[AZcachemeister]

IMNSHO, the D/T should be the same as the most difficult cache REQUIRED to qualify. (if known)

The write-up should discuss how hard the final will be on it's own, and any other pertinent information as the owner sees fit.

[+addisonbr]

I'm in the camp that says that the D/T for a challenge / bonus should reflect the overall D/T of the challenge, not just the final container.

 

It's definitely a good practice to put detailed information in the cache page describing the ratings and how they would apply to just the final. More information is better.

[+lamoracke]

IMNSHO, the D/T should be the same as the most difficult cache REQUIRED to qualify. (if known)

The write-up should discuss how hard the final will be on it's own, and any other pertinent information as the owner sees fit.

 

well, if one requires folks to get 250 caches that are at most 3 difficulty, I see no reason to not make the challenge a little higher than 3 difficulty because you have so many to get. Thus, the difficulty of a challenge can be slightly higher than the most difficult cache in the series (but not lower), but the terrain should be equal to the highest terrain.

[AZcachemeister]

IMNSHO, the D/T should be the same as the most difficult cache REQUIRED to qualify. (if known)

The write-up should discuss how hard the final will be on it's own, and any other pertinent information as the owner sees fit.

 

well, if one requires folks to get 250 caches that are at most 3 difficulty, I see no reason to not make the challenge a little higher than 3 difficulty because you have so many to get. Thus, the difficulty of a challenge can be slightly higher than the most difficult cache in the series (but not lower), but the terrain should be equal to the highest terrain.

 

Should have written 'at least as high as', rather than 'the same as'.

[+Avernar]

I'm in the camp that says that the D/T for a challenge / bonus should reflect the overall D/T of the challenge, not just the final container.

Why artificially inflate the terrain rating of the cache because of previous finds? I want to know the terrain rating of the challenge cache. If the prerequisites are difficult to obtain then the difficulty of the challenge should go up.

 

It's definitely a good practice to put detailed information in the cache page describing the ratings and how they would apply to just the final. More information is better.

Why not use the terrain rating to describe the challenge cache itself just like you would any other cache and the description describes the ratings of the prerequisite caches? You'd have to do that anyway: "You must find a terrain 5 cache to complete this challenge". Why do some people feel the need to do it backwards?

 

Also, if the above cache was really only a 2 terrain then I'd like my statistics to show 1 more terrain 5 and terrain 2 and not two terrain 5's.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Avernar

[+redsox_mark]

Why artificially inflate the terrain rating of the cache because of previous finds? I want to know the terrain rating of the challenge cache. If the prerequisites are difficult to obtain then the difficulty of the challenge should go up.

 

Based on a previous thread, I have changed my position, and I now agree with Avernar. To me, all the prerequisite caches impact the difficulty of the challenge cache. I think most agree on that. Less clear is the terrain; but on balance I think having the terrain considering the final challenge cache only is the most useful. For example, if the challenge requires first finding a T5 cache, then that is clear from the challenge itself - so making the final cache a T5 because of that doesn't add new information. If the final is actually a T1, setting it as a T1 does give new information about that cache, so is more useful.

[+hzoi]

I've seen this done, not as a challenge cache, but as a bonus cache, with the cooperation (normally) of the other cache owners. Cache is at coordinates whatever degrees AB.CDE minutes, and the values for A, B, etc. appear in different caches in the area. These were really big in Germany, haven't seen as many in the US but we've seen a few.

[+rosebud55112]

I think one of the issues concerning this is that you use a single bit of information to tell you something at two different times.

 

For most traditional caches, you look at the difficulty and terrain ratings when you decide whether or not to go after the cache, and when you are searching--but nothing has changed in between those two times, and often those two times are nearly instantaneous. If I'm looking at the info today deciding whether I want to search for the cache, and you're looking at it today because you've made your decision and want infor on the hide, we both need basically the same info.

 

For Challenge caches, you may first look at those ratings when deciding whether or not you want to qualify for the cache, then when (usually) later when you are searching for the cache. If I'm looking at that info today to determine if I want to try to qualify for the cache, and you're looking at it today because you are about to go into the field and find it, we're looking at the same info for two very different reasons. A single rating shown right now can't supply both of us with the info we need.

