Terrain rating adjustments over time

[+thebruce0]

Keep in mind, any DT change will mess up someone's grid. Doesn't matter if it's -2 to the terrain 3 years later so place a new cache - what if it changes from 1.5 to 1? or 4.5 to 4? Might seem an insignificant change so a pointless one, but nonetheless, the owner may have a legitimate reason for the change. So regardless of scale of the change, does the CO have a right to change a cache rating at any time, to any degree?

 

Yes.

 

Because there's no Groundspeak rule saying they can't. Ratings are made to be adjustable at the CO's will.

 

It might annoy cachers who watch their stats, and moreso when finds multiple years in the past are changed, especially those 'rare combinations', but ultimately that doesn't matter. The core of the game relies on accurate D/T ratings for the listings because the one thing ALL cachers have in common is finding a cache with a D/T rating (not completing fizzy challenges), and only the CO has the right to either provide what they feel are the accurate ratings, or to re-list a new cache.

 

All that said, speaking as someone playing both sides of this fence - as a stats tracker for challenges and as a CO with updated cache ratings - the process I use is to post a note when the rating changes, to and from what and when, and add the update to the description. As a CO, I've then provided what I feel are accurate ratings, and provided all the info necessary for stat tracker cachers.

 

As a stat tracker, if something about an old cache changes (perhaps I notice I no longer qualify for a challenge I know I did previously), I'd have the proof of the original rating and when the change was made. If I'm tracking it in GSAK, I can force it to keep the old rating. If not, I can kindly take the problem up with the particular challenge cache owner to decide how they want to deal with qualifying caches being changed retroactively, and work forward from there (hopefully they accept the rating as of when it was found).

 

No cacher or owner has "rights" in this game beyond what are explicitly outlined in Groundspeak rues/guidelines, or determined/interpreted by reviewers or appeals. But in an effort to be nice to people, if you choose, just try to respect people's different playing styles and preferences. *shrug*

[GPS-Hermit]

Give the terrain rating as good a shot as you can - add comments to cache page like Creek rises sharply after a heavy rain, not recommended in the snow, gas company has reworked certain roads. Yes things change and cachers need your input - it is easy to put alerts in the cache page for current conditions. Nice to know you really stay on top of what is going on in the cache area.

Edited September 12, 2012 by GPS-Hermit

[+Glenn]

There's no reason to archive a cache if Mother Nature decides to throw a curveball at the approach and make it more or less difficult.

 

I say deal with it.

 

Say a cache had a terrain rating of 5 because it was up a tree and climbing gear was needed. Then Mother Nature caused the tree to fall. Now the cache is 6 inches off the ground instead of 30 feet off the ground. If you decided to leave the cache as is. Would you adjust the terrain the rating or is the change significant enough to warrant it to be archived and relisted?

 

Say a cache was 10 miles down a trail with a significant change in elevation. Now loggers come and build a road thru the forest that comes within' feet of the cache. Would you just adjust the terrain rating or relist the cache?

[+Mike & Jess]

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.

+1. That would be great. Save the poor guy who just finished his matrix, while enabling the CO to accuriatly rate his cache.

As great as that would be (and I'm all for it), I suspect there would be a HUGE system (database and page coding) change to accomplish this. Would be great for the game, but very expensive and a lot of risk on the system side

 

There's no reason to archive a cache if Mother Nature decides to throw a curveball at the approach and make it more or less difficult.

 

I say deal with it.

 

Say a cache had a terrain rating of 5 because it was up a tree and climbing gear was needed. Then Mother Nature caused the tree to fall. Now the cache is 6 inches off the ground instead of 30 feet off the ground. If you decided to leave the cache as is. Would you adjust the terrain the rating or is the change significant enough to warrant it to be archived and relisted?

 

Say a cache was 10 miles down a trail with a significant change in elevation. Now loggers come and build a road thru the forest that comes within' feet of the cache. Would you just adjust the terrain rating or relist the cache?

Although Pretty extreme examples, this does show exactly what I was asking in the OP.

[+Glenn]

 

Although Pretty extreme examples, this does show exactly what I was asking in the OP.

 

Sometimes you have to be that way in these forums. If not people try to nitpick the smallest things or end up running the topic off course. I've been guilty of being not specific enough and unintentionally running a topic off course.

 

Back on topic. I mean who really cares about a .5 or 1 star change in terrain? Maybe those trying to complete a fizzy square challenge but that is all. Who really cares about a large change in the terrain rating of a new cache? The CO changed their mind about the ratting and is now correct it. Good for them (and us)! But once a cache has been established (has had more than just a few visitors) if anything that happens that would justify a major and permanent change in the rating then the CO should be also consider archiving and relisting the cache. Something that major of a change I would also image would justify a change in the cache description of the cache and possibly the hint too.

