Jump to content

D/T changes affect my found statistics


Dabremix
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Even though it is commonly known:

 

D/T changes of a cache affect statistics of cachers that have already found this cache.

This is a severe misbehavior!

 

For my found statistics it is important which d/t values the cache had when I've found it.

Changes made afterwards should never change my found statistics.

 

Please consider this in your data model!

 

Thanks

Dabremix

Link to comment

In the meantime, you could keep track of the difficult and terrain ratings as found in a separate database (e.g., GSAK), or in the Personal Cache Note, or in the Comments field of a bookmark list entry. You could keep track of anything else you consider important there too (e.g., size, name, hidden by, coordinates).

Link to comment

Cache owners may change the D and T ratings of geocache listings to reflect changes in the hide, or feedback from those who seek the cache.

 

If you are concerned because of a need to fill a "requirement" for a challenge cache, you will need to consider other alternatives to record the D/T grid at the time of your find. Challenges and tracking of D/T combos is a side game within the game of Geocaching, and each cache listing is handled on an individual basis.

Link to comment

If you find a hard cache that should have a rating of 3/3, but it was originally under-rated at 2/2, shouldn't you get credit for that? I would think so.

 

But, to accept that, you also have to allow the possibility of an easy cache that got over-rated to start with.

 

As far as the "data model", it would become more complex to keep a history of d/t and have to rematch that to when you found it every time stats are updated. Although not impossible, this isn't as easy as it sounds.

 

The simple solution, if you don't like the stats, start tracking on your own, and generate stats off your own data. GSAK and a couple macro's are capable of this quite easily.

Link to comment
If you find a hard cache that should have a rating of 3/3, but it was originally under-rated at 2/2, shouldn't you get credit for that?
Well, sure, as much as you "get credit for" any D-T rating, I suppose. (I see D-T ratings as a communication tool, not as points that anyone gets credit for, or that anyone earns.)

 

BTW, another alternative is to include the information you want to keep track of in your logs. I know someone who adds a short string at the end of his logs, encoding such information as perceived difficulty, perceived terrain, type (distinguishing between different types of mystery/puzzle cache), and so forth. You could come up with a system that encodes whatever you want. Just keep it concise so it doesn't overwhelm your actual log.

Link to comment

Welcome to the forums!

 

The difficulty and terrain ratings are designed to give the players more information aiding in their selection of caches. If the information about a cache changes significantly enough to warrant a change in the ratings, then the cache should be reflected with the CORRECT rating. These Difficulty/Terrain Challenge grids that have appeared are a player-invented side-game, and in my opinion shouldn't dictate that owners cannot change the information provided.

 

I'll give two examples:

 

If I placed a cache on an island in the middle of a lake:

dc21d9b7-b55c-4498-8a57-0631aa612029.jpg

When I place the cache, it's obviously a 5 star terrain - as you need a boat to reach it. Then a year later, the park decides to build a bridge from the main area to the island, and also builds a walking path around the edge of the island. The cache is no longer a 5 star terrain - in fact it's MAYBE a 2-star cache. It's still in the same location with the same container. As a cache owner, I should be able to change the terrain rating to reflect the new access to the cache without worrying that someone may or may not lose their statistics.

 

I've developed a new fictitious challenge: find 100 caches where the last two digits of the Longitude are all of the distinct numbers (00, 01, 02...97, 98, 99). Bill's cache is the only one in your list that is with the coordinates ending in 74. Bill finds out that his coordinates are wrong for the cache, and changes the coordinates from N 59 12.879 W 098 14.074 to N 59 12.875 W 098 14.068. That would mess up your completion of the challenge.

 

In my opinion, accurate information about the cache is far more important that keeping the cache data without change in order to complete a challenge.

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment
If you find a hard cache that should have a rating of 3/3, but it was originally under-rated at 2/2, shouldn't you get credit for that?
Well, sure, as much as you "get credit for" any D-T rating, I suppose. (I see D-T ratings as a communication tool, not as points that anyone gets credit for, or that anyone earns.)

 

BTW, another alternative is to include the information you want to keep track of in your logs. I know someone who adds a short string at the end of his logs, encoding such information as perceived difficulty, perceived terrain, type (distinguishing between different types of mystery/puzzle cache), and so forth. You could come up with a system that encodes whatever you want. Just keep it concise so it doesn't overwhelm your actual log.

