Terrain rating adjustments over time

[+SwineFlew]

I don't understand the 'favor the cachers who have to find the cache' while ignoring the ones who have found it. Personally I care about the experience my finders had and the memories they take away and that may involve the chase for my D/T combo, I'd never want to take that away from anyone.

 

I think they should be favored because the purpose of a T/D rating is to serve the seekers of a cache. It is meant to assist geocachers in determining what caches they want to search for and give them an idea what is in store for them.

 

I see no need to cater to a segment of cachers who chose to use the rating for other than its intended purpose.

 

But Groundspeak chose to add the D/T grid to it's assortment of stats so completing it is part of the game, unlike the FTF side game which is not tracked by GS. I am one of many people that chose to try and complete the grid and there are a few caches I went out of my way to find due to the D/T combo. I invested my time and money specifically to find that cache for that rating and for the CO to take that away from me by changing the rating would upset me as I'm sure would upset many others.

 

Bottom line, chances are you will upset someone, question is: do you want to?

 

What about the Jasmer challenges? Why archive an old cache in favor of one challenge over another?

Plenty of the old caches back in the 2000 are way under rated anyway, so it shouldnt be a too big of a problem for people that want to do the fizzy.(BTW, alot of the owners of those caches wont change the rating for some reason)

 

Like this cache... http://coord.info/GC17 Its under rated because FS blocked the road to the nearest trailhead last year. Now, everybody got a steep hike to the GZ. (there is two ways to get to it and I think following the road would be easier)

 

Or this one... http://coord.info/GC12 Its NOT a 1D/1T and I found this cache as well. Both of these caches can be really hard to get to in the winter because of snow. (extra planning to get to it)

[+SwineFlew]

BTW, archiving a jasmer cache that you found wont mess up challenge find because you found it but changing the rating will mess up people fizzy find if its a rare one.

[+Roman!]

I'm just curious if anyone actually had a CO change the rating on a cache and as a result your completed grid was not completed?

 

As I've said I had it happen to me within the last month and I was not happy as it was a rare combo but a polite note and the CO restored it to it's original rating.

 

Things suck more when the actually happen to you.

[+SwineFlew]

I'm just curious if anyone actually had a CO change the rating on a cache and as a result your completed grid was not completed?

 

As I've said I had it happen to me within the last month and I was not happy as it was a rare combo but a polite note and the CO restored it to it's original rating.

 

Things suck more when the actually happen to you.

As far I know, it havent happen to me but now I am very close to finish and I will notice it big time if a CO changed it on me.

 

I know it happens to someone here that finished the challenge and found the final with a picture of every box filled, but some year later, some CO changed the rating and make it looks like he didnt finished it. It does mess up his stats sheet that you pull off of GASK to put on your profile page. This past year, he finally found a cache to fill the hole. Hopeful it will stay that way.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Interesting to see the responses. I've never adjusted the terrain ratings on any of my caches according to the season. We do get quite a bit of rain here in the winter (not much snow!) so sometimes areas are water-logged. I think, at the most, I would put a line on the cache page about the area being soggy in the winter or "rubber-boot-friendly" as some will put it.

[BoredRoom]

This is why, if possible, there should be a feature where the D/T rating is encoded into the log entry at the time it is entered.

 

If the aforementioned feature were implemented, the D/T chart generators could be programmed to query the user's log entry instead of the cache itself.

 

This would make it a lot easier for COs to increase and decrease the ratings based on season or other variables, and not have to worry about flattening someone's fizzy.

 

Yeah I know, it could be abused blah blah blah but I suspect that quantity of grief would be fractional to what is currently happening with the system as-is.

[+Dame Deco]

This forum is full of so many inconsistencies. If someone asks, if they find a cache, should they delete their prior DNF log. People come out of the woodwork chanting "No, it is part of the historical data of both the cache and your Geocaching record. Yet, if someone paves a 4 lane hwy right to your T4 hiking cache, you'll just change it to a T1.5, with no regard to your caches historical record or of that of it's previous finders.

 

Oh yeah, this was my chuckle of the morning!

[+thebruce0]

I'm just curious if anyone actually had a CO change the rating on a cache and as a result your completed grid was not completed?

 

As I've said I had it happen to me within the last month and I was not happy as it was a rare combo but a polite note and the CO restored it to it's original rating.

 

Things suck more when the actually happen to you.

As I mentioned previously (in response to you btw) yes, this has happened before and continues to happen. The details of that example and how it's dealt with are in that comment.

[+thebruce0]

This forum is full of so many inconsistencies. If someone asks, if they find a cache, should they delete their prior DNF log. People come out of the woodwork chanting "No, it is part of the historical data of both the cache and your Geocaching record. Yet, if someone paves a 4 lane hwy right to your T4 hiking cache, you'll just change it to a T1.5, with no regard to your caches historical record or of that of it's previous finders.