[+Mike & Jess]

 

Although Pretty extreme examples, this does show exactly what I was asking in the OP.

 

Sometimes you have to be that way in these forums. If not people try to nitpick the smallest things or end up running the topic off course. I've been guilty of being not specific enough and unintentionally running a topic off course.

 

Back on topic. I mean who really cares about a .5 or 1 star change in terrain? Maybe those trying to complete a fizzy square challenge but that is all. Who really cares about a large change in the terrain rating of a new cache? The CO changed their mind about the ratting and is now correct it. Good for them (and us)! But once a cache has been established (has had more than just a few visitors) if anything that happens that would justify a major and permanent change in the rating then the CO should be also consider archiving and relisting the cache. Something that major of a change I would also image would justify a change in the cache description of the cache and possibly the hint too.

 

haha, for your example...

Original hint: Up, way Up

New hint: watch your ankles.

 

The cache I had in the back of my mind during the OP (and no, I don't what that CO to change a thing), would not be an extreme change (half to maybe a star tops). Again, this wasn't specifically about this cache. Depending on the means of travel, and the ratings on most geocaching cultures, it is still a 5 terrain. Just a milder 5 (should have been a 5.5 rating previously if existed).

[+J the Goat]

 

Although Pretty extreme examples, this does show exactly what I was asking in the OP.

 

Sometimes you have to be that way in these forums. If not people try to nitpick the smallest things or end up running the topic off course. I've been guilty of being not specific enough and unintentionally running a topic off course.

 

Back on topic. I mean who really cares about a .5 or 1 star change in terrain? Maybe those trying to complete a fizzy square challenge but that is all. Who really cares about a large change in the terrain rating of a new cache? The CO changed their mind about the ratting and is now correct it. Good for them (and us)! But once a cache has been established (has had more than just a few visitors) if anything that happens that would justify a major and permanent change in the rating then the CO should be also consider archiving and relisting the cache. Something that major of a change I would also image would justify a change in the cache description of the cache and possibly the hint too.

I completely agree with this statement. Most likely, I'd post new listings for the above mentioned circumstances. Maybe I'd find a nearby tree and change the coords. I might suggest in the description taking the original path instead of the new logging road, or I'd archive the caches. My point wasn't that no caches should die, my point was just that caches should be accurately rated. If I hide an ammo can at the end of a trail down a creek bed by waterfalls and old growth oak groves, maybe the cache's purpose is the journey to get there. If the difficulty of GZ gets more extreme due to a mudslide or the river washes out and makes it harder to get to, the purpose of the cache being placed is still the same. There's no good reason to re-list the cache, I can just change the difficulty or terrain accordingly and everything is as it should be.

 

I've only changed my ratings early on in my caches lifespans, and will most likely continue to do so. I just don't like people trying to dictate to me how I should be playing my game based on the way they play theirs. That's a problem I see with numbers/stats cachers. Many of them aren't concerned at all with anything but their numbers, and it's having an affect on my game.

 

So of course everything is circumstantial, however I maintain that above all else, caches need to be accurately listed. That means coordinates, permission, and T/D ratings. I can't see a valid argument against any of those things.

[+bflentje]

The constant 'screw the other cacher because he's playing a side game that I don't like' attitude on this forum is really disturbing. I'm honored when people search for my caches, regardless of the reason. The last thing that I'm going to do is start jerking them around. If in the first couple of weeks, it's obvious that I have the ratings wrong, I'll adjust them. After that, micro managing a half star after five years just seems silly. If the entire experience has changed, I'll create a new listing, or I'll archive and pull the container and be done with it.

 

I can't think of a single time where I changed the ratings on one of my caches just to screw the other cacher. In fact, I think your insinuation that cachers do this intentionally is insulting to this geocaching "community" some of you are hyping about.

[+bflentje]

I've only changed my ratings early on in my caches lifespans, and will most likely continue to do so. I just don't like people trying to dictate to me how I should be playing my game based on the way they play theirs. That's a problem I see with numbers/stats cachers. Many of them aren't concerned at all with anything but their numbers, and it's having an affect on my game.

 

Well said.

 

It's important to remember that half the time we rate caches, even as seasoned cachers, it's just an educated guess. You should always strive to be accurate based on the logged experiences of others. If that's within the first few days of a cache or two years from now, it should be done.