Precisely. D/T ratings are nothing more than a way to articulate the relative difficulty and relative expected terrain you will encounter while hunting a cache.

 

If you want to keep track of D/T combos, especially as they were on the day you find them, you will need to find a way to do so yourself. Just as Groundspeak doesn't formally recognize a competition based on numbers, First-to-find, or D/T grid completion, you won't find much effort being put into a method to effectively "lock" D/T ratings on the day of your find.

 

It's easy enough to do on your own if you really want to.

Link to comment

Welcome to the forums!

 

The difficulty and terrain ratings are designed to give the players more information aiding in their selection of caches. If the information about a cache changes significantly enough to warrant a change in the ratings, then the cache should be reflected with the CORRECT rating. These Difficulty/Terrain Challenge grids that have appeared are a player-invented side-game, and in my opinion shouldn't dictate that owners cannot change the information provided.

 

I'll give two examples:

 

If I placed a cache on an island in the middle of a lake:

dc21d9b7-b55c-4498-8a57-0631aa612029.jpg

When I place the cache, it's obviously a 5 star terrain - as you need a boat to reach it. Then a year later, the park decides to build a bridge from the main area to the island, and also builds a walking path around the edge of the island. The cache is no longer a 5 star terrain - in fact it's MAYBE a 2-star cache. It's still in the same location with the same container. As a cache owner, I should be able to change the terrain rating to reflect the new access to the cache without worrying that someone may or may not lose their statistics.

 

I've developed a new fictitious challenge: find 100 caches where the last two digits of the Longitude are all of the distinct numbers (00, 01, 02...97, 98, 99). Bill's cache is the only one in your list that is with the coordinates ending in 74. Bill finds out that his coordinates are wrong for the cache, and changes the coordinates from N 59 12.879 W 098 14.074 to N 59 12.875 W 098 14.068. That would mess up your completion of the challenge.

 

In my opinion, accurate information about the cache is far more important that keeping the cache data without change in order to complete a challenge.

 

I don't think that the request was to keep us from changing the D/T on our caches but to lock the D/T on the record of our cache find. I have no idea how the db is set up, but the log table could have fields added that are filled with the D/T in effect when the find log is created, then the stats could be built from that, instead of from the actual caches.

 

Basically, it allow you to correct your cache's D/T as needed without affecting my record of what was in place when I logged a find on that cache.

Link to comment

Maybe a log type to change the D/T grid would help here?

 

Using the example of the coordinates grid challenge there's an "update coordinates" log so if someone were so inclined they could verify where the cache was when it was found. If updating the D/T values were done with a specific log then that could also be tracked.

 

Not only would it mean those who completed a 5/5 cache before it got downgraded to 2/2 (perhaps because of a bridge being built) could still claim it as a 5/5 in their grid but it would also let people know that perhaps a very hard cache had become easier. So using the island cache as an example again it would mean that people who saw the cache on an island but didn't bother hunting because they didn't have a boat would see it had been downgraded and know that maybe they would be able to go out and find it.

Link to comment

Maybe a log type to change the D/T grid would help here?

 

Using the example of the coordinates grid challenge there's an "update coordinates" log so if someone were so inclined they could verify where the cache was when it was found. If updating the D/T values were done with a specific log then that could also be tracked.

 

Not only would it mean those who completed a 5/5 cache before it got downgraded to 2/2 (perhaps because of a bridge being built) could still claim it as a 5/5 in their grid but it would also let people know that perhaps a very hard cache had become easier. So using the island cache as an example again it would mean that people who saw the cache on an island but didn't bother hunting because they didn't have a boat would see it had been downgraded and know that maybe they would be able to go out and find it.

Or, just go out and find another 5/5. :ph34r:

 

The idea of "locking" or "changing" D/T for a cache sounds like manipulation to me. The D/T ratings are created as a tool to assist the hunt. We could just as well have a thread about doing away with D/T on cache pages, and simply hope that owners post more details about their cache and the related cache hunt in the description. Unless a way to "lock" the D/T to the information on your find date is there on your "Found it" log options--like dropping a TB, posting a photo or favoriting--I can't see how it would work. Even then, why not just note the D/T in your own "Found it" log if tracking it is important? Create a bookmark list and state what the D/T was when you found each in the description for each cache in the list.

 

There are plenty of ways to track this already. However, if it is one specific cache you are after for a D/T, you might want to go get an extra of the more rare combinations to be sure.

Link to comment

Of course it should be possible to change D/T values if necessary.