Oh yeah, this was my chuckle of the morning!

And this is why if I change any listing-specific property, I post a note/maint log, so that the change becomes historical record, whatever degree of a change it is. A listing description change does not become historical record (not publicly at least, if Groundspeak keeps a changelog)

[+bflentje]

 

Blah blah blah, me me me and I don't care about anyone else. Nice attitude, hope it gets you far in life.

 

But what you have been saying is ignore the future finders to keep past finders happy. Different side of the same coin.

 

Ayep. I love the irony in Roman's quote above..

[+bflentje]

I'm just curious if anyone actually had a CO change the rating on a cache and as a result your completed grid was not completed?

 

As I've said I had it happen to me within the last month and I was not happy as it was a rare combo but a polite note and the CO restored it to it's original rating.

 

Things suck more when the actually happen to you.

 

Ahh, that explains the whining. Just go find another cache.

Edited September 17, 2012 by bflentje

[+Roman!]

 

Ayep. I love the irony in Roman's quote above..

 

Can you please explain the irony or are you just making s*** up?

 

 

Ahh, that explains the whining. Just go find another cache.

 

Again you seem to be lacking comprehension skill as I have clearly stated the rating was restored and you seem the be missing the point I was making.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Found a 5/2.5 recently. That's a fairly rare rating combo. Three in difficulty at its worst. Hope they don't change it (though it should be changed), because that's the only one of those I have. There are many, may over-ratings. Most 5/5s, for instance. Hmm... There don't seem to be a lot of 4.5 difficulty or terrain...

[+SwineFlew]

Found a 5/2.5 recently. That's a fairly rare rating combo. Three in difficulty at its worst. Hope they don't change it (though it should be changed), because that's the only one of those I have. There are many, may over-ratings. Most 5/5s, for instance. Hmm... There don't seem to be a lot of 4.5 difficulty or terrain...

Yes. I was thinking about that for a long time. I feel the rating system is broken because theres too many rare combo when most caches are really under rated or over rated. Is there a way to balance it all out more evenly?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Found a 5/2.5 recently. That's a fairly rare rating combo. Three in difficulty at its worst. Hope they don't change it (though it should be changed), because that's the only one of those I have. There are many, may over-ratings. Most 5/5s, for instance. Hmm... There don't seem to be a lot of 4.5 difficulty or terrain...

Yes. I was thinking about that for a long time. I feel the rating system is broken because theres too many rare combo when most caches are really under rated or over rated. Is there a way to balance it all out more evenly?

It's all subjective. Many cachers cannot accept that they cannot get true mid-terrain caches so they rate their caches too high and complain that others are rated too low. I saw where someone insisted that a cache hanging 20' in a tree must be a T4 because it was a steep incline requiring hands. My thought was so is a stairwell if you properly use the handrail. Shark does all of our climbing. If I grab anything over a 3.5T, I know it's overrated.

[+BlueDeuce]

Found a 5/2.5 recently. That's a fairly rare rating combo. Three in difficulty at its worst. Hope they don't change it (though it should be changed), because that's the only one of those I have. There are many, may over-ratings. Most 5/5s, for instance. Hmm... There don't seem to be a lot of 4.5 difficulty or terrain...

Yes. I was thinking about that for a long time. I feel the rating system is broken because theres too many rare combo when mos caches are really under rated or over rated. Is there a way to balance it all out more evenly?

It's all subjective. Many cachers cannot accept that they cannot get true mid-terrain caches so they rate their caches too high and complain that others are rated too low. I saw where someone insisted that a cache hanging 20' in a tree must be a T4 because it was a steep incline requiring hands. My thought was so is a stairwell if you properly use the handrail. Shark does all of our climbing. If I grab anything over a 3.5T, I know it's overrated.

 

I've done a LPCs with a D/T 4.5/1 and a 3.5/1 which were no freaking different than any other walmart LPC.

 

It would be nice to have rating even reasonably close, but I've learned not to expect anything reasonable. Doesn't mean I've accepted it.

[+SwineFlew]

Found a 5/2.5 recently. That's a fairly rare rating combo. Three in difficulty at its worst. Hope they don't change it (though it should be changed), because that's the only one of those I have. There are many, may over-ratings. Most 5/5s, for instance. Hmm... There don't seem to be a lot of 4.5 difficulty or terrain...

Yes. I was thinking about that for a long time. I feel the rating system is broken because theres too many rare combo when mos caches are really under rated or over rated. Is there a way to balance it all out more evenly?

It's all subjective. Many cachers cannot accept that they cannot get true mid-terrain caches so they rate their caches too high and complain that others are rated too low. I saw where someone insisted that a cache hanging 20' in a tree must be a T4 because it was a steep incline requiring hands. My thought was so is a stairwell if you properly use the handrail. Shark does all of our climbing. If I grab anything over a 3.5T, I know it's overrated.

