Challenge Cache Difficulty

[+Avernar]

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.

First I was talking about someone doing all the caches. Doing the caches regardless of the order should not change the statistics.

 

And do you seriously think that a person that is not T5 capable would stop? Does the phrase "Sign me in" sound familiar? Now they'll have a bunch of T5 caches without visiting any that would qualify for a T5!

[+dfx]

Doing the caches regardless of the order should not change the statistics.

Why not?

 

And do you seriously think that a person that is not T5 capable would stop? Does the phrase "Sign me in" sound familiar? Now they'll have a bunch of T5 caches without visiting any that would qualify for a T5!

How's that different from a any other T5 caches?

[+Avernar]

Doing the caches regardless of the order should not change the statistics.

Why not?

Because it would make the stats just a bunch of meaningless numbers instead of a representation of reality.

 

Remember, I'm talking about terrain here. Difficulty is a different because it does take into account things you have to do before finding a cache and can be argued either way.

 

And do you seriously think that a person that is not T5 capable would stop? Does the phrase "Sign me in" sound familiar? Now they'll have a bunch of T5 caches without visiting any that would qualify for a T5!

How's that different from a any other T5 caches?

Because other T5 caches don't make other caches a T5. If I skip a T5 cache and get my friend to sign me in, the next cache by that CO under a lamp post doesn't magically become a T5.

[+dfx]

Because it would make the stats just a bunch of meaningless numbers instead of a representation of reality.

 

Remember, I'm talking about terrain here. Difficulty is a different because it does take into account things you have to do before finding a cache and can be argued either way.

So why should D be handled differently than T? If I need to go to an island first in order to find some other cache, how is it not reality that that other cache required a trip across water to be found?

 

Because other T5 caches don't make other caches a T5. If I skip a T5 cache and get my friend to sign me in, the next cache by that CO under a lamp post doesn't magically become a T5.

Why not? If that second cache depended on the first one to be found, then you've found two caches that required a boat. Sounds quite accurate to me.

[+Avernar]

So why should D be handled differently than T? If I need to go to an island first in order to find some other cache, how is it not reality that that other cache required a trip across water to be found?

Because D represents more than just one aspect of the cache find. For a puzzle cache you have to solve the puzzle at home to find it. That affects the D. So it's easier to argue that D should go up based on how hard a challenge is.

 

Why not? If that second cache depended on the first one to be found, then you've found two caches that required a boat. Sounds quite accurate to me.

So I take a boat to Europe and find an LPC it should be a T5 then by your logic. Yeah, right. The terrain rating starts from the parking/trailhead/whatever point.

[+dfx]

Why not? If that second cache depended on the first one to be found, then you've found two caches that required a boat. Sounds quite accurate to me.

So I take a boat to Europe and find an LPC it should be a T5 then by your logic. Yeah, right. The terrain rating starts from the parking/trailhead/whatever point.

 

Oh come on, don't be silly. You know what I meant.

[+Avernar]

Oh come on, don't be silly. You know what I meant.

I wasn't being silly, just taking it to an extreme to prove a point. There's a limit to the terrain rating distance wise. Why try to logically extend that to some other arbitrary location that's physically different?

[+Avernar]

Why not? If that second cache depended on the first one to be found, then you've found two caches that required a boat. Sounds quite accurate to me.

Coming back to this since you didn't like my previous reply.

 

No, you didn't find two caches that required a boat. You found one cache that required a boat that gave you mental insight to the location of a second cache that you walked away from without requiring a boat.

[+dfx]

I wasn't being silly, just taking it to an extreme to prove a point. There's a limit to the terrain rating distance wise. Why try to logically extend that to some other arbitrary location that's physically different?

 

Because a cache isn't just the location and the box. It also includes everything that was needed to get there. I don't see why that should apply only to D and not to T. The "T rating starts at the parking" is your interpretation, but by no means is it the only one.

 

No, you didn't find two caches that required a boat. You found one cache that required a boat that gave you mental insight to the location of a second cache that you walked away from without requiring a boat.