 

Rating the cache with either one of those two finders in mind is okay, but the description should then contain info for the other one as well. Then, everyone's happy.

 

You could consider how your cache's ratings affect other cache challenges, but that's getting too meta for my tastes.

[+Avernar]

For Challenge caches, you may first look at those ratings when deciding whether or not you want to qualify for the cache, then when (usually) later when you are searching for the cache.

No, I read the description to find out whether or not I want to qualify for the cache. The ratings of the prerequisites are the least of my concerns. My main issue is how far I must travel to pick up the prerequisites and what other "rules" there are in the challenge. Since the cache description is already describing the prerequisites then the description should mention that some of the prerequisites may be of a higher terrain rating.

 

If I'm looking at that info today to determine if I want to try to qualify for the cache, and you're looking at it today because you are about to go into the field and find it, we're looking at the same info for two very different reasons. A single rating shown right now can't supply both of us with the info we need.

Exactly. Something must go into the description so put the terrain of the prerequisites there along with all the other information about the prerequisites.

 

Rating the cache with either one of those two finders in mind is okay, but the description should then contain info for the other one as well. Then, everyone's happy.

As I said in a previous post, the description already does contain the info for the prerequisites. Here's two examples:

 

Challenge Cache 1

D/T 3.5/2.0

 

You must have found a physical terrain 5 cache to qualify for this challenge. It can't be an event, virtual, earthcache or webcam. It can be any difficulty rating.

 

Challenge Cache 2

D/T 3.5/5

 

You must have found a physical terrain 5 cache to qualify for this challenge. It can't be an event, virtual, earthcache or webcam. It can be any difficulty rating. The real terrain rating for this cache is 2.

 

Notice that in Challenge Cache 2 the terrain 5 bit of information is duplicated in the description and the cache rating. But now it messes things up for peoples statistics, other challenge qualifications (many exclude false rated caches) and makes PQs innacurate.

 

What if I have found a terrain 5 cache years ago. Lets say I'm now slightly physically disabled due to an injury. I only have my PQs for terrain 2.5 or less. I qualify for and can find that challenge but it won't show up in my PQs.

 

You could consider how your cache's ratings affect other cache challenges, but that's getting too meta for my tastes.

That's a whole other debate. But simply putting the true terrain rating of the challenge cache itself in the terrain field your doing what you've always done for other caches and as a result not hindering the other challenges without much thought involved.

[+addisonbr]

Why... Why not... Why do some people...

Because it's not a perfect system or an exact science. I have a preference for advertising the challenge differently than you.

 

We both would like to make sure everyone has as much information as possible. I'd prefer to publish D/T representing the challenge as a whole, and describe the D/T for the final container on the cache page. You'd prefer to publish D/T representing the final container, and describe the rating for the challenge as a whole on the cache page (I think).

 

I suspect that the sun will rise tomorrow should either of us come across a cache rated in opposition to our preferences.

[+Warturtle]

I made the challenge cache today, and it's a little different so that it is within rules.

http://coord.info/GC2Z7K4

 

Not reviewed yet.

I made the terrain the terrain rating for the actual container, and the difficulty the difficulty of all the caches.

[+addisonbr]

I made the terrain the terrain rating for the actual container, and the difficulty the difficulty of all the caches.

Seems perfectly reasonable. Just make sure you explain it clearly on the cache page so that people have a good chance to understand what they're in for.

 

Good luck!

[+Don_J]

To answer your original question, I think the terrain should be the highest terrain in the bunch.

The difficulty should be at least the highest difficulty in the bunch, plus at least 1 star for having to get them all.

 

This challenge is similar to what you are wanting to do, I think:

 

Santa Ana Triangular Challenge

 

Maybe that can help you set yours up.

 

If you carefully read the description of this cache, you'll note that it never requires one to find an explicit list of caches. Instead, it requires you to find all caches in an explicit bounded area. A list is provided to make the task easier to track.

 

Your reviewer may allow "Find all caches in the canyon from coords A to coords B", but would probably not allow, "Find all caches in the canyon that are on this list".