 

I've done a LPCs with a D/T 4.5/1 and a 3.5/1 which were no freaking different than any other walmart LPC.

 

It would be nice to have rating even reasonably close, but I've learned not to expect anything reasonable. Doesn't mean I've accepted it.

 

Yes... I tend to tell myself, go check it out and see if you can do it. If I cant, I will find a way that I can. Alot of time, I have to come back with the right tools.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

 

I've done a LPCs with a D/T 4.5/1 and a 3.5/1 which were no freaking different than any other walmart LPC.

 

It would be nice to have rating even reasonably close, but I've learned not to expect anything reasonable. Doesn't mean I've accepted it.

I agree. We dropped our daughter off at a football game in a nearby town. Knowing we would be hanging-out for a few hours after dark, I loaded some 1.5/1.5 caches. Our PQ ignores anything below 2 but felt pretty safe that we would get some nice caches. Wouldn't you know it, the first was a pill bottle under a LP skirt in a parking lot. Maybe the camo tape justified the D I love when they do that, but the T?

[+BlueDeuce]

 

I've done a LPCs with a D/T 4.5/1 and a 3.5/1 which were no freaking different than any other walmart LPC.

 

It would be nice to have rating even reasonably close, but I've learned not to expect anything reasonable. Doesn't mean I've accepted it.

I agree. We dropped our daughter off at a football game in a nearby town. Knowing we would be hanging-out for a few hours after dark, I loaded some 1.5/1.5 caches. Our PQ ignores anything below 2 but felt pretty safe that we would get some nice caches. Wouldn't you know it, the first was a pill bottle under a LP skirt in a parking lot. Maybe the camo tape justified the D I love when they do that, but the T?

 

I understand, I don't stay for the game either.

[+BlueDeuce]

Try this.

 

Caches should be attempted to have the most accurate rating as it is found under most circumstances.

Not everyone can be expected to understand how to rate their caches accurately.

Some cache are not even close to being rated accurately.

The reviewer is not responsible to insure accurate ratings.

Non-cache onwers cannot dictate ratings or have them changed through enforcement.

At best you can have a dialog with the owner.

[+niraD]

The whole thing is, many of you will say if you replace a cache container that isnt the same size, its best to post a new cache page because the experience of finding the cache had changed,

Maybe. Maybe not. If the point of the cache is the container size, then sure, go ahead: archive it and relist it with the new size.

 

But if the point of the cache is the location, or the view, or the puzzle, or anything else other than the container size, then I don't think it makes sense to archive and relist the cache just because you replace the cache with one that is smaller or larger, crossing the boundary between two sizes.

 

And if the point of the cache is the location, or the view, or the puzzle, or anything else other than the length of the hike, then I don't think it makes sense to archive and relist the cache just because a new road opens and the cache is now 500 yards from the trailhead instead of 5 miles, or because a road closes and the cache is now 5 miles from the trailhead instead of 500 yards.

So if you take a cache that's a 5 hour hike, the cache write-up indicates this and years later a road is built to make it a P&G, you're saying this is the same cache?

If the point of the cache is the 5-hour hike, then sure, archive the cache and relist it.

 

But if the point of the cache is the waterfall, then I would not archive and relist the cache just because the abandoned logging road (that you used to have to walk along) has been improved and opened to the public, with convenient parking a quarter mile from the waterfall. It's still the same container. It's still the same location. It's still the same hide. More people will be able to enjoy the waterfall, and more people will be able to access the cache (hence, the lower terrain rating), but that's a function of the road improvements, not a function of the cache.

 

And even some of us who don't care about the Jasmer Challenge (the original is on my ignore list) don't like seeing older cache listings churned. Do you archive and relist when an attribute changes (e.g., because there is now poison oak, or because the park now charges for parking)? Do you archive and relist when the CO changes his/her geocaching handle? After all, someone might have a challenge based on cache attributes, or based on cache owners' geocaching handles. But I find both of those examples just as absurd as archiving and relisting a cache simply because the terrain rating changed, when the terrain rating was never the point of the cache anyway.

[+thebruce0]

Do you archive and relist when an attribute changes (e.g., because there is now poison oak, or because the park now charges for parking)? Do you archive and relist when the CO changes his/her geocaching handle? After all, someone might have a challenge based on cache attributes, or based on cache owners' geocaching handles. But I find both of those examples just as absurd as archiving and relisting a cache simply because the terrain rating changed, when the terrain rating was never the point of the cache anyway.

+1

 

Archiving and relisting should be entirely up to the cache owner's opinion. Altering the difficulty, terrain, or any other property should be entirely up to the cache owner's opinion. This is the right granted to the CO from Groundspeak, and is supported in the guidelines.