But without that first one, you couldn't find the second one. So yeah, the second one also required a boat, just somewhere else.

[+Avernar]

Because a cache isn't just the location and the box. It also includes everything that was needed to get there. I don't see why that should apply only to D and not to T. The "T rating starts at the parking" is your interpretation, but by no means is it the only one.

But mine causes no paradoxes and exceptions and other such weirdness. Terrain is physical. You're now sticking some weird metaphysical reason that connects these two separate physical locations together.

 

Where does it stop? A cacher finds a T5/D5 cache as his first and only cache which prompts him to hide a T3/D3 cache. Should that second cache really be a T5/D5 cache too because it would not exist and thus not be findable if that first T5/D5 cache wasn't found.

 

See how silly that reasoning is. That's why I have issues with these made up rules on how one cache's rating affects another. To some it may sound reasonable to others it's a stretch.

 

But without that first one, you couldn't find the second one. So yeah, the second one also required a boat, just somewhere else.

What stops me from going to the second cache with someone that's been to the first. Nowhere did I need a boat.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Avernar

[+dfx]

But mine causes no paradoxes and exceptions and other such weirdness. Terrain is physical. You're now sticking some weird metaphysical reason that connects these two separate physical locations together.

Nothing weird about it. The two locations are connected together. It's the caches that connects them. And we are, after all, talking caching statistics here.

 

What stops me from going to the second cache with someone that's been to the first. Nowhere did I need a boat.

Yeah, there's always "other" ways of finding a cache. There's also "other" ways of getting your smiley on that scuba cache. But those are all exceptions. The rating should reflect the common case.

Edited July 5, 2011 by dfx

[+Avernar]

Nothing weird about it. The two locations are connected together. It's the caches that connects them. And we are, after all, talking caching statistics here.

You're not making any sense. Statistics group together similar things. A stand alone T5 cache is not the same as a T1 cache with a T5 rating.

 

When I look at my T5 column I want to know how many caches I went to that were hard to get to. A T1 cache does not belong in the T5 column no ands ifs or buts. That's no longer statistics but number manipulation. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

 

Yes, I can accept that D can be higher for several reasons:

 

1) It's does not represent a single factor. It has mental and time components in it.

2) It's more subjective.

 

Even then, I don't think the D should automatically be the highest D of all the prerequisites either. Just higher in general to reflect the difficulty of finding that cache.

 

Yeah, there's always "other" ways of finding a cache. There's also "other" ways of getting your smiley on that scuba cache. But those are all exceptions. The rating should reflect the common case.

You've completely missed the point here. The fact that a prerequisite has can be skipped means it doesn't really affect the subsequent caches.

 

Even with a challenge I can usually go to the challenge cache first and sign myself in and complete the challenge later. How's that a T5 cache if I haven't been to a T5 yet. So I bet you'll argue that you'll have to find a T5 to qualify eventually but as you argued before the order matters.

 

That's philosophy, not statistics.

[+dfx]

You're not making any sense. Statistics group together similar things. A stand alone T5 cache is not the same as a T1 cache with a T5 rating.

 

When I look at my T5 column I want to know how many caches I went to that were hard to get to. A T1 cache does not belong in the T5 column no ands ifs or buts. That's no longer statistics but number manipulation.

It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to me and to others.

 

You're not going to convince me otherwise.

I'm quite aware of that.

 

You've completely missed the point here. The fact that a prerequisite has can be skipped means it doesn't really affect the subsequent caches.

Of course it affects subsequent caches. The result is that under normal circumstances, you can't find the subsequent caches. You can only "skip" a cache in a sequence like that if you get the required information from somewhere else, in a way that wasn't intended.

 

Even with a challenge I can usually go to the challenge cache first and sign myself in and complete the challenge later. How's that a T5 cache if I haven't been to a T5 yet. So I bet you'll argue that you'll have to find a T5 to qualify eventually but as you argued before the order matters.