[+GeoGeeBee]

To answer your original question, I think the terrain should be the highest terrain in the bunch.

The difficulty should be at least the highest difficulty in the bunch, plus at least 1 star for having to get them all.

 

This challenge is similar to what you are wanting to do, I think:

 

Santa Ana Triangular Challenge

 

Maybe that can help you set yours up.

 

If you carefully read the description of this cache, you'll note that it never requires one to find an explicit list of caches. Instead, it requires you to find all caches in an explicit bounded area.

 

How is that not the same thing?

[+addisonbr]

If you carefully read the description of this cache, you'll note that it never requires one to find an explicit list of caches. Instead, it requires you to find all caches in an explicit bounded area. A list is provided to make the task easier to track.

 

Your reviewer may allow "Find all caches in the canyon from coords A to coords B", but would probably not allow, "Find all caches in the canyon that are on this list".

I've been told in the past that this is considered the same thing, and also seen evidence that maybe it's not considered the same thing.

 

I know some folks who tried to list Blackout caches who were told that a Blackout is, by definition, a list of specific caches and so can't be approved. But since then, I know other Blackout caches have been published in different areas. What I don't know is whether that was an interpretation issue between reviewers, or a change in official policy.

[+Don_J]

If you carefully read the description of this cache, you'll note that it never requires one to find an explicit list of caches. Instead, it requires you to find all caches in an explicit bounded area. A list is provided to make the task easier to track.

 

Your reviewer may allow "Find all caches in the canyon from coords A to coords B", but would probably not allow, "Find all caches in the canyon that are on this list".

I've been told in the past that this is considered the same thing, and also seen evidence that maybe it's not considered the same thing.

 

I know some folks who tried to list Blackout caches who were told that a Blackout is, by definition, a list of specific caches and so can't be approved. But since then, I know other Blackout caches have been published in different areas. What I don't know is whether that was an interpretation issue between reviewers, or a change in official policy.

 

Pardon my ignorance. What is a Blackout cache?

[+lamoracke]

If you carefully read the description of this cache, you'll note that it never requires one to find an explicit list of caches. Instead, it requires you to find all caches in an explicit bounded area. A list is provided to make the task easier to track.

 

Your reviewer may allow "Find all caches in the canyon from coords A to coords B", but would probably not allow, "Find all caches in the canyon that are on this list".

I've been told in the past that this is considered the same thing, and also seen evidence that maybe it's not considered the same thing.

 

I know some folks who tried to list Blackout caches who were told that a Blackout is, by definition, a list of specific caches and so can't be approved. But since then, I know other Blackout caches have been published in different areas. What I don't know is whether that was an interpretation issue between reviewers, or a change in official policy.

 

Pardon my ignorance. What is a Blackout cache?

 

A blackout cache is a challenge that requires you to have found every active cache in a given area. There used to be 4 different ones for Seattle til the CO left Geocaching recently. There is one that requires all of Whidbey Island, I own that one. There are 4 other ones in the Western Washington area. I am not sure others exist, I have only seen the 8-10 ones in Washington. I think either the Seattle or the Bellevue one was the first blackout challenge created but I could be wrong.

 

Blackout challenges do not get many finds as a rule, mainly the radius slaves.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=85c4ecad-2d8e-4a44-bf71-506e171881f6

Edited July 2, 2011 by lamoracke

[+Avernar]

Because it's not a perfect system or an exact science. I have a preference for advertising the challenge differently than you.

So why not use the method that causes the least amount of problems for everyone if it's just a preference to you? You seemed to have ignored everything I wrote in post #18.

 

We both would like to make sure everyone has as much information as possible.

Except I also want everyone to be able to use the automated tools at their disposal to interpret the information as well.

 

I suspect that the sun will rise tomorrow should either of us come across a cache rated in opposition to our preferences.

It's not a preference, it's just doesn't make any sense to me to do it the other way. Take the following challenge: A D5/T2 cache with the text: Find a cache with a difficulty of 5.