 

And as has been reiterated numerous times through the thread, that doesn't mean the CO or cachers should have the attitude that only their play style matters. Understand that people have challenges based on listing properties. Understand that COs have the right to alter listing properties at any time. Understand that listings are first and foremost to be as accurate as possible, according to the CO, in order for finders to have a safe and accurate experience.

 

Recommendations:

CO's, if you don't republish a listing, then post any alterations to your cache in the log history so it's recorded there for people who care about stats retroactively.

Cachers, if you are doing a challenge based on listing properties, make a record of any qualifying listings' properties and check with the challenge creator on how they wish to deal with changing cache properties.

 

This seems to be the safest and most respectful way for people to play - a little bit more work for both sides to accommodate the other, but much less (inherent) angst and controversy over who's "rights" are being trampled in this game.

 

[+Dame Deco]

The whole thing is, many of you will say if you replace a cache container that isnt the same size, its best to post a new cache page because the experience of finding the cache had changed,

Maybe. Maybe not. If the point of the cache is the container size, then sure, go ahead: archive it and relist it with the new size.

 

But if the point of the cache is the location, or the view, or the puzzle, or anything else other than the container size, then I don't think it makes sense to archive and relist the cache just because you replace the cache with one that is smaller or larger, crossing the boundary between two sizes.

 

And if the point of the cache is the location, or the view, or the puzzle, or anything else other than the length of the hike, then I don't think it makes sense to archive and relist the cache just because a new road opens and the cache is now 500 yards from the trailhead instead of 5 miles, or because a road closes and the cache is now 5 miles from the trailhead instead of 500 yards.

So if you take a cache that's a 5 hour hike, the cache write-up indicates this and years later a road is built to make it a P&G, you're saying this is the same cache?

If the point of the cache is the 5-hour hike, then sure, archive the cache and relist it.

 

But if the point of the cache is the waterfall, then I would not archive and relist the cache just because the abandoned logging road (that you used to have to walk along) has been improved and opened to the public, with convenient parking a quarter mile from the waterfall. It's still the same container. It's still the same location. It's still the same hide. More people will be able to enjoy the waterfall, and more people will be able to access the cache (hence, the lower terrain rating), but that's a function of the road improvements, not a function of the cache.

 

And even some of us who don't care about the Jasmer Challenge (the original is on my ignore list) don't like seeing older cache listings churned. Do you archive and relist when an attribute changes (e.g., because there is now poison oak, or because the park now charges for parking)? Do you archive and relist when the CO changes his/her geocaching handle? After all, someone might have a challenge based on cache attributes, or based on cache owners' geocaching handles. But I find both of those examples just as absurd as archiving and relisting a cache simply because the terrain rating changed, when the terrain rating was never the point of the cache anyway.

 

Baloney. None of the examples you listed are anywhere near an equivalent. If a hike changes to a drive, just archive and relist, you don't even have to go out and change the container. Just leave it in place and have people cache away if you like. As mentioned above, former finders can revisit this wonderful place you're praising.

 

All the answers are getting more and more extreme and bordering on silly with defending "I don't care about your D/T grid." Come on, what we're talking about is caches with unusual combos and high ratings--a tiny percentage of all the caches out there. This isn't about "don't change a 2/2" for pete's sake. Have some respect for the folks who spent hours, money for gas, and like that, plus who enjoyed the hell out of the place and journey, etc., a year or more ago, and leave the rating as is or archive and replace. You're trying to make it sound like the person who got the 1/5 or 2/4.5 ONLY did it for the grid--that's probably not true. Why can't they enjoy the journey and all that in the exact same way you do, plus they enjoy the challenge of filling their grid, too? Why does it have to be either/or?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Dame Deco

[+bflentje]

 

Ayep. I love the irony in Roman's quote above..

 

Can you please explain the irony or are you just making s*** up?

 

 

Ahh, that explains the whining. Just go find another cache.

 

Again you seem to be lacking comprehension skill as I have clearly stated the rating was restored and you seem the be missing the point I was making.

 

Your true colors are showing.. I love it.

 

The irony is, you complain for those that have already found the cache but don't give a lick about future finders of the cache. Talk about not caring for your fellow cachers.. at least you already got your smiley.

[+Dame Deco]

I show that I care about future finders when I say archive and replace (I know you weren't talking to me!).

[+SwineFlew]

 

Ayep. I love the irony in Roman's quote above..

 

Can you please explain the irony or are you just making s*** up?

 

 

Ahh, that explains the whining. Just go find another cache.

 

Again you seem to be lacking comprehension skill as I have clearly stated the rating was restored and you seem the be missing the point I was making.

 

Your true colors are showing.. I love it.

 

The irony is, you complain for those that have already found the cache but don't give a lick about future finders of the cache. Talk about not caring for your fellow cachers.. at least you already got your smiley.

That wasnt nice of you to sit behind the screen and stir up trouble. I feel sorry for you.

[+bflentje]

I show that I care about future finders when I say archive and replace (I know you weren't talking to me!).