(As well as owner, type, attributes, etc.)

 

But I (and all other cachers that I know) don't want that the changed values affect our official statistics of our founds.

 

Of course I can track the statistics by myself. I've written a program for that (similar to GSAK).

But the produced statistics are not the official GC statistics and therefore not accepted for challenges.

 

In my opinion it should be easy possible to store the current D/T values (and maybe other values like type, coordinates, or owners name) together with the log entry when logging the cache. The statistics build process should be then generate faster results because it doesn't has to lookup cache data for each found.

Storing the D/T history at a cache (maybe created by an special log type) would be more precise, but would otherwise produce more lookups.

Link to comment

 

But the produced statistics are not the official GC statistics and therefore not accepted for challenges.

 

 

And thus, if the challenge is based on the official statistics page, the challenge is to maintain a qualifying set of statistics.

 

If you are concerned that your statistics may be changed when an owner updates their listing, complete the challenge quickly, before they have a chance/need to do an update. :)

Link to comment

I agree. my first hide turned out to be more difficult than I had thought it would be. at the recommendation of well seasoned cachers I upped the difficulty . I'd rather the D/T be accurate . especially for cachers with kids, or people who have physical limitations to consider, etc

 

Thank you. Correct D/T ratings (especially terrain ratings) are very much appreciated.

Link to comment

Of course it should be possible to change D/T values if necessary.

(As well as owner, type, attributes, etc.)

 

But I (and all other cachers that I know) don't want that the changed values affect our official statistics of our founds.

 

Of course I can track the statistics by myself. I've written a program for that (similar to GSAK).

But the produced statistics are not the official GC statistics and therefore not accepted for challenges.

 

In my opinion it should be easy possible to store the current D/T values (and maybe other values like type, coordinates, or owners name) together with the log entry when logging the cache. The statistics build process should be then generate faster results because it doesn't has to lookup cache data for each found.

Storing the D/T history at a cache (maybe created by an special log type) would be more precise, but would otherwise produce more lookups.

And what stops you from trying to explain this to the challenge cache owner? Perhaps they will listen and accept. However, the challenge is, as stated in the quote below, maintaining a current, accurate D/T combo list. What makes anyone think that a challenge isn't challenging? :blink:

 

But the produced statistics are not the official GC statistics and therefore not accepted for challenges.

 

 

And thus, if the challenge is based on the official statistics page, the challenge is to maintain a qualifying set of statistics.

 

If you are concerned that your statistics may be changed when an owner updates their listing, complete the challenge quickly, before they have a chance/need to do an update. :)

Link to comment
In my opinion, accurate information about the cache is far more important that keeping the cache data without change in order to complete a challenge.

 

I agree. If I hide a cache that I think will be easy to find and it turns out that people are having a hard time with it, for me to leave it at a one star difficulty wouldn't be right. The rating should reflect the true conditions so they are an aid to most geocachers. I don't worry about a small percentage of cachers who use ratings for something other than they were intended to be, which is just a guide.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

But the produced statistics are not the official GC statistics and therefore not accepted for challenges.

 

 

I ask again, why can you not take a screenshot of your D/T grid?

 

Other than that, if the cache owner is uptight, can you ask them to verify your grid right after you logged your find and perhaps post a note on the cache page e.x. 'grid verified'.

Link to comment

There was never a problem until challenge caches. There were people who tried to fill in their grid but it was for fun and they didn't worry much if something changed after they found it. After all the purpose of the rating is a guide to help cachers select caches and it's probably more important to update the D/T, if needed, so they more accurately reflect the current state of the cache.

 

Challenge caches raise the question of what happens to my stats when the owner changes the D/T rating. After all, if I have a find with a hard to get D/T combination and the D/T on it changes I now must find another cache with this combination. Or if I'm missing a certain combination what's to prevent me from getting a friend to change the D/T on a cache I've already found?

 

The OP's suggestion is trying to fix these problems by tying the D/T in your stats to what they were on the day you found the cache. While it may be doable, this is by no means a trivial enhancement. You need to answer question like what happens if you found the cache on the day the owner changed the ratings? What keeps an owner for changing the ratings for one day then putting them back after a friend qualified for a challenge? What do we do with all the prior finds? I'm not sure that Groundspeak has all the dates for when the D/T rating was changed and even if they did, the one time update for all existing stats would be a costly operation and would anger some people because their statistics will change. My guess is that at best you'd get a compromise that doesn't actually address the problem.