Not the order in which you find them matters, the order in which the dependencies are set up matters. Most of the time they're gonna be the same, and with some COs they're even gonna be the same with challenge caches (i.e. "no signing in before you qualify" clauses).

[+Avernar]

It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to me and to others.

Making sense to you and others and it being wrong are not mutually exclusive things. For statistics purposes a T1 cache with a prerequisite T5 cache is still a T1 cache. Strip away all the philosophical "it's related to" junk and it's the same as every other T1 cache out there. How you obtain the coordinates does not change terrain.

 

I can acknowledge addisonbr's position on weather the overall or real terrain rating should be in the terrain field as that's rule interpretation, preferences, etc. but when it comes to math (statistics) and science (geography/geology) it takes more than a made up justification to change how things are clasified.

 

You're not going to convince me otherwise.

I'm quite aware of that.

Then we're done here.

[+dfx]

Making sense to you and others and it being wrong are not mutually exclusive things.

Ah ok. It doesn't make sense to you, so you're right and I got it wrong. Gotcha.

 

Then we're done here.

Indeed.

Edited July 5, 2011 by dfx

[+Avernar]

Making sense to you and others and it being wrong are not mutually exclusive things.

Ah ok. It doesn't make sense to you, so you're right and I got it wrong. Gotcha.

No, your wrong because your logic is wrong.

 

I can take children to a T1 cache.

I can't take children to a T5 cache.

I can take children to an LPC whose coordinates were in a T5 cache.

Therefore the LPC cache is not a T5 cache.

 

The terrain rating of a cache is the terrain I can expect between my starting point (house, road, etc.) and the cache. It let's me determine who I can bring with me. That does not depend on any previous cache I've visited.

 

That's why your insistence that terrain is something grander (the whole cache experience or whatnot) is just silly.

 

Then we're done here.

Indeed.

Here I'll admit I was wrong about something.

[+dfx]

I can take children to a T1 cache.

I can't take children to a T5 cache.

I can take children to an LPC whose coordinates were in a T5 cache.

Therefore the LPC cache is not a T5 cache.

I fail to see how being able to take children to a cache has any effect on its ratings. We've had children at our T5 caches, I believe.

[+addisonbr]

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 may not agree with you, but it's not because I'm not thinking it through. No matter how we slice it, someone is going to have to read cache descriptions that they can't otherwise filter. A once able-bodied but now disabled cacher who will have to raise the terrain limit on their PQ. Or, currently able-bodied cachers looking for challenges who will have to lower the terrain limit on their PQ. It's not clear why the former is flooded while the latter wouldn't be. (I'm not 100% sure, but I am guessing there are a lot more low terrain caches than high terrain caches.)

[+addisonbr]

I wasn't being silly, just taking it to an extreme to prove a point.

I'm fairly certain either method can be taken to an extreme to find ways in which they don't work well. No system is going to work in every possible made up scenario. I think one system works better for most cachers most of the time.

[+addisonbr]

But mine causes no paradoxes and exceptions and other such weirdness.

I disagree. Someone sets up a six-cache series that leads to a final container with a lot of cool stuff, that happens to be located in a parking lot. It's originally listed as a T5 multi-cache because people need to scuba, rappel down cliffs, etc. to complete the series.

 

Later the CO feels bad about the hidden waypoints messing up other COs, so he changes his mind and lists each of the caches separately, and list the final as a bonus / challenge cache. Not a thing has changed about any of the caches, but he has to change the rating of the challenge from a T5 to a T1, even though to find the cache, every finder has to go through exactly the same steps that they did before.

 

I thought of this a while back but didn't bring it up because frankly? It is a weird case and it doesn't really matter. The fact that your method also causes paradoxes and exceptions and weirdness doesn't matter much to me, because I'm not all that concerned about the way either method breaks down at the margins. I am just shooting for what is most efficient and accurate for most geocachers most of the time. I think "this is the minimum required to complete this cache" fulfils that.