 

I will only agree with the opposing view in a case where the rating on an old cache changes "significantly". I don't qualify a half or full star as significant. 1.5 star, maybe, maybe not. Anything beyond that and I'd agree, archive it and rehide. But anything within that threshold, too darn bad for your fizzy challenge.

 

And anyone going for revenge over a rating change, such as lame logs etc, well then you're a big baby in my book and at that point I don't care what you think.

 

Integrity is the name of the game. Appeasing a bunch of cry babies is not.

[+Roman!]

If the terrain changes significantly and permanently (for better or worse), change it. I wouldn't (and don't) worry about anyone else's side games - that's not my concern.

 

+10000

 

Ruining some poor saps fizzy challenge is the LAST thing you should consider. Your cache listing should best represent the actual situation as possible. Period.

 

- coming from someone who hides many caches AND completes challenges.

 

What about all the people that found the cache when the terrain was harder, they are not getting an accurate rating if it is lowered, doesn't this just contradict what you said?.

Nice attitude, I don't give a ^*#! what anyone else thinks.

 

Best idea I've seen is archive it and put out a new one.

[+Roman!]

If the terrain changes significantly and permanently (for better or worse), change it. I wouldn't (and don't) worry about anyone else's side games - that's not my concern.

 

+10000

 

Ruining some poor saps fizzy challenge is the LAST thing you should consider. Your cache listing should best represent the actual situation as possible. Period.

 

- coming from someone who hides many caches AND completes challenges.

 

What about all the people that found the cache when the terrain was harder, they are not getting an accurate rating if it is lowered, doesn't this just contradict what you said?. If you change the rationing because the cache got easier then your rating is not accurate for the people that found it before, either way you are doing what you say you shouldn't be doing.

Nice attitude, I don't give a ^*#! what anyone else thinks.

 

Isn't the D/T grid part of the regular stats just like calendar finds thus not a side game?

 

Best idea I've seen is archive it and put out a new one.

 

 

There's no reason to archive a cache if Mother Nature decides to throw a curveball at the approach and make it more or less difficult.

 

I say deal with it.

 

Say a cache had a terrain rating of 5 because it was up a tree and climbing gear was needed. Then Mother Nature caused the tree to fall. Now the cache is 6 inches off the ground instead of 30 feet off the ground. If you decided to leave the cache as is. Would you adjust the terrain the rating or is the change significant enough to warrant it to be archived and relisted?

 

Say a cache was 10 miles down a trail with a significant change in elevation. Now loggers come and build a road thru the forest that comes within' feet of the cache. Would you just adjust the terrain rating or relist the cache?

 

Personally I would archive the cache and put a new one there if it was still a nice spot that way everyone gets an accurate rating.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Roman!

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

What about all the people that found the cache when the terrain was harder, they are not getting an accurate rating if it is lowered, doesn't this just contradict what you said?. If you change the rationing because the cache got easier then your rating is not accurate for the people that found it before, either way you are doing what you say you shouldn't be doing.

Nice attitude, I don't give a ^*#! what anyone else thinks.

 

Isn't the D/T grid part of the regular stats just like calendar finds thus not a side game?

 

Yes, your calendar finds and D/T grid is displayed under your normal stats. If it changes because a CO changed one or the other (or both) all it will do is change the number in one of the grids. Which is not a big deal unless you care about filling them all in (for things such as a challenge cache or personal accomplishment).

 

If I do change a D/T rating, I would do it because I care that future finders have correct and accurate info. Past finders know what the actual terrain/difficulty is (they were there!) so they are unaffacted (beyond any concerns they have with a changing grid).

 

[edit for typos]

Edited September 13, 2012 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+Mike & Jess]

What about all the people that found the cache when the terrain was harder, they are not getting an accurate rating if it is lowered, doesn't this just contradict what you said?. If you change the rationing because the cache got easier then your rating is not accurate for the people that found it before, either way you are doing what you say you shouldn't be doing.

Nice attitude, I don't give a ^*#! what anyone else thinks.

 

Isn't the D/T grid part of the regular stats just like calendar finds thus not a side game?

 

In the example choochoo raised earlier in this thread, I was/am one of those that had found it when it was harder and also found it when it was easier. Although the rating has not changed (and shouldn't), I'm more disappointed that it has become as easy as it is,and would not take any offense to the rating going down. My log and photos alone with everyone else of that time did state it was a tough cache and one hell of a great adventure. I cache for the experience and adventure, not for a number.

 

 

I will again state (slightly off topic), that the example Steve (choochoo) raised should not be adjusted. It's still a cache/trip/adventure that requires skill sets that are well above the majority of cachers.