 

Cacher 1 finds a D5/T1 cache and cacher 2 finds a D5/T5 cache. So what's the the terrain rating of the challenge then? By your method, for cacher 1 it's a T1 challenge and to cacher 2 it's a T5 challenge. Do you rate it as a 5 to fit your method? That would cause many to filter out the cache in their PQs. Do you put it as the average of 2.5? Some people may still filter it and now the number doesn't match the highest T of the challenge or the real terrain. Or is this an exception to the method and just list it as a 2?

 

Maybe that's why you think it's not a perfect system or an exact science when you have to deal with situations like that. That's why I keep it simple: Rate the terrain for the final only. Works in all cases.

[+Avernar]

Blackout challenges do not get many finds as a rule, mainly the radius slaves.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=85c4ecad-2d8e-4a44-bf71-506e171881f6

Or people just don't want to violate the TOS by sharing their pocket query.

[+Ike 13]

The question is when that guideline came into affect. I think it is newer (last year or so). A lot of the blackout challenges I have seen are older.

 

One idea to make a puzzle that makes visiting the other caches mandatory and is to ask questions about what can be seen from the cache. That may be hard in a canyon. If you own the other caches (or get permission from the CO) you could also add the clue into the cache containers.

[+addisonbr]

So why not use the method that causes the least amount of problems for everyone if it's just a preference to you? You seemed to have ignored everything I wrote in post #18.

We disagree on which method causes the least amount of problems for everyone. In general, I think a cache (multi, unknown, bonus, that sort of thing) should be rated at the minimum of what is required to complete it. Sometimes higher; having to do a bunch of difficulty four things may well be a difficulty five in total. Your post #18 disagrees.

[+addisonbr]

Except I also want everyone to be able to use the automated tools at their disposal to interpret the information as well.

Me too. If a challenge cache is rated 1/1 because the final is in a PnG in a WM lot, even though it represents amazing difficulties and/or terrains overall, it'll be hard for folks like me to find it.

 

That's just one example. I've tried not to bog the discussion down too much with really super specific examples, because I don't think it's remotely possible that a list of super specific examples is going to change any minds in this thread. If it's important to anyone following the thread, I could list some more I guess, but I think it will be tedious.

[+addisonbr]

It's not a preference, it's just doesn't make any sense to me to do it the other way. Take the following challenge: A D5/T2 cache with the text: Find a cache with a difficulty of 5.

...

Cacher 1 finds a D5/T1 cache and cacher 2 finds a D5/T5 cache. So what's the the terrain rating of the challenge then? By your method, for cacher 1 it's a T1 challenge and to cacher 2 it's a T5 challenge. Do you rate it as a 5 to fit your method? That would cause many to filter out the cache in their PQs. Do you put it as the average of 2.5? Some people may still filter it and now the number doesn't match the highest T of the challenge or the real terrain. Or is this an exception to the method and just list it as a 2?

I'd rate it as the highest T required to get the final. In this case a 2. Terrain isn't specific to the challenge, so it's an easy one.

 

I don't think averaging makes sense.

 

If instead the challenge was "Find five caches with terrain rating of 5", I would rate the challenge as T5, even if the final was a guardrail cache. The thinking being that if completing the cache would require mastering T5, the challenge could be fairly rated T5, even if one of the containers along the way was easier.

 

I would make it very clear in the cache description the method and ratings for the final container.

[+Avernar]

We disagree on which method causes the least amount of problems for everyone.

Yet you have not told me what problem putting the real terrain in the terrain field and the overall terrain in the description causes.

 

In general, I think a cache (multi, unknown, bonus, that sort of thing) should be rated at the minimum of what is required to complete it. Sometimes higher; having to do a bunch of difficulty four things may well be a difficulty five in total. Your post #18 disagrees.

No it doesn't. My post #18 is about terrain only. I agree that the difficulty should go up if it's a difficult challenge. That's how puzzle caches work anyways, if it's a difficult puzzle then the difficulty goes up regardless of how easy it is to find the container.

[+Avernar]

Me too. If a challenge cache is rated 1/1 because the final is in a PnG in a WM lot, even though it represents amazing difficulties and/or terrains overall, it'll be hard for folks like me to find it.