 

The current guidelines for challenges make it hard to use something other than the Geocaching.com stats to substantiate the challenge. Either the challenge owner can accept the claim that the rating changed (perhaps it would help if owners left a note indicating that they changed the rating on a certain date), or the challengee can find another cache to fill in the grid before claiming the challenge.

 

I personally think the proper fix is to get rid of challenge caches. However, I'm clearly in the minority on this one.

Link to comment
I personally think the proper fix is to get rid of challenge caches. However, I'm clearly in the minority on this one.
I'm slowly working my over to that corner with you Toz...
So, are there five of us in this corner now?

 

I think challenges would be better served with some sort of online badge system, something similar to souvenirs. Or maybe they could show up on your statistics page. There could be badges for filling various grids, for streaks of various lengths, for milestones, for numbers of caches in a day, for numbers of cache types in a day, etc., etc., etc.

Link to comment
I personally think the proper fix is to get rid of challenge caches. However, I'm clearly in the minority on this one.
I'm slowly working my over to that corner with you Toz...
So, are there five of us in this corner now?

 

I think challenges would be better served with some sort of online badge system, something similar to souvenirs. Or maybe they could show up on your statistics page. There could be badges for filling various grids, for streaks of various lengths, for milestones, for numbers of caches in a day, for numbers of cache types in a day, etc., etc., etc.

 

Maybe they'd be better off harvested to another site, like virtuals were. That worked out really well.

 

Oh, wait...

Link to comment

Welcome to the forums!

 

The difficulty and terrain ratings are designed to give the players more information aiding in their selection of caches. If the information about a cache changes significantly enough to warrant a change in the ratings, then the cache should be reflected with the CORRECT rating. These Difficulty/Terrain Challenge grids that have appeared are a player-invented side-game, and in my opinion shouldn't dictate that owners cannot change the information provided.

 

I'll give two examples:

 

If I placed a cache on an island in the middle of a lake:

dc21d9b7-b55c-4498-8a57-0631aa612029.jpg

When I place the cache, it's obviously a 5 star terrain - as you need a boat to reach it. Then a year later, the park decides to build a bridge from the main area to the island, and also builds a walking path around the edge of the island. The cache is no longer a 5 star terrain - in fact it's MAYBE a 2-star cache. It's still in the same location with the same container. As a cache owner, I should be able to change the terrain rating to reflect the new access to the cache without worrying that someone may or may not lose their statistics.

 

I've developed a new fictitious challenge: find 100 caches where the last two digits of the Longitude are all of the distinct numbers (00, 01, 02...97, 98, 99). Bill's cache is the only one in your list that is with the coordinates ending in 74. Bill finds out that his coordinates are wrong for the cache, and changes the coordinates from N 59 12.879 W 098 14.074 to N 59 12.875 W 098 14.068. That would mess up your completion of the challenge.

 

In my opinion, accurate information about the cache is far more important that keeping the cache data without change in order to complete a challenge.

 

That`s all well and good in this example, as you say once the bridge and pathway have been built it`s an easy cache, however, what about the cachers that did it before the bridge was built? When they found it it was as you pointed out a 5/5.

 

I think the point of the original post was aimed more at the point that the D/T of a cache should be fixed ON THE DAY the cacher found it using the D/T rating it was on that day.

 

If you`re going to take into account seasonal changes then all caches should have an increased D/T rating when it`s been snowing (except in those countries where snow is constant all year round ;) )

Link to comment
I personally think the proper fix is to get rid of challenge caches. However, I'm clearly in the minority on this one.

 

I wonder how many challenge caches present a "challenge" that's easy to fake and just encourage people to fiddle statistics.

 

Filling every day on the calendar is easy enough with a few virtuals and earthcaches that could have been found on any day, the odd nano where you just sign initials with no date, and the odd cache in the middle of nowhere or with a full log where you can just write your name on it and log it any day that takes your fancy.

 

Filling the D/T grid is also easy enough to fake. I remember in one of the other subforums on this site there was a comment about event caches being given odd D/T combinations, presumably so attendees could fill their grid without having to do anything difficult. So all it takes is a bunch of friends to run a load of events, set the D/T to something improbable (D1.5/T5 is unlikely for an event in the pub however much beer is consumed) and so the challenge is met.