[+niraD]

Say a cache had a terrain rating of 5 because it was up a tree and climbing gear was needed. Then Mother Nature caused the tree to fall. Now the cache is 6 inches off the ground instead of 30 feet off the ground. If you decided to leave the cache as is. Would you adjust the terrain the rating or is the change significant enough to warrant it to be archived and relisted?

If the point of the cache was the challenging climb, then I'd put it in a nearby tree and change the coordinates, or I'd archive the cache. In the unlikely case that the point of the cache was some interesting feature of the tree itself (which now just happens to be more accessible), I'd change the terrain rating.

 

Say a cache was 10 miles down a trail with a significant change in elevation. Now loggers come and build a road thru the forest that comes within' feet of the cache. Would you just adjust the terrain rating or relist the cache?

If the point of the cache was some feature at the cache location, then I'd change the terrain rating (unless the road destroyed the feature, in which case I'd archive the cache). In the unlikely case that the point of the cache was the 10-mile hike itself, I'd archive the cache (since prohibiting the use of a new road/trail is an ALR, which is not allowed).

[+Roman!]

What about all the people that found the cache when the terrain was harder, they are not getting an accurate rating if it is lowered, doesn't this just contradict what you said?. If you change the rationing because the cache got easier then your rating is not accurate for the people that found it before, either way you are doing what you say you shouldn't be doing.

Nice attitude, I don't give a ^*#! what anyone else thinks.

 

Isn't the D/T grid part of the regular stats just like calendar finds thus not a side game?

 

In the example choochoo raised earlier in this thread, I was/am one of those that had found it when it was harder and also found it when it was easier. Although the rating has not changed (and shouldn't), I'm more disappointed that it has become as easy as it is,and would not take any offense to the rating going down. My log and photos alone with everyone else of that time did state it was a tough cache and one hell of a great adventure. I cache for the experience and adventure, not for a number.

 

 

I will again state (slightly off topic), that the example Steve (choochoo) raised should not be adjusted. It's still a cache/trip/adventure that requires skill sets that are well above the majority of cachers.

 

But the rating will not be accurate for those that found it before, you will also be messing up someones average D & T.

 

I had it recently happen to me where a CO changed the difficulty rating because he added more clues and suddenly I had a hole in my grid. I went out of my way to find his cache because it had the D/T combo I needed and I did so in good faith assuming it would stay that way. Luckily the CO was nice about it and restored the original rating.

 

If you choose to change a D/T rating best case scenario no one will either notice or care but should you actually uncomplete someone's grid you may cause some major angst and stuff does get around local geocaching communities rather quickly. Some of you posted you don't care about others (kinda sad to go through life that way), but if you actually do care I highly recommend not changing your ratings as it may just black list you from your community. Ultimately the choice is your and these are just my opinions.

 

Just remember A.P.E. caches have been stolen for less.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Roman!

[+NicknPapa]

I've changed difficulty frequently on my caches as the finds and DNFs come in. I just upped the difficulty on a cache that has been out 6 years. Looking at the logs I realized that despite my 1.5 difficulty rating it was generating about 1 DNF for every 6 finds (and who knows how many unlogged DNFs). That is not a 1.5. Now it's a 2.5

 

I don't adjust terrain nearly as much, but I found it necessary to do in a few cases. One was when I placed a cache that was a difficult bushwack and a couple years later a hiking trail was cut by the park right to the cache. The trail actually passes right over the cache. It was a legit 4 star bushwack, but with the trail leading right to it, no way I could still justify that 4 star rating so it's been lowered.

 

Sure it may screw up someone's Fizzy chart, but too bad. I think it's more important that the D/T ratings are correct for the benefit of most cachers.

 

I agree. The difficulty and terrain ratings aren't for past finders, they are for future searchers and as such should reflect current conditions.

[+SwineFlew]

I've changed difficulty frequently on my caches as the finds and DNFs come in. I just upped the difficulty on a cache that has been out 6 years. Looking at the logs I realized that despite my 1.5 difficulty rating it was generating about 1 DNF for every 6 finds (and who knows how many unlogged DNFs). That is not a 1.5. Now it's a 2.5

 

I don't adjust terrain nearly as much, but I found it necessary to do in a few cases. One was when I placed a cache that was a difficult bushwack and a couple years later a hiking trail was cut by the park right to the cache. The trail actually passes right over the cache. It was a legit 4 star bushwack, but with the trail leading right to it, no way I could still justify that 4 star rating so it's been lowered.

