Difficulty ratings

[+SimonG]

I'm new to Geocaching, but from the caches I've seeked (er, sought) to date, there doesn't seem to be much consistency to the ratings. I did one rated 1.5 and one rated 2, both dead easy; one rated 1, much harder; and one rated 3, which was VERY hard (we almost gave up). I guess the problem is that different people have their own ideas how hard a cache is.

 

Here's my suggestion: instead of the difficulty ratings being decided by the person who places the cache, how about finders rate caches, and the average scores are displayed (kind of like at imdb)? Maybe then they would be more indicative.

[+gnbrotz]

I use the unofficial, official rating system found here. I also mention this on my cache pages and link to the rating page so hunters can see what to expect based on THAT system.

 

I have received one comment that a cache was rated too low for the terrain, but that person did not take the same path I intended for folks to use and based the rating on.

 

Greg

N 39° 54.705'

W 77° 33.137'

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonG:

 

Here's my suggestion: instead of the difficulty ratings being decided by the person who places the cache, how about finders rate caches, and the average scores are displayed

---

 

I don't know about 'instead of', but I agree that your suggestion would make a great 'in addition to' the hider's rating.

 

And if you read through the following threads, you’ll see that several others think so, too:

 

User feedback on difficulty ratings

 

Terrain/Dificulty Rating

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+Mr. Snazz]

...In addition to the rating set by the owner, of course.

 

Just wanted to throw in my support and bump this thread to the top.

 

[+Mr. Snazz]

...In addition to the rating set by the owner, of course.

 

Just wanted to throw in my support and bump this thread to the top.

 

[+Chris n Maria]

Now we have the ability to log Co-ordinates when we find a cache then what the page needs is a I found this cache (1 easy - 5 Very Difficult)

optional field. Then this is displayed at the top of each log.

 

Then finders and owners can build up a concensus of difficulty.

 

We have a cache which seems popular with first-timers some of whom have reported great difficulty with it and would probably rate it a 4/5 but I would not change the rating till I had seen experienced cachers have problems.

 

Does this sound reasonable?

 

Chris

"We're not lost - we just don't know where we are"

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[+parkrrrr]

Remember, folks, Terrain=1 and Terrain=5 have special meanings beyond "Very Easy" and "Very Difficult" so no amount of consensus on the part of the seeker should be able to make a Terrain 1 harder or a Terrain 5 easier.

 

But of course this discussion is really about difficulty, which is a lot more subjective than terrain, and which the GCRS can't cover quite as well. I have a suggestion:

 

The cache owner can change the difficulty after the cache is in place. Warm Fuzzies' next cache is going to start as a 4/1, because that's what we think it is. However, the cache description will encourage those who find (and those who don't find) the cache to compare it to other caches they've found and tell us whether they think the 4 rating is inaccurate. After a few people have tried to find the cache, we'll adjust the rating to match their impressions. No new features required, just the normal cache-page maintenance a cache owner should be doing anyway.

 

[+worldtraveler]

Two good things about the GCRS:

1. It's objective instead of subjective.

2. It doesn't change.

 

While I'm not opposed to feedback regarding a cache's rating, it should at least be based on a common, objective standard; otherwise the numbers are meaningless.

 

And I'm not saying the GCRS is perfect. When I went strictly by the numbers, both Hot Rox and Anna Rose rated slightly higher than my "experience" (subjective) told me they deserved, so I downgraded them both slightly and explained it on the cache pages. Very few people have found these caches, but no complaints so far on the ratings I assigned.

 

Worldtraveler

[RossOlson]

I like the idea of the idea of the finders also rating the difficulty of the find.

[+MartyFouts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by worldtraveler:

Two good things about the http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/:

1. It's objective instead of subjective.

2. It doesn't change.

 

While I'm not opposed to feedback regarding a cache's rating, it should at least be based on a common, objective standard; otherwise the numbers are meaningless.

 

And I'm not saying the GCRS is perfect. When I went strictly by the numbers, both http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15950 and http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=25489 rated slightly higher than my "experience" (subjective) told me they deserved, so I downgraded them both slightly and explained it on the cache pages. Very few people have found these caches, but no complaints so far on the ratings I assigned.

 

Worldtraveler

---

 

I use the rating system, and find that people who visit my caches have various opinions about whether the ratings are appropriate.

 

So I gave it a lot of thought and concluded that the ratings are as objective as is reasonably possible, but they still are subjective in the following ways:

 

Some caches have more than one 'logical parking area', especially in mountainous open space areas, such as when different trails trade elevation for distance. Sometimes there are multiple trails from the same parking area, some of which are a lot harder than others.

 

the definition of trail types is a bit subjective. I wouldn't ride my recumbent bike on a lot of trails that are probably intended to be considered 'hardpack' and so I'd change the rating on those, for instance. People who don't ride at all or don't ride bents have to guess as to whether a trail is ridable.

 

bushy/overgrown can change with the seasons. a cache that's placed in the dead of winter might get rated as not overgrown. someone looking for it at the peak of the growing season will have a different opinion of how overgrown it is than someone looking for it during the winter. this can change both the difficulty of finding the cache and the difficulty of the terrain.

 

But, of course, the last question is the most subjective of all. At 150 caches, I think I've probably got a different opinion of how well hidden a cache is than I did when I planted my first one. I think this is the point that causes the most subjectivity when using the system to rate caches.

 

All that said, I think ClayJar did a great job on the rating system, I use it all the time, and I can't imagine how to 'fix' any of those points. You just have to remember them when you use the system.

[+bigeddy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris n Maria:

Now we have the ability to log Co-ordinates when we find a cache then what the page needs is a _I found this cache (1 easy - 5 Very Difficult)_

optional field. Then this is displayed at the top of each log.

---

One of my pet peeves is inaccurate ratings, and if I think a rating is more than 1 off I'll sometimes mention it in my log. A rating field in the log would be nice. It's not so much that ratings are subjective but that some cache owners are sloppy in rating their own caches. There are many variables (weather, approach, etc.) of course, but I'll bet 10 experienced cachers will not be off more than 1 in most ratings.

 

However, I'd take this a step further and also provide a field for overall quality of experience. That would be really useful to me in determining what caches to go after. And if several others found a cache hunt to be a poor experience, that might prompt the cache owner to make it better.

 

Because caches change over time, I'm not so sure an average rating of all logs would be a good idea. Individual ratings would help, though.