[+addisonbr]

Of course it affects subsequent caches. The result is that under normal circumstances, you can't find the subsequent caches. You can only "skip" a cache in a sequence like that if you get the required information from somewhere else, in a way that wasn't intended.

I think this gets at an interesting point. The ratings are designed to be a guide for people completing the cache in the intended way. All you can really do is say "Here is the experience I've tried to lay out for you, and here is the rating for that challenge." Folks can break that spirit if they really want. They can wait for the one week a year that the lake freezes over and walk to the cache, they can call their friends for the final coordinates of a 10-stage multi, etc. etc. etc. But I wouldn't rate my cache with those folks in mind.

[+Avernar]

I can take children to a T1 cache.

I can't take children to a T5 cache.

I can take children to an LPC whose coordinates were in a T5 cache.

Therefore the LPC cache is not a T5 cache.

I fail to see how being able to take children to a cache has any effect on its ratings. We've had children at our T5 caches, I believe.

You've completely missed my point again. It doesn't have to be children. It could be people that are disabled or anyone else that can't do high terrain caches.

 

I also should have said T4.5 as the "special equipment makes it a T5" is a seperate debate. Some T5 canoe caches have been extremely easy to get to for example.

 

My point was that if I bring someone to a cache that can only physically get to caches T2 or lower, the cache is not a T4 or higher (the precise numbers here don't matter for my point).

[+Avernar]

I may not agree with you, but it's not because I'm not thinking it through. No matter how we slice it, someone is going to have to read cache descriptions that they can't otherwise filter. A once able-bodied but now disabled cacher who will have to raise the terrain limit on their PQ. Or, currently able-bodied cachers looking for challenges who will have to lower the terrain limit on their PQ. It's not clear why the former is flooded while the latter wouldn't be. (I'm not 100% sure, but I am guessing there are a lot more low terrain caches than high terrain caches.)

It doesn't matter what it's called (not thinking it through, missing a point, etc). You've just wrote that it's not clear to you why the former is flooded while the latter wouldn't be.

 

The answer is simple: There are way less challenge caches than higher terrain caches. So one person would only have to read a new challenge cache description once in a while as they are published while the other would have to read dozens of higher terrain cache descriptions as they are published.

[+Avernar]

I wasn't being silly, just taking it to an extreme to prove a point.

I'm fairly certain either method can be taken to an extreme to find ways in which they don't work well. No system is going to work in every possible made up scenario.

Please provide an example then.

[+dfx]

You've completely missed my point again. It doesn't have to be children. It could be people that are disabled or anyone else that can't do high terrain caches.

 

I also should have said T4.5 as the "special equipment makes it a T5" is a seperate debate. Some T5 canoe caches have been extremely easy to get to for example.

 

My point was that if I bring someone to a cache that can only physically get to caches T2 or lower, the cache is not a T4 or higher (the precise numbers here don't matter for my point).

 

None of that has anything to do with terrain rating. Being able to bring certain people (or things) along to a cache is not what raises or lowers the terrain rating. At all.

 

Now, if you were talking children (or disabled people or whoever else) going caching by themselves, you'd have a good example.

 

Children can't do T5 caches by themselves.

Children can do T1 caches by themselves.

Children can't do an LPC that has its coordinates hidden in a T5 cache by themselves, because they don't know where it is.

Therefore, that LPC is a T5 cache.

 

See? I can pull the same stunt.

[+Avernar]

I disagree. Someone sets up a six-cache series that leads to a final container with a lot of cool stuff, that happens to be located in a parking lot. It's originally listed as a T5 multi-cache because people need to scuba, rappel down cliffs, etc. to complete the series.

 

Later the CO feels bad about the hidden waypoints messing up other COs, so he changes his mind and lists each of the caches separately, and list the final as a bonus / challenge cache. Not a thing has changed about any of the caches, but he has to change the rating of the challenge from a T5 to a T1, even though to find the cache, every finder has to go through exactly the same steps that they did before.

Invalid example. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

One of the benefits of making a series instead of a multicache is that you can rate each stage individually. Each stage of a multicache does not have a seperate GC code, cache page, doesn't count in your find count, doesn't count in your stats, etc.