 

Sure, but like many of us said, a cache may warrant some tweaking and your fizzy is not my responsibility. And that doesn't mean I don't care for you as a human. Any statements to the contrary is nothing more than whining. YOUR numbers are YOUR responsibility and MY caches are MY responsibility. Plain and simple.

[+niraD]

If a hike changes to a drive, just archive and relist, you don't even have to go out and change the container. Just leave it in place and have people cache away if you like.

If nothing about the cache itself has changed (as evidenced by the fact that I don't even have to visit the site or touch the container), then why on earth would I archive and relist the cache?

 

Past visitors can already revisit the site. I've revisited a number of caches myself. But I'd be disappointed if one of those caches had been archived and relisted when the cache itself had not changed significantly.

[+thebruce0]

I show that I care about future finders when I say archive and replace (I know you weren't talking to me!).

 

Sure, that is an option, but it is not a rule, it is not a requirement, so by extension you are saying the owners who choose not to do that are screwing over past finders. You are forcing your play style on others.

I'm saying recognize that that will not always happen. Guaranteed. COs have the right not to do that. And you come off the jerk by telling off those people.

[+SwineFlew]

Archiving caches and relisting them is really the healthy way to keep our sport alive.

[+Dame Deco]

Archiving caches and relisting them is really the healthy way to keep our sport alive.

 

I agree. I love caching with my dog, but I've got nothing to find within 10 miles of my house. I wish some park caches would get archived and new ones put in place so that I can cache while strolling through the woods with the Geohound. Does your average cache in the park really need to last 5 or 10 years?

[+bflentje]

Archiving caches and relisting them is really the healthy way to keep our sport alive.

 

I agree. I love caching with my dog, but I've got nothing to find within 10 miles of my house. I wish some park caches would get archived and new ones put in place so that I can cache while strolling through the woods with the Geohound. Does your average cache in the park really need to last 5 or 10 years?

 

But that's a different issue than someone whining about their fizzy challenge.

[+SwineFlew]

I show that I care about future finders when I say archive and replace (I know you weren't talking to me!).

 

Sure, that is an option, but it is not a rule, it is not a requirement, so by extension you are saying the owners who choose not to do that are screwing over past finders. You are forcing your play style on others.

I'm saying recognize that that will not always happen. Guaranteed. COs have the right not to do that. And you come off the jerk by telling off those people.

When you changed a rare combo of a cache because it got really easy many years down the road, you are really changing of what you advertised when you first start up cache page. Those rare combos is really advertising your cache even you arent aware of it. When you dont follow of what you advertised, you are in the wrong. You back out of the deal and now people are upset at you. And now some CO will say, "deal with it". Whoa!

 

The whole point is about those rare combo is that you are advertising your cache in a whole different light because its rare and people with the side game are going to be looking for it.

 

In the real world, if you back out of what you advertised, you will get sued. Thats why I am trying to say that CO needs to treat their finders as customers because they are giving them a service.

 

Archiving the cache because its NOT the same as you advertised when you set it up is the way to go.(for those rare combo caches)

Edited September 18, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+a1elec]

The rare D/T are important to some people but also the older hide dates are just as important to others that are looking to fill in other challenges and if the older cache are archived then they no longer become available and the date will disappear and leave holes for the calendar challengers.

 

This is my opinion only so there is an argument for both cases regarding what to do and either way it is the CO's descision on who to upset however to loose a cache that has been in the location for 10 years just because the terrain changed then I would vote to change the terrain and leave the old cache in place for new caches to find and see how this wonderful hobby started.

 

Flame suit on.

[+niraD]

In the real world, if you back out of what you advertised, you will get sued. Thats why I am trying to say that CO needs to treat their finders as customers because they are giving them a service.

Okay, let's take a real world example.

 

The store I was in last night did not sell a "$900 refrigerator". They sold a "21cf bottom-freezer model xyzzy refrigerator". It might happen to cost $900 right now, and the advertising will list the $900 price. But if they have a sale next week and drop the price to $700, then it is still the "21cf bottom-freezer model xyz refrigerator" and they'll just change the advertised price. They won't change the model number or the catalog number or the serial number just because buying the refrigerator is now easier than it was before.

 

The CO might not have hidden a "T3 cache". The CO might have hidden a "cache at the beautiful waterfall where he proposed to his wife". It might happen to require a 5 mile hike right now, and the cache listing will list the 3-star terrain. But if a new trailhead opens next week and the required hike drops to less than a mile, then it is still the "cache at the beautiful waterfall where he proposed to his wife" and the CO will just change the terrain rating. He won't archive the cache and relist it with a new GC code just because hiking to the beautiful waterfall is now easier than it was before.

 

Yeah, I think the "geocachers as customers" analogy works that way too.