 

I still think that if something is going to be implemented the best solution is for the D/T to be changed with a specific log type, much like an "Update Coordinates" log. It would provide an audit log of sorts of changes, it would let people worried about their challenges to demonstrate what the D/T ratings were when they found it, and it would save trying to store the details of every cache against when every owner found it.

 

Whether a new log type would break other applications is another matter. I'd hope not, but you never know.

Link to comment
I personally think the proper fix is to get rid of challenge caches. However, I'm clearly in the minority on this one.

 

I wonder how many challenge caches present a "challenge" that's easy to fake and just encourage people to fiddle statistics.

 

Filling every day on the calendar is easy enough with a few virtuals and earthcaches that could have been found on any day, the odd nano where you just sign initials with no date, and the odd cache in the middle of nowhere or with a full log where you can just write your name on it and log it any day that takes your fancy.

 

Filling the D/T grid is also easy enough to fake. I remember in one of the other subforums on this site there was a comment about event caches being given odd D/T combinations, presumably so attendees could fill their grid without having to do anything difficult. So all it takes is a bunch of friends to run a load of events, set the D/T to something improbable (D1.5/T5 is unlikely for an event in the pub however much beer is consumed) and so the challenge is met.

 

I still think that if something is going to be implemented the best solution is for the D/T to be changed with a specific log type, much like an "Update Coordinates" log. It would provide an audit log of sorts of changes, it would let people worried about their challenges to demonstrate what the D/T ratings were when they found it, and it would save trying to store the details of every cache against when every owner found it.

 

Whether a new log type would break other applications is another matter. I'd hope not, but you never know.

 

On that note, for events, I have a 4.5/1.5 in a city park, a 4.5/4 in a bowling alley, a 3/5 at the mid way point of a hike with 2.5T max, a 1.5/3.5 in the parking lot for that hike, a 3/1 in a park, a 2/2 at a famous sandwich shop in Downtown LA. I don't have any hopes of ever filling that grid, but if I did, it wouldn't be real.

Link to comment

For my found statistics it is important which d/t values the cache had when I've found it.

Changes made afterwards should never change my found statistics.

 

If the change is made to make the rating more accurate, it should change your statistics.

 

If the nature of the hide changed, I'd rather the cache owner archive the old cache listing and publish a new listing.

 

I've had a few finds change because the cache was muggled and the cache owner hid a new cache in a different manner. In my opinion, the owner should have archived the original listing and published a new cache listing (new container + new log book + new hiding place = new cache). They disagreed. (Challenge caches hadn't really made it to Germany yet, so they also really didn't understand why they should care about my statistics.) I ended up finding another cache that satisfied the challenge, and life went on.

 

I think this logic should extend to Markwell's example. If I hid a 2/5 cache on an island, and someone built a bridge, I'd archive the old listing, replace the log book, and publish a new 2/2 cache in the same spot.

 

edit to add: How much does anyone want to bet that this post was inspired by a 5/3.5 cache being changed?

 

9eb8ba8f-7ef3-4e06-a048-70a46b01476f.png

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment
I've had a few finds change because the cache was muggled and the cache owner hid a new cache in a different manner. In my opinion, the owner should have archived the original listing and published a new cache listing (new container + new log book + new hiding place = new cache). They disagreed. (Challenge caches hadn't really made it to Germany yet, so they also really didn't understand why they should care about my statistics.) I ended up finding another cache that satisfied the challenge, and life went on.

 

I think this logic should extend to Markwell's example. If I hid a 2/5 cache on an island, and someone built a bridge, I'd archive the old listing, replace the log book, and publish a new 2/2 cache in the same spot.

I disagree.

 

In the first case, if the point of the cache is to bring you to a particular (scenic, historic, artistic, whatever) location, and the new cache still does that, and the owner considers it the same geocaching experience, then it's fine to keep the same listing and change the size, difficulty, and terrain to match the new hide. On the other hand, it's fine to archive and relist it if the point of the cache was the specific hide or container.

 

In the second case, if the point of the cache is to bring you to the island, or even if the point of the cache was the specific hide or container, then it's fine to keep the same listing. What the owner considers to be the essence of the geocaching experience hasn't changed. On the other hand, it's fine to archive and relist it if the point of the cache was the need for a boat.

 

The purpose of size, difficulty, and terrain ratings is to communicate the general nature of the geocaching experience to potential seekers. If you want to play a side game with these ratings, then you need to take into account the possibility that cache owners may change these ratings as conditions (or the cache owner's understanding of the conditions) change.