 

A CO can however list the individual D/T rates for the stages in their description. So in effect you have done the exact same D/T ratings. It's just that a multicache listing forces you to put the highest ratings in the listing by the very nature of the multicache type.

 

In fact in your example the multi would have to be archived and a new puzzle published for the last cache. And it wouldn't be a challenge as specific list of caches is not allowed.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Avernar

[+Avernar]

None of that has anything to do with terrain rating. Being able to bring certain people (or things) along to a cache is not what raises or lowers the terrain rating. At all.

Ok, now I think your just arguing for the sake of arguing because you're twisting my points around.

 

You honestly though I was saying that being able to bring certain people along to a cache is what affects the terrain rating? Seriously?

 

It's the other way around. The terrain determines if I'm able to bring certain people along. The terrain rating gives a numerical value to the terrain so that I can determine who I can bring.

 

Replace the terrain rating with photos of the cache area. If the photo is of a mountain but the area is a parking lot with no mountains that I could bring children/disabled people/etc to then the photo is wrong. Me being able to bring certain people to the cache doesn't change the photo. The photo should tell me who I can bring and those people do not have to do any of the prerequisites.

 

Now, if you were talking children (or disabled people or whoever else) going caching by themselves, you'd have a good example.

 

Children can't do T5 caches by themselves.

Children can do T1 caches by themselves.

Children can't do an LPC that has its coordinates hidden in a T5 cache by themselves, because they don't know where it is.

Therefore, that LPC is a T5 cache.

 

See? I can pull the same stunt.

I don't see anything funny there. The fact that you fell the need to "pull a stunt" shows how serious you are in discussing this.

 

And your twisted version of my example has a logical error. You're connecting that "if a person doesn't know where something is" with "they can't physically get to it".

 

Someone can give the children the coordinates, or more than likely they'll just stumble onto it. Therefore it is NOT a T5 cache.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Avernar

[+dfx]

I don't see anything funny there. The fact that you fell the need to "pull a stunt" shows how serious you are in discussing this.

 

And your twisted version of my example has a logical error. You're connecting that "if a person doesn't know where something is" with "they can't physically get to it".

 

Someone can give the children the coordinates, or more than likely they'll just stumble onto it. Therefore it is NOT a T5 cache.

 

Oh I'm quite serious. But I find it funny that you dismiss every point somebody else makes as invalid, wrong or logically incorrect just because you don't agree with it. Serisouly, there's nothing wrong with the logic. If anything, you can argue that the premises are wrong, but you're gonna have a hard time proving that. Knock yourself out though.

[+Avernar]

Oh I'm quite serious. But I find it funny that you dismiss every point somebody else makes as invalid, wrong or logically incorrect just because you don't agree with it. Serisouly, there's nothing wrong with the logic. If anything, you can argue that the premises are wrong, but you're gonna have a hard time proving that. Knock yourself out though.

No, I dismiss points because they're logically incorrect or non factual. If you claim the sky is green I'll dismiss it based on fact.

 

The real terrain rating is for that cache only. The fact that you think they're somehow magically linked to other caches doesn't change this fact. You're forgetting that logging online is OPTIONAL. Since I can go to a challenge cache and sign the log book I have indeed found the cache. Therefore the terrain rating is for that cache only. Since someone can take me to the final to a series. Since I've never been to the other caches the terrain is for that cache only.

 

A higher terrain rating due to some metaphysical link to another cache is just some made up concept.

 

Weather the real terrain rating or the overall terrain rating belongs in the terrain rating field on the cache page is a debatable topic that I'm willing to see other peoples views and opinions. What constitutes the real terrain rating of a cache is not.

 

I've told your point of view to several caching and non caching friends and I've gotten looks back like if I had told them the earth was flat.

 

Take this hypothetical conversation:

 

Bob: What cache are we going for?

Doug: This challenge cache I qualify for.

Bob: What's the terrain rating?

Doug: It's a terrain 5.