Just because it will be hard for you doesn't mean it will be hard for everyone. If someone had already found the prerequisite caches then the terrain of 1 is the only thing standing in their way. A high terrain on that one may "scare them off" if they're no longer capable of doing high terrain caches.

 

And if it is indeed a tough challenge then the D of 1 is too low.

 

That's just one example. I've tried not to bog the discussion down too much with really super specific examples, because I don't think it's remotely possible that a list of super specific examples is going to change any minds in this thread. If it's important to anyone following the thread, I could list some more I guess, but I think it will be tedious.

Then you missed my point. I'm not trying to change minds with super specific examples. I'm giving a bunch of examples that show some of the cases where putting the overall terrain can mislead people or cause them to ignore the cache.

[+Avernar]

I'd rate it as the highest T required to get the final. In this case a 2. Terrain isn't specific to the challenge, so it's an easy one.

 

I don't think averaging makes sense.

This just proves my point. Your method requires additional rules. If it's specific to the challenge do this, otherwise do that. To you that was an easy rule to make up, others may have averaged while others may have just put it as the highest.

 

If instead the challenge was "Find five caches with terrain rating of 5", I would rate the challenge as T5, even if the final was a guardrail cache. The thinking being that if completing the cache would require mastering T5, the challenge could be fairly rated T5, even if one of the containers along the way was easier.

Again you ignored my point that people may already have the prerequisites. And you also ignored my point that it messes up peoples statistics and makes it harder for them to figure out their qualifications for other challenges.

 

I would make it very clear in the cache description the method and ratings for the final container.

How exactly would the Geocaching statistic page and GSAK statistics scripts extract that rating?

[+addisonbr]

Yet you have not told me what problem putting the real terrain in the terrain field and the overall terrain in the description causes.

My apologies. Not putting the rating for the overall requirements for the cache can make it harder for people like me to filter for the types of caches we enjoy looking for, and it can make it harder for others to filter out some of the types of caches they could never hope to complete. I fully acknowledge that there are other inefficiencies created in going the other way (as one, your example of the once able, but now disabled, cacher who one found a 5-star cache long ago in the past, and who could currently find a 1-star final, but it would be harder for him to to locate it in the system).

 

IMO, rating the cache at the minimum required to complete it, and including further descriptive information in the cache fields, is not perfect but the best of an imperfect system. I know that you disagree.

[+addisonbr]

Just because it will be hard for you doesn't mean it will be hard for everyone.

Well, that's certainly true. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

I think in general rating a cache at the minimum required to complete it is the most efficient system for cachers as a whole.

[+addisonbr]

This just proves my point. Your method requires additional rules. If it's specific to the challenge do this, otherwise do that. To you that was an easy rule to make up, others may have averaged while others may have just put it as the highest.

I might not have been very clear when I said how I think things should be rated. I think caches (multis, unknowns, etc.) should be rated at the minimum required to complete the challenge. I'm not sure why anyone would average, or pick a higher rating simply because someone could choose to make it more difficult. I wouldn't rate an easy 2 terrain as a 5 because someone could choose to rappel down a cliff face to reach it, for example. I want for people to see my ratings and think "If I can meet that minimum, I can complete this cache."

 

Again you ignored my point that people may already have the prerequisites. And you also ignored my point that it messes up peoples statistics and makes it harder for them to figure out their qualifications for other challenges.

...

How exactly would the Geocaching statistic page and GSAK statistics scripts extract that rating?

I didn't intend to ignore these points. I fully acknowledge that whichever rating algo is used, inefficiencies will be created. I understand that a once able-bodied cacher who is now disabled and who once found a 5-star cache but now can't manage them might have more difficulty finding a challenge cache that depends on logging 5-star caches, if he filters out everything except for very easy caches. I know that can happen. I just think that on balance the system is most efficient in the aggregate if caches are rated at the minimum required to complete them.

 

The effect on stats and PQs and GSAK aren't unique to either method. I get that my method will "mess up statistics" for folks like you, and that it will make it harder for you to run your GSAK macros. It should probably go without saying that the other method will do the same for folks like me.

[+Avernar]

My apologies. Not putting the rating for the overall requirements for the cache can make it harder for people like me to filter for the types of caches we enjoy looking for, and it can make it harder for others to filter out some of the types of caches they could never hope to complete.