Link to comment
I've had a few finds change because the cache was muggled and the cache owner hid a new cache in a different manner. In my opinion, the owner should have archived the original listing and published a new cache listing (new container + new log book + new hiding place = new cache). They disagreed. (Challenge caches hadn't really made it to Germany yet, so they also really didn't understand why they should care about my statistics.) I ended up finding another cache that satisfied the challenge, and life went on.

 

I think this logic should extend to Markwell's example. If I hid a 2/5 cache on an island, and someone built a bridge, I'd archive the old listing, replace the log book, and publish a new 2/2 cache in the same spot.

I disagree.

 

In the first case, if the point of the cache is to bring you to a particular (scenic, historic, artistic, whatever) location, and the new cache still does that, and the owner considers it the same geocaching experience, then it's fine to keep the same listing and change the size, difficulty, and terrain to match the new hide. On the other hand, it's fine to archive and relist it if the point of the cache was the specific hide or container.

 

In the second case, if the point of the cache is to bring you to the island, or even if the point of the cache was the specific hide or container, then it's fine to keep the same listing. What the owner considers to be the essence of the geocaching experience hasn't changed. On the other hand, it's fine to archive and relist it if the point of the cache was the need for a boat.

 

The purpose of size, difficulty, and terrain ratings is to communicate the general nature of the geocaching experience to potential seekers. If you want to play a side game with these ratings, then you need to take into account the possibility that cache owners may change these ratings as conditions (or the cache owner's understanding of the conditions) change.

Sure, I understand that.

 

I think it's perfectly acceptable for a cache owner to keep an existing cache listing and just edit the ratings. That's why I specified that it's what I'd do.

 

I enjoy challenges and have had to requalify for the well rounded cacher challenge several times, so personally I would rather publish a new cache description than change the ratings on an existing cache. But I certainly don't expect this of anyone else.

Link to comment

Back to topic...

 

Whether challenge caches make sense or not is not the topic of this thread.

And of course a D/T rating should be changeable by the owner with little efford according to new conditions.

 

The thing that frustrates me (and others) is:

 

All other statistics offered by Groundspeak seem to display correct values regarding my founds.

 

Only the D/T matrix does not display the status of my found caches.

Instead it displays the current state of caches that I've found months or years before.

 

I think, that this behaviour could be corrected by a programmer with not so much efford (storing the D/T values at log time together with the log entry). And this would also have positive influence on statistic generation process.

 

I would appreciate if this could be discussed further.

 

 

PS: Only to hzoi: The original post was not inspired by the 5/3.5 gap in my matrix.

(It was a 2/4 gap which is filled again.)

But I would prefer that you omit such assumptions.

Link to comment

All other statistics offered by Groundspeak seem to display correct values regarding my founds.

 

Only the D/T matrix does not display the status of my found caches.

I'm not sure that's the case. Some other stats that could be affected by an owner making adjustments to their cache are:

-Container type

-Distance stats

-Regions

 

An owner can make changes to these and change your stats.

Link to comment

FWIW, the "distance from home" stats are also subject to the finder changing their home location. Regardless of the cache location or the finder's home location at the time they found the cache, the "distance from home" stats reflect the cache's current location and the finder's current home location.

Link to comment

These kinds of stats aren't just for challenge caches. I completed one of my grids, even though I am not aware of any nearby challenge cache that uses it. I did it just for fun. And I know someone with a streak going back years. He didn't start his streak for a challenge cache, and he doesn't continue it for any challenge caches. He does it just for fun.

Link to comment

Just found this topic because I'm being required by a park person to "dumb down" a cache in the near future. After reading all the above I think the best solution when a cache that has a high rating needs, for whatever reason, to have a lower rating is to archive it and replace it with a new cache.

Link to comment

Just found this topic because I'm being required by a park person to "dumb down" a cache in the near future. After reading all the above I think the best solution when a cache that has a high rating needs, for whatever reason, to have a lower rating is to archive it and replace it with a new cache.

 

If the cache fundamentally changes that's not a bad idea. That's a different situation to someone posting a cache as D3.5 and then realising it should be D4.5, or a cache that's listed as T5 because it needs a boat and is then downgraded to T2 when a bridge is built to the island. The cache hasn't changed so to archive it and relist it is silly.

 

As people have said before, if we want to play an unofficial game within a game we shouldn't get too precious if the main game doesn't cater for our whims.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...