 

Sure it may screw up someone's Fizzy chart, but too bad. I think it's more important that the D/T ratings are correct for the benefit of most cachers.

 

I agree. The difficulty and terrain ratings aren't for past finders, they are for future searchers and as such should reflect current conditions.

Ugh? so we past finders are nothing and forgotten? So that how you treat your customers. If you have a business, you will go out of business fast with that attitude.

[+Roman!]

We've all been posting our opinions and you know what they say about opinions.....

 

Here's some plain and simple facts so go ahead and change the ratings but keep them in mind:

 

Any change you make will affect all the finders of that cache, if it's a small change like going from a 1/1 to a 1.5/1.5 then most people will not care but if you are changing a rare or hard difficulty combo you may get people who don't care, people who will email you, people who may target your caches or worse. We've all seen what disgruntled cachers are capable of. There is a chance that people will react at both extremes of the scale.

 

Question is, which of these types of people have found your cache and how will they react?

Do you feel lucky?

[+thebruce0]

Ugh? so we past finders are nothing and forgotten? So that how you treat your customers. If you have a business, you will go out of business fast with that attitude

Here's another option for you: Archive the GC codes and the ratings when you complete and qualify for the challenge. Note them somehow. Or encourage the CO to verify the stats at that time, because you have no control over future alterations to those cache properties and want to make sure the CO knows you qualify.

 

Ratings are definitely more important and relevant to current finders than past finders. There's no debating that.

 

Any change you make will affect all the finders of that cache, if it's a small change like going from a 1/1 to a 1.5/1.5 then most people will not care

Well no. Even a .5 change in D or T can mean the difference between a stats-based challenge qualification and not. So any change can affect past finders, regardless of degree.

 

Cachers:

If you're doing a stats-based challenge, document everything you can at the time you qualify and ensure the CO knows this. Keep the stats for future reference if anything changes.

 

Owners:

Realize people care about stats retroactively and provide a record in the listing logs of any fundamental listing updates you make to make the game easier for those people.

 

Give and take. Simple. Sticking anything to anyone is never a good thing.

[+Roman!]

 

Any change you make will affect all the finders of that cache, if it's a small change like going from a 1/1 to a 1.5/1.5 then most people will not care

Well no. Even a .5 change in D or T can mean the difference between a stats-based challenge qualification and not. So any change can affect past finders, regardless of degree.

 

 

As I said any change will affect every cacher that found that cache, my point was only that the harder/rarer the D/T combo the more likely you will be to have someone react at the negative extreme of the scale. Mind you even making the low D/T combo change just may affect the wrong person.

 

I'd be willing to bet that changing the rating on your 5/5 will cause some angst, how they react, that no one knows but plan for the worst and hope for the best as they say.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Roman!

[+thebruce0]

I be willing to bet that changing the rating on your 5/5 will cause some angst, how they react, that no one knows but be plan for the worst and hope for the best as they say.

 

Oh we're very familiar with the drama around here. We have a fizzy challenge Tequila 81 - fill the grid with finds that were only placed before April 18, 2008 and found after. Some of the combos are very, very, very rare. There have been instances when a rare cache the owner knows is popular for that challenge is altered. But the challenge owner Tequila knows this happens, and makes it clear that qualification is for cache ratings when they're found. So if one of these rare old caches changes, there's an ongoing list of accepted exceptions if someone reviews their qualifications and finds a hole.

 

This is the nature of doing a stats-based challenge. Things change. There's nothing by rules that anyone can do to stop that, because they must favour cachers who have to find the cache. So the onus is on challenge creators, and challenge cachers to find a way to deal with retroactive alterations.

[+Roman!]

I be willing to bet that changing the rating on your 5/5 will cause some angst, how they react, that no one knows but be plan for the worst and hope for the best as they say.

 

Oh we're very familiar with the drama around here. We have a fizzy challenge Tequila 81 - fill the grid with finds that were only placed before April 18, 2008 and found after. Some of the combos are very, very, very rare. There have been instances when a rare cache the owner knows is popular for that challenge is altered. But the challenge owner Tequila knows this happens, and makes it clear that qualification is for cache ratings when they're found. So if one of these rare old caches changes, there's an ongoing list of accepted exceptions if someone reviews their qualifications and finds a hole.

 

This is the nature of doing a stats-based challenge. Things change. There's nothing by rules that anyone can do to stop that, because they must favour cachers who have to find the cache. So the onus is on challenge creators, and challenge cachers to find a way to deal with retroactive alterations.

 

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.

 

If there is a major change like a road being built to a cache that was a long, tough hike then archive and place a new cache and you make everyone happy.