Bob: Do we need a boat?

Doug: No.

Bob: Do we need scuba gear?

Doug: No.

Bob: Mountain climbing equipment?

Doug: No.

Bob: Any special equipment?

Doug: No.

Bob: So how hard is this to get to?

Doug: Not hard, it's about as hard as a T2 cache.

Bob: That's what I asked in the first place!

 

See? The real terrain rating. Not the overall terrain rating. Not the effective terrain rating. Not the combined terrain rating. The real terrain rating.

[+dfx]

No, I dismiss points because they're logically incorrect or non factual. If you claim the sky is green I'll dismiss it based on fact.

 

The real terrain rating is for that cache only. The fact that you think they're somehow magically linked to other caches doesn't change this fact.

You see, the bolded part right there is your opinion. It's not fact. It doesn't make somebody else's opinion wrong, and it doesn't make somebody else's conclusion based on their own opinion logically wrong.

 

You're forgetting that logging online is OPTIONAL. Since I can go to a challenge cache and sign the log book I have indeed found the cache. Therefore the terrain rating is for that cache only. Since someone can take me to the final to a series. Since I've never been to the other caches the terrain is for that cache only.

I don't get what your point is here. Yeah, logging is optional, but then you kept arguing about how the "wrong" T rating screws up the statistics? What statistics if you don't log online?

 

And I've already explained how "somebody taking someone else to a final/bonus/whatever cache" is not the usual, intended sequence of events.

 

A higher terrain rating due to some metaphysical link to another cache is just some made up concept.

Again, your opinion, not fact. And I think you're not quite aware of what "metaphysical" means, but that's a different subject.

 

I've told your point of view to several caching and non caching friends and I've gotten looks back like if I had told them the earth was flat.

 

Take this hypothetical conversation:

 

Bob: What cache are we going for?

Doug: This challenge cache I qualify for.

Bob: What's the terrain rating?

Doug: It's a terrain 5.

Bob: Do we need a boat?

Doug: No.

Bob: Do we need scuba gear?

Doug: No.

Bob: Mountain climbing equipment?

Doug: No.

Bob: Any special equipment?

Doug: No.

Bob: So how hard is this to get to?

Doug: Not hard, it's about as hard as a T2 cache.

Bob: That's what I asked in the first place!

 

See? The real terrain rating. Not the overall terrain rating. Not the effective terrain rating. Not the combined terrain rating. The real terrain rating.

This is all fine and dandy, but ignores the fact (yup, real fact here) that Doug can't get the smiley on that cache. If he wants the smiley (and yeah, it's the smiley that matters for statistics), he will need a boat, scuba gear or something similar at some point. Hence, T5. Now, your opinion is that this fact should be ignored and the "real" rating be given instead. Fine, but my opinion is different. Neither is fundamentally more right or wrong than the other one. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to accept this fact.

 

Yeah, if you don't log online and don't care for the smiley, then the T rating will be wrong for you if you go for that cache anyway. But again, that's not the common case, it's an exception.

Edited July 6, 2011 by dfx

[+Avernar]

I give up. I'm using "real terrain rating" to mean the terrain of a cache as if it's the only cache you're going for. I need this term to argue my position. Yet you keep jumping on me saying my definition is an opinion and that this definition changes when it's included in a series.

 

It's like me saying that X is the width of Australia and you saying that's not a fact it's your opinion. X is much bigger because of elevation so a line from coast to coast is much longer. If we can't agree on what X is how could we debate things?

[+dfx]

I give up. I'm using "real terrain rating" to mean the terrain of a cache as if it's the only cache you're going for. I need this term to argue my position. Yet you keep jumping on me saying my definition is an opinion and that this definition changes when it's included in a series.

 

It's like me saying that X is the width of Australia and you saying that's not a fact it's your opinion. X is much bigger because of elevation so a line from coast to coast is much longer. If we can't agree on what X is how could we debate things?