No problem. It just makes it easier to debate when I have a counterpoint to argue against.

 

Even if a cache passes your filter you still have to read the description to see if any other rules may prevent you from meeting the challenge. So having a cache rated lower at the real terrain rating just means you'd have a few more challenge caches to check before putting them on your ignore list. Minor inconvenience that's correctable by you by using the ignore list.

 

An artificially high terrain rating can't be corrected on the statistics page, etc.

 

So that's basically my point. Doing it one way just makes it a minor temporary inconvenience while doing it the other causes many permanent problems.

 

IMO, rating the cache at the minimum required to complete it, and including further descriptive information in the cache fields, is not perfect but the best of an imperfect system. I know that you disagree.

I only disagree because people are going to read the description anyway to see if there's nothing else preventing them from completing the challenge. And as I've shown before the overall terrain rating would be in the description in both methods as it's going to be part of the challenge rules.

[+Avernar]

I think in general rating a cache at the minimum required to complete it is the most efficient system for cachers as a whole.

While it may be more efficient I don't believe the slight gain in efficiency (having to not spend 15 seconds to read the description of a new challenge that pops up) outweighs the issues it causes.

[+addisonbr]

Even if a cache passes your filter you still have to read the description to see if any other rules may prevent you from meeting the challenge. So having a cache rated lower at the real terrain rating just means you'd have a few more challenge caches to check before putting them on your ignore list. Minor inconvenience that's correctable by you by using the ignore list.

...

An artificially high terrain rating can't be corrected on the statistics page, etc.

This is true; I just don't see how it's not the same situation in reverse. I'm also concerned about the once able-bodied cacher who can't hunt high T caches today but may have qualified at some point in the past and could retrieve the LPC final. But since challenge caches have to be read anyway, it's less clear to me that he wouldn't also simply have a few more challenge caches to check before putting them on his ignore list, a minor inconvenience that's correctable by him using the ignore list. While artificially high terrains can't be corrected on the stats page, neither can artificially low terrains. It's all pretty parallel. I can understand why you prefer one method over the other. I just don't agree that the inefficiencies or work-arounds are particularly unique to one method or the other.

[+Avernar]

I might not have been very clear when I said how I think things should be rated. I think caches (multis, unknowns, etc.) should be rated at the minimum required to complete the challenge.

I agree with you when it comes to the difficulty. Having to hunt down 20 hard to get caches might make the difficulty a 4 for example. What I'm saying is that I already have the terrain ratings for all the prerequisite caches available to me.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would average, or pick a higher rating simply because someone could choose to make it more difficult.

Hey, I'm not sure why anyone would choose to artificially increase the terrain rating of their cache but you and others seem to think it's a good idea.

 

What my point was that by telling people you should make the terrain the overall terrain they'll come up with creative ways in doing so (that may not even make sense to you). Rating the challenge by the final container is

simple and works the same as any other cache.

 

I didn't intend to ignore these points. I fully acknowledge that whichever rating algo is used, inefficiencies will be created.

If it was just about an inefficiency tradeoff then I wouldn't be arguing about it. Wrong statistics is not an inefficiency. While it may not be important to some, the fact the it's important to many is enough to tip the balance in favor of rating as the real terrain rating.

 

I understand that a once able-bodied cacher who is now disabled and who once found a 5-star cache but now can't manage them might have more difficulty finding a challenge cache that depends on logging 5-star caches, if he filters out everything except for very easy caches. I know that can happen. I just think that on balance the system is most efficient in the aggregate if caches are rated at the minimum required to complete them.

You seem to think that false positives must be avoided at all costs. I'm just saying that having to read one or two extra cache descriptions and putting them on the ignore list is not that big of an inefficiency. You're not related to 7 of 9 by any chance are you?

 

The effect on stats and PQs and GSAK aren't unique to either method. I get that my method will "mess up statistics" for folks like you, and that it will make it harder for you to run your GSAK macros. It should probably go without saying that the other method will do the same for folks like me.