[+Don_J]

The constant 'screw the other cacher because he's playing a side game that I don't like' attitude on this forum is really disturbing. I'm honored when people search for my caches, regardless of the reason. The last thing that I'm going to do is start jerking them around. If in the first couple of weeks, it's obvious that I have the ratings wrong, I'll adjust them. After that, micro managing a half star after five years just seems silly. If the entire experience has changed, I'll create a new listing, or I'll archive and pull the container and be done with it.

 

I can't think of a single time where I changed the ratings on one of my caches just to screw the other cacher. In fact, I think your insinuation that cachers do this intentionally is insulting to this geocaching "community" some of you are hyping about.

 

I NEVER insinuated that you, or anyone else ever did anything intentionally, just to mess with people. You were asked to consider how what you do affects other cachers and your attitude was frankly, 'I don't care, I'll do what I want because I can'. I see this attitude far too often on this forum. That is is what I was commenting on.

[+Don_J]

I've only changed my ratings early on in my caches lifespans, and will most likely continue to do so. I just don't like people trying to dictate to me how I should be playing my game based on the way they play theirs. That's a problem I see with numbers/stats cachers. Many of them aren't concerned at all with anything but their numbers, and it's having an affect on my game.

 

Well said.

 

It's important to remember that half the time we rate caches, even as seasoned cachers, it's just an educated guess. You should always strive to be accurate based on the logged experiences of others. If that's within the first few days of a cache or two years from now, it should be done.

 

I will only agree with the opposing view in a case where the rating on an old cache changes "significantly". I don't qualify a half or full star as significant. 1.5 star, maybe, maybe not. Anything beyond that and I'd agree, archive it and rehide. But anything within that threshold, too darn bad for your fizzy challenge.

 

And anyone going for revenge over a rating change, such as lame logs etc, well then you're a big baby in my book and at that point I don't care what you think.

 

Integrity is the name of the game. Appeasing a bunch of cry babies is not.

 

I honestly don't see the need to change by a half a star, years after a cache has been in play. If the change is that insignificant, perhaps it's not really necessary. As far as retaliation or acting like a cry baby, well, they have pretty much lost the battle at that point. I wouldn't go out of my way to appease cry babies either.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Ugh? so we past finders are nothing and forgotten? So that how you treat your customers. If you have a business, you will go out of business fast with that attitude.

 

But what is the "product" we are providing? I thought it was the fun and excitement of a nice walk in the woods and the finding of the cache.

[+J the Goat]

Ugh? so we past finders are nothing and forgotten? So that how you treat your customers. If you have a business, you will go out of business fast with that attitude.

 

But what is the "product" we are providing? I thought it was the fun and excitement of a nice walk in the woods and the finding of the cache.

 

Exactly this. My finders are not my customers. I don't really care if I place a cache that never gets found if we're going to look at it that way. I place caches to take people to neat locations. The opportunity is there for you, use it or don't. My goal is to give you an accurate idea of what your trip may be like, hence accurate ratings. No, I'm not concerned if my making a cache page more accurate changes your stats. Not my concern in the least. As long as my listing is accurate, I'm happy and so are those who cache the way I do.

 

I'm not trying to make anyone angry or sad or whatever emotion you feel when I change my stars. I'll happily email the owner of a challenge to tell them that I changed a rating and when. I'll do my best to not leave bad information on my cache pages first though, as I think that's what's important.

[+Don_J]

Ugh? so we past finders are nothing and forgotten? So that how you treat your customers. If you have a business, you will go out of business fast with that attitude.

 

But what is the "product" we are providing? I thought it was the fun and excitement of a nice walk in the woods and the finding of the cache.

 

Exactly this. My finders are not my customers. I don't really care if I place a cache that never gets found if we're going to look at it that way. I place caches to take people to neat locations. The opportunity is there for you, use it or don't. My goal is to give you an accurate idea of what your trip may be like, hence accurate ratings. No, I'm not concerned if my making a cache page more accurate changes your stats. Not my concern in the least. As long as my listing is accurate, I'm happy and so are those who cache the way I do.

 

I'm not trying to make anyone angry or sad or whatever emotion you feel when I change my stars. I'll happily email the owner of a challenge to tell them that I changed a rating and when. I'll do my best to not leave bad information on my cache pages first though, as I think that's what's important.

 

It occurs to me that a good part of this controversy can be resolved by taking the D/T off of the edit page after a cache is published, and make them adjustable by posting a log, just like the way we update our coordinates. A new log type, "Update Difficulty and Terrain", that adjusts the D/T and posts an automatic log to the cache would leave a record for those trying to verify challenge caches.