 

Exactly. You have to agree that we disagree and neither is right or wrong. I well understand what you mean with "real terrain rating", I just don't think that the terrain rating of a challenge cache or a bonus cache has to reflect the "real terrain rating", but that it makes more sense to have it reflect the "overall terrain rating" (or whatever you want to call it). That's all. I don't like being told that I'm wrong when I just have a different opinion.

[+Avernar]

Exactly. You have to agree that we disagree and neither is right or wrong. I well understand what you mean with "real terrain rating", I just don't think that the terrain rating of a challenge cache or a bonus cache has to reflect the "real terrain rating", but that it makes more sense to have it reflect the "overall terrain rating" (or whatever you want to call it). That's all. I don't like being told that I'm wrong when I just have a different opinion.

That's what my initial discussion with addisonbr was all about. I wasn't calling anyone wrong about that! I wish you would have indicated this earlier as it would have saved a lot of arguing.

 

My "fact" is that the real terrain rating of a cache doesn't change when it's included in a challenge. I take it you'll agree with that, right? It sounded like you disagreed with this before which is why I said you were wrong.

 

My whole argument was that there are way too many things that would affect the overall terrain rating (doing it the right way, brute forcing, not caring about the challenge, the order it was done in, etc) that using that number to compare to other caches is meaningless for statistics purposes. That is what we'll have to disagree on.

 

Here's a good example why I think the stats would be meaningless:

 

Bob finds a 20 cache series where the first caches was a T5 mountain climb and the rest were T1 park and grabs. Let's say they were rated your way as all T5's. Doug finds 20 caches not in a series and all were T5 mountain climbs. So both would end up with 20 T5's.

 

Looking at the stats I'd think that both put the same amount of effort to find those caches which is not the case. Bob found 1 hard one and 19 easy ones. Doug found 20 hard ones. The fact that both found 20 T5 rated caches is just numbers that don't represent reality. That's why I have issues with that rating method as it relates to statistics.

 

I guess you'll disagree. I saw a good example of this philosophical divide in a recent cache hunt. A group of us found a cache that was miss-rated as a T5 but was closer to a T3. Some of the group were overjoyed that they finally got a T5. Others were not so enthusiastic as they felt they didn't earn that T5.

[+addisonbr]

The answer is simple: There are way less challenge caches than higher terrain caches. So one person would only have to read a new challenge cache description once in a while as they are published while the other would have to read dozens of higher terrain cache descriptions as they are published.

I would guess that among unknown cache types, there are more low T caches published than high T caches.

[+addisonbr]

I'm fairly certain either method can be taken to an extreme to find ways in which they don't work well. No system is going to work in every possible made up scenario.

Please provide an example then.

Um... I dunno, a T1 Blackout Cache is listed. A local geocacher in a wheelchair clears out all of the caches on the island, except for a challenge cache that is listed as a T1. Unfortunately, the only way to legally log that cache is to find at least one cache 2000 meters below sea level and at least one cache 6000 meters above sea level, in the same day. But because the final is an LPC at Wal-Mart, the challenge is listed as a T1. She is unable to legally claim a find, and therefore she is unable to log the T1 Blackout Cache. There is forever a hole in her geocaching.com statistics suggesting that when it comes to T1 caches, she is imperfect, a statistical and philosophical failure. For added fun, there was a $10,000 bill in the container for the FTF, and she was $10,000 behind on her mortgage.

 

Is this a stupid example that would never realistically happen? Yes. It's so mind-blowingly stupid that my ears are bleeding. I weep for myself that I spent the time to type it out.

 

I don't care about freaky made-up situations (especially when there are about 37 million easier ways for cachers to game the statistics on this site). I just ask myself what method seems to work the best for most people, most of the time. I won't marry myself to that answer, but I'll give it pretty strong consideration.

[+addisonbr]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

I'm pretty comfortable comparing apples and oranges. They're both fruit. They're both round. Frankly, I'd be hard pressed to come up with two things more comparable than apples and oranges.

 

Internal combustion engines and blue whales. Now those aren't very comparable.