Edited September 18, 2012 by niraD

[+SwineFlew]

In the real world, if you back out of what you advertised, you will get sued. Thats why I am trying to say that CO needs to treat their finders as customers because they are giving them a service.

Okay, let's take a real world example.

 

The store I was in last night did not sell a "$900 refrigerator". They sold a "21cf bottom-freezer model xyzzy refrigerator". It might happen to cost $900 right now, and the advertising will list the $900 price. But if they have a sale next week and drop the price to $700, then it is still the "21cf bottom-freezer model xyz refrigerator" and they'll just change the advertised price. They won't change the model number or the catalog number or the serial number just because buying the refrigerator is now easier than it was before.

 

The CO might not have hidden a "T3 cache". The CO might have hidden a "cache at the beautiful waterfall where he proposed to his wife". It might happen to require a 5 mile hike right now, and the cache listing will list the 3-star terrain. But if a new trailhead opens next week and the required hike drops to less than a mile, then it is still the "cache at the beautiful waterfall where he proposed to his wife" and the CO will just change the terrain rating. He won't archive the cache and relist it with a new GC code just because hiking to the beautiful waterfall is now easier than it was before.

 

Yeah, I think the "geocachers as customers" analogy works that way too.

Changing the price got nothing to do with cache rating.(btw, alot of business will give you the sale price if you bought it from them a week before and you go back ask if they will honor it) Plus, if they dont honor it, I can return it because I am not happy with it. Its double edge sword there when selling a customer something in the real world.

 

I am talking about selling a service(a rare combo) and someone bough the service(found the cache because they want the rare combo) that you turn around and change the rating on them instead of relisting the cache with a new combo.

 

Most CO knows their high rating caches get some extra attention.

 

Rule #1 The customer is always right.

Rule #2 If the customer is wrong, go back to number one.

Edited September 18, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+niraD]

Changing the price got nothing to do with cache rating.

Sure it does.

 

The price tells you how hard it is to buy something. The terrain rating tells you how hard it is to get to the cache location.

 

The price isn't the thing you're buying. The terrain rating isn't the cache.

 

The price can change even if the thing you're buying is essentially the same. The terrain rating can change even if the cache you're seeking is essentially the same.

 

Some people play games based on the exact price (e.g., a scavenger hunt that requires an object costing exactly $1.19). Some people play games based on the exact terrain rating (e.g., Fizzy Challenges).

 

Those games don't change the fact that the price isn't the thing you're buying. Those games don't change the fact that the terrain rating isn't the cache.

 

Those games don't change the fact that the price can change even if the thing you're buying is essentially the same. Those games don't change the fact that the terrain rating can change even if the cache you're seeking is essentially the same.

 

This makes perfect sense to me.

 

And while I'm at it...

 

Archiving caches and relisting them is really the healthy way to keep our sport alive.

There are times when you need to raze a building and build something new on the site. But the quoted statement makes as much sense to me as claiming that razing buildings and reconstructing them is really the healthy way to keep our cities alive. Sometimes there is no reason to raze the building. Sometimes it just needs a new roof, or a coat of paint, or a wheelchair ramp.

[+bflentje]

In the real world, if you back out of what you advertised, you will get sued. Thats why I am trying to say that CO needs to treat their finders as customers because they are giving them a service.

Okay, let's take a real world example.

 

The store I was in last night did not sell a "$900 refrigerator". They sold a "21cf bottom-freezer model xyzzy refrigerator". It might happen to cost $900 right now, and the advertising will list the $900 price. But if they have a sale next week and drop the price to $700, then it is still the "21cf bottom-freezer model xyz refrigerator" and they'll just change the advertised price. They won't change the model number or the catalog number or the serial number just because buying the refrigerator is now easier than it was before.

 

The CO might not have hidden a "T3 cache". The CO might have hidden a "cache at the beautiful waterfall where he proposed to his wife". It might happen to require a 5 mile hike right now, and the cache listing will list the 3-star terrain. But if a new trailhead opens next week and the required hike drops to less than a mile, then it is still the "cache at the beautiful waterfall where he proposed to his wife" and the CO will just change the terrain rating. He won't archive the cache and relist it with a new GC code just because hiking to the beautiful waterfall is now easier than it was before.

 

Yeah, I think the "geocachers as customers" analogy works that way too.

Changing the price got nothing to do with cache rating.(btw, alot of business will give you the sale price if you bought it from them a week before and you go back ask if they will honor it) Plus, if they dont honor it, I can return it because I am not happy with it. Its double edge sword there when selling a customer something in the real world.

 

I am talking about selling a service(a rare combo) and someone bough the service(found the cache because they want the rare combo) that you turn around and change the rating on them instead of relisting the cache with a new combo.

 

Most CO knows their high rating caches get some extra attention.

 

Rule #1 The customer is always right.

Rule #2 If the customer is wrong, go back to number one.

 

You're now bordering on people snickering behind your back..