You're going to have to try really hard to convince me that rating a cache by the real terrain rating is going to mess up statistics:

 

D4/T2 cache rated as D4/T2 = correct statistics page.

 

D4/T2 cache rated as D4/T5 = messed up statistics page. The D/T matrix will have one too many D4/T5 caches.

[+Avernar]

Even if a cache passes your filter you still have to read the description to see if any other rules may prevent you from meeting the challenge. So having a cache rated lower at the real terrain rating just means you'd have a few more challenge caches to check before putting them on your ignore list. Minor inconvenience that's correctable by you by using the ignore list.

...

An artificially high terrain rating can't be corrected on the statistics page, etc.

This is true; I just don't see how it's not the same situation in reverse.

For reading the description to get further information it's the same in reverse. The effect on PQs, stats, challenge qualifications it's most definitely not the same in reverse.

 

I'm also concerned about the once able-bodied cacher who can't hunt high T caches today but may have qualified at some point in the past and could retrieve the LPC final. But since challenge caches have to be read anyway, it's less clear to me that he wouldn't also simply have a few more challenge caches to check before putting them on his ignore list, a minor inconvenience that's correctable by him using the ignore list.

Except that the once able-bodied cacher is probably filtering out high T caches and wouldn't even see the description. They can't read it if they can't see it in their cache list.

 

While artificially high terrains can't be corrected on the stats page, neither can artificially low terrains. It's all pretty parallel.

I can understand why you prefer one method over the other. I just don't agree that the inefficiencies or work-arounds are particularly unique to one method or the other.

But they're not artificially low! They're the proper rating of the cache! If I find the following two caches:

 

A D2/T5 and a D3/T1 rated as a D3/T5 I've only really physically found 1 and only 1 terrain 5 cache. I did not have to climb a mountain, scuba dive, etc to the second cache so it's not equivalent to the first cache that I did have to do those things to get to.

 

If you can't see that then we're on two completely different logical mental states and my arguing this with you is pointless. I give up.

[+addisonbr]

If it was just about an inefficiency tradeoff then I wouldn't be arguing about it. Wrong statistics is not an inefficiency. While it may not be important to some, the fact the it's important to many is enough to tip the balance in favor of rating as the real terrain rating.

Right, but we have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not the stats are wrong. If to complete a challenge I have to string together a bunch of 3 and 3.5 hikes and the final container isn't hard, and yet the *overall challenge* requires enough hiking and etc. that the challenge is a T4, in my opinion T4 is accurate for that cache. I had to do those things to complete it. And I want that reflected in my stats.

 

You seem to think that false positives must be avoided at all costs. I'm just saying that having to read one or two extra cache descriptions and putting them on the ignore list is not that big of an inefficiency. You're not related to 7 of 9 by any chance are you?

I believe the same thought could be extended in both directions. The once able-bodied cacher who is now disabled would also only have to read a few extra cache descriptions and then put the caches on his ignore list.

 

I don't know what 7 of 9 is but if it's an insult, I hope this discussion can continue with fewer of them.

[+addisonbr]

Except that the once able-bodied cacher is probably filtering out high T caches and wouldn't even see the description. They can't read it if they can't see it in their cache list.

Yes, and someone looking for hard challenges filtering out T1s will never see the description for something much more involved. They also can't read it if they can't see it in their cache list. I see what you're saying about the once able-bodied cacher, but I am somehow not describing very well that currently able-bodied cachers might also filter caches in the opposite direction.

[+lamoracke]

If it was just about an inefficiency tradeoff then I wouldn't be arguing about it. Wrong statistics is not an inefficiency. While it may not be important to some, the fact the it's important to many is enough to tip the balance in favor of rating as the real terrain rating.

Right, but we have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not the stats are wrong. If to complete a challenge I have to string together a bunch of 3 and 3.5 hikes and the final container isn't hard, and yet the *overall challenge* requires enough hiking and etc. that the challenge is a T4, in my opinion T4 is accurate for that cache. I had to do those things to complete it. And I want that reflected in my stats.

 

You seem to think that false positives must be avoided at all costs. I'm just saying that having to read one or two extra cache descriptions and putting them on the ignore list is not that big of an inefficiency. You're not related to 7 of 9 by any chance are you?