[+jomouse]

I wouldn't change ratings and mess up fizzy charts. If the terrain has permanently changed, archive the original cache and replace with a new rating.

[+Roman!]

Ugh? so we past finders are nothing and forgotten? So that how you treat your customers. If you have a business, you will go out of business fast with that attitude.

 

But what is the "product" we are providing? I thought it was the fun and excitement of a nice walk in the woods and the finding of the cache.

 

Exactly this. My finders are not my customers. I don't really care if I place a cache that never gets found if we're going to look at it that way. I place caches to take people to neat locations. The opportunity is there for you, use it or don't. My goal is to give you an accurate idea of what your trip may be like, hence accurate ratings. No, I'm not concerned if my making a cache page more accurate changes your stats. Not my concern in the least. As long as my listing is accurate, I'm happy and so are those who cache the way I do.

 

I'm not trying to make anyone angry or sad or whatever emotion you feel when I change my stars. I'll happily email the owner of a challenge to tell them that I changed a rating and when. I'll do my best to not leave bad information on my cache pages first though, as I think that's what's important.

 

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

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

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.

[+Dame Deco]

It occurs to me that a good part of this controversy can be resolved by taking the D/T off of the edit page after a cache is published, and make them adjustable by posting a log, just like the way we update our coordinates. A new log type, "Update Difficulty and Terrain", that adjusts the D/T and posts an automatic log to the cache would leave a record for those trying to verify challenge caches.

 

Bingo! We have a winnah!

[+Glenn]

It occurs to me that a good part of this controversy can be resolved by taking the D/T off of the edit page after a cache is published, and make them adjustable by posting a log, just like the way we update our coordinates. A new log type, "Update Difficulty and Terrain", that adjusts the D/T and posts an automatic log to the cache would leave a record for those trying to verify challenge caches.

This is a great idea. I love it. It should be posted in the Feature Suggestion forum.

[+SwineFlew]

 

It occurs to me that a good part of this controversy can be resolved by taking the D/T off of the edit page after a cache is published, and make them adjustable by posting a log, just like the way we update our coordinates. A new log type, "Update Difficulty and Terrain", that adjusts the D/T and posts an automatic log to the cache would leave a record for those trying to verify challenge caches.

 

Good idea but it could lead to abuse if the CO changes it for their friends and change it back once they find it.

[+J the Goat]

Ugh? so we past finders are nothing and forgotten? So that how you treat your customers. If you have a business, you will go out of business fast with that attitude.

 

But what is the "product" we are providing? I thought it was the fun and excitement of a nice walk in the woods and the finding of the cache.

 

Exactly this. My finders are not my customers. I don't really care if I place a cache that never gets found if we're going to look at it that way. I place caches to take people to neat locations. The opportunity is there for you, use it or don't. My goal is to give you an accurate idea of what your trip may be like, hence accurate ratings. No, I'm not concerned if my making a cache page more accurate changes your stats. Not my concern in the least. As long as my listing is accurate, I'm happy and so are those who cache the way I do.

 

I'm not trying to make anyone angry or sad or whatever emotion you feel when I change my stars. I'll happily email the owner of a challenge to tell them that I changed a rating and when. I'll do my best to not leave bad information on my cache pages first though, as I think that's what's important.

 

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

 

Blah blah blah, my stats are more important that everyone elses experiences. Good luck with your disregard for honesty

[AZcachemeister]

Chalk me up to the accurate ratings crowd. Cache listings have to be accurate, otherwise you're lying to your "customers". I certainly don't care about your fizzy grid, nor do I really care about mine. I'm bringing you to a location for the location, not to fill a square. If you want to use my cache to fill a square, that's completely on you. My goal is to represent my caches in an accurate manner.

 

And I take issue with whoever said that people wouldn't go look for difficult/rare combos without the presence of the fizzy challenges. I do. Those are the caches that I enjoy the most.

 

There's no reason to archive a cache if Mother Nature decides to throw a curveball at the approach and make it more or less difficult.

 

I say deal with it.

 

Exactly.

 

The ratings should be 100% accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability to estimate what they should be.

[+SwineFlew]

I feel a good share of you guys are missing a point. 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, but its ok to change the rating many years down the road even when the experience of finding the cache and getting to the cache had changed big time. Doesnt add up at all.