Edited September 18, 2012 by bflentje

[+thebruce0]

Sure, that is an option, but it is not a rule, it is not a requirement, so by extension you are saying the owners who choose not to do that are screwing over past finders. You are forcing your play style on others.

I'm saying recognize that that will not always happen. Guaranteed. COs have the right not to do that. And you come off the jerk by telling off those people.

When you changed a rare combo of a cache because it got really easy many years down the road, you are really changing of what you advertised when you first start up cache page.

You are arguing a play style, your preference, not the preference of every CO who plays. I'll say it again: that is an option, but it is not a rule, it is not a requirement. Groundspeak has made the maintenance of a cache listing the responsibility of the owner. You may feel there is a line between big and small changes that dictate relisting or altering, but the fact of the matter is, there is no line. It is entirely the CO's discretion.

 

Those rare combos is really advertising your cache even you arent aware of it.

It's not about advertising a cache. To some, they like the attention rare combos bring. To others, they would very much rather a listing be accurate, regardless of "rarity".

 

When you dont follow of what you advertised, you are in the wrong.

Exactly. So, it's up the cache owner to decide what is being advertised, and what they feel is appropriate action with their cache listing to keep it accurate according to them.

 

You back out of the deal and now people are upset at you. And now some CO will say, "deal with it". Whoa!

I'm not defending a "deal with it" attitude - from either side. I'm saying, the truth of the matter is, it's not just about the finder, and it's not just about the owner. But the owner has final say on the properties of their listing, presuming they are striving for accuracy and not intentionally misleading. Archival or adjustment is up to the CO, and there is not a cacher or previous finder can do about that.

 

The whole point is about those rare combo is that you are advertising your cache in a whole different light because its rare and people with the side game are going to be looking for it.

Play styles. Not everyone plays that way, and it's certainly not a rule.

 

Thats why I am trying to say that CO needs to treat their finders as customers because they are giving them a service.

Apart from "customers" (sorry, no), yes - their finders are their priority. People who will be going to find a cache. Not people who already did. The owner can themselves choose whether to cater to past finders or future finders. The owner can choose whether to archive and re-list or alter the properties. They are under no obligation to do either, except to ensure their listing is not a danger to those who find it. Those who find it, if they feel the listing is not accurate or they have some other beef with it, have the right to log a NM or NA at their discretion, or take up the issue with the CO, or take it up with a reviewer, or take it up with appeals.

 

Archiving the cache because its NOT the same as you advertised when you set it up is the way to go.(for those rare combo caches)

No, that is an exception that you have inserted. It is not a guideline nor a rule, and no CO is under that obligation or responsibility. It is solely their choice if they see fit.

[+bflentje]

I am talking about selling a service(a rare combo) and someone bough the service(found the cache because they want the rare combo) that you turn around and change the rating on them instead of relisting the cache with a new combo.

 

Most CO knows their high rating caches get some extra attention.

 

Rule #1 The customer is always right.

Rule #2 If the customer is wrong, go back to number one.

 

Your analogy is laughable. Why don't you just get up the courage and go find another cache with that rare combination?

[BoredRoom]

From the customer-purchasing-products-and-services analogy perspective, what is lacking is a receipt.

 

This feature would provide that:

 

(maybe I should post in the Features Suggestion forum instead of here?)

 

This is why, if possible, there should be a feature where the D/T rating is encoded into the log entry at the time it is entered.

 

If the aforementioned feature were implemented, the D/T chart generators could be programmed to query the user's log entry instead of the cache itself.

 

This would make it a lot easier for COs to increase and decrease the ratings based on season or other variables, and not have to worry about flattening someone's fizzy.

 

Yeah I know, it could be abused blah blah blah but I suspect that quantity of grief would be fractional to what is currently happening with the system as-is.

[+Don_J]

The whole thing is, many of you will say if you replace a cache container that isnt the same size, its best to post a new cache page because the experience of finding the cache had changed,

Maybe. Maybe not. If the point of the cache is the container size, then sure, go ahead: archive it and relist it with the new size.

 

But if the point of the cache is the location, or the view, or the puzzle, or anything else other than the container size, then I don't think it makes sense to archive and relist the cache just because you replace the cache with one that is smaller or larger, crossing the boundary between two sizes.

 

And if the point of the cache is the location, or the view, or the puzzle, or anything else other than the length of the hike, then I don't think it makes sense to archive and relist the cache just because a new road opens and the cache is now 500 yards from the trailhead instead of 5 miles, or because a road closes and the cache is now 5 miles from the trailhead instead of 500 yards.

So if you take a cache that's a 5 hour hike, the cache write-up indicates this and years later a road is built to make it a P&G, you're saying this is the same cache?

If the point of the cache is the 5-hour hike, then sure, archive the cache and relist it.