I believe the same thought could be extended in both directions. The once able-bodied cacher who is now disabled would also only have to read a few extra cache descriptions and then put the caches on his ignore list.

 

I don't know what 7 of 9 is but if it's an insult, I hope this discussion can continue with fewer of them.

 

Do not know exactly what he means, but pretty sure the 7 of 9 reference is to Jeri Ryan's character in Star Trek Deep Space Nine. That was her name, she was a former Borg member.

[+Avernar]

Right, but we have a fundamental disagreement on whether or not the stats are wrong. If to complete a challenge I have to string together a bunch of 3 and 3.5 hikes and the final container isn't hard, and yet the *overall challenge* requires enough hiking and etc. that the challenge is a T4, in my opinion T4 is accurate for that cache. I had to do those things to complete it. And I want that reflected in my stats.

But it is reflected in your stats. You'll have a bunch of 3 and 3.5 caches in your stats and whatever real terrain rating the last cache was. By your logic a chain of caches where you get the coordinates to the next from the previous would have an ever increasing terrain rating which would be silly if there was a high T cache near the beginning.

 

I do agree that the difficulty rating of the challenge should go up if the prerequisites are hard to get (high difficulty or high terrain).

 

I believe the same thought could be extended in both directions. The once able-bodied cacher who is now disabled would also only have to read a few extra cache descriptions and then put the caches on his ignore list.

You're not thinking it through completely. To see the cache descriptions in their GPS or GSAK they'd have to raise the terrain limit on their PQ. This would flood them with all the other high terrain non challenge caches.

 

I don't know what 7 of 9 is but if it's an insult, I hope this discussion can continue with fewer of them.

No insult, hence the laughing frog. It's a character in Star Trek: Voyager who's obsessed with efficiency. Your arguments just reminded me of her.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Avernar

[+Avernar]

but I am somehow not describing very well that currently able-bodied cachers might also filter caches in the opposite direction.

I've heard that people filter out caches that have low difficulty and low terrain. They usually set up two PQs, one for D3 or higher and one for T3 or higher. That way if a cache is difficult or hard to get to they'll hunt for it. So if the challenge has a high difficulty rating because you have to get hard to get to caches (high terrain) they'll still get the cache in their PQ.

 

Those that only care about high terrain caches won't want to do that challenge cache anyways because it's not really a high terrain cache and get annoyed it's taking a spot in their PQ.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Avernar

[+Avernar]

By your logic a chain of caches where you get the coordinates to the next from the previous would have an ever increasing terrain rating which would be silly if there was a high T cache near the beginning.

Decided to post an example. Let's say you have the following caches in a series where cache 1 has the coords to cache 2, cache 2 has the coordinates to cache 3, etc:

 

1) D2/T2

2) D3/T5

3) D1/T2

4) D1/T1

5) D3/T3

 

By your method each T rating on subsequent caches must be equal or higher than the prerequisites so you'd rate them on the pages as:

 

1) D2/T2

2) D3/T5

3) D1/T5

4) D1/T5

5) D3/T5

 

What if the CO suddenly changes his mind and reverses the series, you'd then rate them:

 

5) D3/T3

4) D1/T3

3) D1/T3

2) D3/T5

1) D2/T5

 

So for the series going one way the finder's stats would show 1 T2 cache and 4 T5 caches. For the exact same caches going the other way the finder would have 3 T3 caches and 2 T5 caches. To me that just screams that rating the caches this way is wrong (definitely for statistics reasons and quite a strong argument in general).

Edited July 5, 2011 by Avernar

[+dfx]

So for the series going one way the finder's stats would show 1 T2 cache and 4 T5 caches. For the exact same caches going the other way the finder would have 3 T3 caches and 2 T5 caches. To me that just screams that rating the caches this way is wrong (definitely for statistics reasons and quite a strong argument in general).

 

Sounds right to me. If somebody is not T5 capable, then in the first case they could do only the first cache and then would have to quit. In the second case they could do three of them. Yup, sounds right. Of course you'd have to keep increasing the D as well.

Edited July 5, 2011 by dfx