 

With that attitude of "deal with it" will backfire on you, some day. You never know who you will upset and how extreme they will go. I am not a person that will move or steal anyone caches. Over the short year of caching, I know a few people caches been targeted and I do wonder what the CO did. If all CO treat their finders as customers(even the customers are wrong), we would have less problems in the geocaching world. Of what I see over the history of geocaching, CO are getting less and less controls. I do feel that too many CO got too much power and abuse it.

Edited September 15, 2012 by SwineFlew

[AZcachemeister]

I don't place (or adjust/not adjust the ratings of) caches so people can fill in D/T grids.

I know people do that, though.

I don't name caches so people can qualify for alpha-numeric challenges.

I know people do that, though.

I didn't place a variety of types so people could qualify for a challenge(Know your Local Cacher).

I suppose people might do that, though.

 

Some or any of these challenge types may require found caches to be active in order to complete the challenge, so archiving to change the ratings won't help there.

 

I have five remaining squares in my D/T grid, and I am actively planning to fill it in someday. The only cache of this type that I might qualify for says 'fill in the grid', and when I do I'll email the owner and have him look.

[+Don_J]

 

It occurs to me that a good part of this controversy can be resolved by taking the D/T off of the edit page after a cache is published, and make them adjustable by posting a log, just like the way we update our coordinates. A new log type, "Update Difficulty and Terrain", that adjusts the D/T and posts an automatic log to the cache would leave a record for those trying to verify challenge caches.

 

Good idea but it could lead to abuse if the CO changes it for their friends and change it back once they find it.

 

Unfortunately, someone can find a way to abuse everything on this website. Right now, they would just change it for their friends and leave it, with no regard to past finders. Lately, we've been getting caches published where the description says flat out that the cache has no other purpose than to help CacherX complete his streak, or 365 day grid. A challenge cache was published recently that asks that you find 15 of each, caches with Gold, Silver or Bronze, (Copper as a substitute), in their titles. Suddenly caches start popping up with Copper in their titles. I once hiked a trail that had ten new Altoids tins placed on it. Each was identical yet all ten had different D/T ratings. I haven't mentioned it in a while, but I once attended a 5/5 event that was in a bowling alley.

[+Don_J]

 

With that attitude of "deal with it" will backfire on you, some day. You never know who you will upset and how extreme they will go. I am not a person that will move or steal anyone caches. Over the short year of caching, I know a few people caches been targeted and I do wonder what the CO did. If all CO treat their finders as customers(even the customers are wrong), we would have less problems in the geocaching world. Of what I see over the history of geocaching, CO are getting less and less controls. I do feel that too many CO got too much power and abuse it.

 

That has not happened around here. The day it does, I will probably go find a new hobby. If I run into someone that has too many control issues, I just don't look for their caches. I've only had to do this with only one person and seems to have caused a lot less stress for both of us.

[+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.

[+Roman!]

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?

 

I say it isn't, not only has the terrain rating changed but the cache page will need to be re-written, only solution that makes sense is to archive and create a new cache.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

 

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.

 

I didn't say that, I said if the experience changed enough to warrant a change to the ratings then the cache should be archived and a new one placed so everyone gets the accurate rating, like I said, I care about the experience my finders, past, present or future have.

 

Here's the bottom line for anyone considering changing ratings of their caches: there's a chance you're going to upset someone, the rarer or harder the D/T combo the higher the chance. You don't know who you'll upset or how they will react, is it worth it?

 

I say no, but that's just my opinion.

[+SwineFlew]

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?

 

I say it isn't, not only has the terrain rating changed but the cache page will need to be re-written, only solution that makes sense is to archive and create a new cache.

Yes! Thats what I am trying to say all along. Whats wrong about shutting down a cache and starting up a new one? Most local cachers love it when theres new caches up. Its a win win situation all around. The old cache stay true to it rated as the time it was published and doesnt mess up anyone fizzy and the new one bring cachers that found it back to the area. Everybody will be thankful.

 

I will be honest here, I have bend over backward to be nice to my "customers" in the past and its paying off now. Its does go a long way to be nice to your finders even you feel you are "right".

[+Dame Deco]

That's a great point, actually. For some of those great views, etc.--an archived cache replaced with a new one gives those who found it already a reason to take the time to visit again.

[+briansnat]

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.

Edited September 16, 2012 by briansnat

[+Don_J]

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.

 

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.

 

Ummmmm, Okay....

[+Roman!]

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?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Roman!

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

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

 

There's a chance that no matter what some COs do, they will will upset someone.

[+SwineFlew]

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

 

There's a chance that no matter what some COs do, they will will upset someone.

That might be true, but those CO that are on a powertrip and an attitude like "deal with it" have a higher chance of upsetting someone really bad.

[+J the Goat]

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?