[+lamoracke]

I'm fairly certain either method can be taken to an extreme to find ways in which they don't work well. No system is going to work in every possible made up scenario.

Please provide an example then.

Um... I dunno, a T1 Blackout Cache is listed. A local geocacher in a wheelchair clears out all of the caches on the island, except for a challenge cache that is listed as a T1. Unfortunately, the only way to legally log that cache is to find at least one cache 2000 meters below sea level and at least one cache 6000 meters above sea level, in the same day. But because the final is an LPC at Wal-Mart, the challenge is listed as a T1. She is unable to legally claim a find, and therefore she is unable to log the T1 Blackout Cache. There is forever a hole in her geocaching.com statistics suggesting that when it comes to T1 caches, she is imperfect, a statistical and philosophical failure. For added fun, there was a $10,000 bill in the container for the FTF, and she was $10,000 behind on her mortgage.

 

Is this a stupid example that would never realistically happen? Yes. It's so mind-blowingly stupid that my ears are bleeding. I weep for myself that I spent the time to type it out.

 

I don't care about freaky made-up situations (especially when there are about 37 million easier ways for cachers to game the statistics on this site). I just ask myself what method seems to work the best for most people, most of the time. I won't marry myself to that answer, but I'll give it pretty strong consideration.

 

A cache 6000 feet up the same day as a scuba day? Thats brutal. My blackout would let you do them on consecutive days so you can rest.

 

I agree though about a challenge being 5 terrain if there are 5 terrain caches needed to qualify for it. Course, its imperfect because caches get archived and added all the time.

[+Avernar]

Um... I dunno, a T1 Blackout Cache is listed. A local geocacher in a wheelchair clears out all of the caches on the island, except for a challenge cache that is listed as a T1. Unfortunately, the only way to legally log that cache is to find at least one cache 2000 meters below sea level and at least one cache 6000 meters above sea level, in the same day. But because the final is an LPC at Wal-Mart, the challenge is listed as a T1. She is unable to legally claim a find, and therefore she is unable to log the T1 Blackout Cache. There is forever a hole in her geocaching.com statistics suggesting that when it comes to T1 caches, she is imperfect, a statistical and philosophical failure.

All she needs to do is read the description, see she can't do the challenge until those two caches are archived, and puts it on her ignore list so it doesn't show up on her map. How is that a big problem?

 

And all statistics I've seen don't track "holes". I don't see how not being able to do a cache would cause someone that much mental grief. Even if that LPC was rated a T5 she'd still think she's a failure for not clearing out every LPC if she's that much of a radius slave.

 

Now what if she's in a wheelchair because she got the bends going from 2000m below to 6000m above. She now sets her PQs to T1.5 or less. If your challenge was a T5 should wouldn't see it even though she qualifies.

 

For added fun, there was a $10,000 bill in the container for the FTF, and she was $10,000 behind on her mortgage.

No need to complete the challenge to be FTF. First to sign the log is FTF. Easy $10,000.

[+CanadianRockies]

Internal combustion engines and blue whales. Now those aren't very comparable.

Hmmmm. Both take in air and produce waste products.

[+addisonbr]

All she needs to do is read the description, see she can't do the challenge until those two caches are archived, and puts it on her ignore list so it doesn't show up on her map. How is that a big problem?

I totally agree. I also think it's not a problem for a currently disabled cacher who long ago climbed Mt. Everest to occasionally glance at high terrain challenge caches, read the descriptions to see if he can reach the LPC final, and if not put them on the ignore list so they don't show up. They're extremely marginal cases, with workarounds available. I don't much care.

 

However stupid you think that example was... I promise you... I think it was TEH STUPIDER. I probably think it was 10x stupider than you do. 100x. You may have rolled your eyes reading it, but mine rolled back so far in my head as I was typing it out that they forcibly detached from the optic nerve and I am now functionally blind.

 

I'm happy to provide an extreme example or two, to forum folks who politely request them. But I think they're pretty close to pointless.

Edited July 7, 2011 by addisonbr