 

But if the point of the cache is the waterfall, then I would not archive and relist the cache just because the abandoned logging road (that you used to have to walk along) has been improved and opened to the public, with convenient parking a quarter mile from the waterfall. It's still the same container. It's still the same location. It's still the same hide. More people will be able to enjoy the waterfall, and more people will be able to access the cache (hence, the lower terrain rating), but that's a function of the road improvements, not a function of the cache.

 

And even some of us who don't care about the Jasmer Challenge (the original is on my ignore list) don't like seeing older cache listings churned. Do you archive and relist when an attribute changes (e.g., because there is now poison oak, or because the park now charges for parking)? Do you archive and relist when the CO changes his/her geocaching handle? After all, someone might have a challenge based on cache attributes, or based on cache owners' geocaching handles. But I find both of those examples just as absurd as archiving and relisting a cache simply because the terrain rating changed, when the terrain rating was never the point of the cache anyway.

 

I'm sorry but I can't share that opinion. In your example, the entire experience has changed. I think that someone that has hiked for five hours is going to have an entire different appreciation for that waterfall than someone that drove for 20 minutes in an air conditioned car. I think that that is a perfect example of a cache that should be re-listed.

 

Also, I have no real hope of ever completing a Jasmer Fizzy Challenge. It really isn't an issue with me. What I do like to do is look at my stats and look back on the higher terrain caches with a sense of accomplishment, especially since I'm getting older and can no longer hike quite as far and quite as high. I know that no one can take those accomplishments away from me, but I would still like to see those listing preserved. Regardless of why a cache is there, if a five hour hike is now a park and grab, it's not the same thing. It's different and it should have a different listing.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

Does someone know if there is a forum setting to ignore analogies?

:ph34r:

[AZcachemeister]

... If a hike changes to a drive, just archive and relist...

 

The challenge I was doing requires the found caches to be active caches.

Thanks for messing up my challenge finds.

[AZcachemeister]

... If a hike changes to a drive, just archive and relist...

 

The challenge I was doing requires the found caches to be active caches.

Thanks for messing up my challenge finds.

 

Oh, and some challenges require the caches to have been listed BEFORE a certain date.

Thanks for messing me up some more!

[+niraD]

I'm sorry but I can't share that opinion. In your example, the entire experience has changed. I think that someone that has hiked for five hours is going to have an entire different appreciation for that waterfall than someone that drove for 20 minutes in an air conditioned car. I think that that is a perfect example of a cache that should be re-listed.

And someone who hiked 5 hours would have a different experience from someone who cycled for 1 hour. And someone who hiked 5 hours when everyone had to hike 5 hours would have a different experience from someone who hiked 5 hours when the option to park within half a mile existed. And someone who found it sans GPS would have a different experience from someone with an old yellow eTrex from someone with a modern high-end paperless GPSr from someone with a smartphone app.

 

If the point of the cache was the journey, then the CO can archive the cache. (Although come to think of it, if the point of the cache really was the journey, then it seems odd to me that you'd archive and then relist the cache.)

 

If the point of the cache is the view, or the puzzle, or the history, or whatever, and that view or puzzle or history or whatever hasn't changed, then why archive and relist the cache just because some other (relatively minor, in the eyes of the CO) aspect changed? I'd rather see the same listing, with the terrain rating (and attributes, and anything else) updated to reflect the current situation.

Edited September 18, 2012 by niraD

[+thebruce0]

I'd rather see the same listing, with the terrain rating (and attributes, and anything else) updated to reflect the current situation.

ditto

...even as someone who enjoys and regularly aims for stats challenges!

 

I know that things can change. I have no right to demand CO's return their adjusted cache stats to the way they were the day I found them. That's ludicrous. So, as per the cache seeker process repeated repeatedly in this redundant discussion: I make note of any cache stats as of the day I found them, and verify with the challenge owner how to handle potential cache listing alterations for qualifying caches that are out of my control.

 

Consider that part of the fizzy "challenge".

[+briansnat]

Does someone know if there is a forum setting to ignore analogies?

:ph34r:

 

That would be like killing a horse with a fly swatter.

[+SwineFlew]

Does someone know if there is a forum setting to ignore analogies?

:ph34r:

 

That would be like killing a horse with a fly swatter.

Indeed.

[+Roman!]

 

Ayep. I love the irony in Roman's quote above..

 

Can you please explain the irony or are you just making s*** up?

 

 

Ahh, that explains the whining. Just go find another cache.

 

Again you seem to be lacking comprehension skill as I have clearly stated the rating was restored and you seem the be missing the point I was making.

 

Your true colors are showing.. I love it.

 

The irony is, you complain for those that have already found the cache but don't give a lick about future finders of the cache. Talk about not caring for your fellow cachers.. at least you already got your smiley.

 

i·ro·ny1    [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA

noun, plural i·ro·nies.

1.

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

 

I see no irony and besides you are just using part of what I was saying to fit what you want to hear, how nice of you.