Difficulty Rating

[+Mrs & Mrs Bickerson]

Is there any way for a CO (me) to change the difficulty rating of a cache once it's been published? I seem to have way low-balled the difficulty of a new cache and the series is designed specifically for beginners. Two really, really experienced cachers have DNFed it and it's supposed to be pretty easy. HELP!

[Pup Patrol]

Is there any way for a CO (me) to change the difficulty rating of a cache once it's been published? I seem to have way low-balled the difficulty of a new cache and the series is designed specifically for beginners. Two really, really experienced cachers have DNFed it and it's supposed to be pretty easy. HELP!

 

You can change just about anything about your cache, except the type, or move it more than 528 feet.

 

I suggest that you bookmark the link to the Help Center:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=19

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

3.12. Editing a Published Listing: Minor Change

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=201

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

3.8. Managing Your Geocache Listing

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=234

 

 

B.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Pup Patrol

[+ngrrfan]

Is there any way for a CO (me) to change the difficulty rating of a cache once it's been published? I seem to have way low-balled the difficulty of a new cache and the series is designed specifically for beginners. Two really, really experienced cachers have DNFed it and it's supposed to be pretty easy. HELP!

Just because they are "really, really experienced" doesn't mean they will find it every time. I cache with a really really experienced person and there are plenty of times I've spotted a cache and she completely draws a blank and needs help. Wait until you get a whole string of DNFs before you do anything.

[+Sagefox]

Is there any way for a CO (me) to change the difficulty rating of a cache once it's been published? I seem to have way low-balled the difficulty of a new cache and the series is designed specifically for beginners. Two really, really experienced cachers have DNFed it and it's supposed to be pretty easy. HELP!

 

I was planning on heading over there tomorrow, especially to check out the one with the dnfs. I have experience and I can dnf with the best of them.

 

(526 dnfs to date where the container was in place - 7% of total container attempts!)

[+narcissa]

Is it a problem with the hide, or the coordinates?

[Pup Patrol]

Is there any way for a CO (me) to change the difficulty rating of a cache once it's been published? I seem to have way low-balled the difficulty of a new cache and the series is designed specifically for beginners. Two really, really experienced cachers have DNFed it and it's supposed to be pretty easy. HELP!

 

I've looked at your caches, and they have all been found. Not sure why a few dnf's would make you want to change the D/T.

 

"really, really experienced" folks don't find everything all the time. And your definition of "really, really experienced" is subjective.

 

Just a note: instead of posting "write note" logs, you can post "owner maintenance" logs when you want to communicate on the cache page.

 

 

B.

[+niraD]

And FWIW, some "really, really experienced cachers" follow a 5-Minute Rule (or a 7-Minute Rule, or a 10-Minute Rule, or something similar). That is, if they don't find it within 5 minutes (or 7 minutes, or 10 minutes, or whatever), then they leave. They may post a DNF, or they may not. But they don't spend much time searching before they give up and move on.

 

Given that a D2 rating means "less than 30 minutes of hunting", and these "really, really experienced cachers" never spend more than a fraction of that searching, their DNF really wouldn't mean much unless the cache were rated D1 ("a few minutes of searching").

[+redsox_mark]

And FWIW, some "really, really experienced cachers" follow a 5-Minute Rule (or a 7-Minute Rule, or a 10-Minute Rule, or something similar). That is, if they don't find it within 5 minutes (or 7 minutes, or 10 minutes, or whatever), then they leave. They may post a DNF, or they may not. But they don't spend much time searching before they give up and move on.

 

Given that a D2 rating means "less than 30 minutes of hunting", and these "really, really experienced cachers" never spend more than a fraction of that searching, their DNF really wouldn't mean much unless the cache were rated D1 ("a few minutes of searching").

 

The cache in question seems to be 1.5 Difficulty.

 

But the above post makes me think of something more related to "Geocaching has changed". Those D/T guidelines I believe are quite old. Today I think if a cache takes an average of 20-30 minutes to find, most cachers would think that is more than D2... as most cachers don't spend that amount of time on a single cache. Back when there were far fewer caches I suspect things were different.

 

Personally I don't have a "X-minute rule"; I look until I'm not enjoying it. For some caches that could be an hour or more, but for most, for me, it is less than 30 mins.

[+niraD]

But the above post makes me think of something more related to "Geocaching has changed". Those D/T guidelines I believe are quite old. Today I think if a cache takes an average of 20-30 minutes to find, most cachers would think that is more than D2... as most cachers don't spend that amount of time on a single cache. Back when there were far fewer caches I suspect things were different.

I think a bigger confusion is what is meant by an "average geocache hunter" (who would find a D2 cache in half an hour or less). A lot of people seem to take it as a "typical experienced geocacher that I might go geocaching with", but people like that are probably a few standard deviations above the median experience level of currently active geocachers. And they're well above the mean as well. So you end up with an LPC or an FPC or a GRC or some other TLA cache that experienced geocachers know to look for, and less-experienced geocachers (who are much more typical) see the D1 rating and wonder how it could be "in plain sight", and expect to have found it "in a few minutes of searching."

 

Personally I don't have a "X-minute rule"; I look until I'm not enjoying it. For some caches that could be an hour or more, but for most, for me, it is less than 30 mins.

Same here. The other night, I spent more than 2 hours on a multi-stage puzzle cache. I was having fun the whole time. But there are times when I log a DNF after only 15 minutes or less.

[+Chief301]

But the above post makes me think of something more related to "Geocaching has changed". Those D/T guidelines I believe are quite old. Today I think if a cache takes an average of 20-30 minutes to find, most cachers would think that is more than D2... as most cachers don't spend that amount of time on a single cache. Back when there were far fewer caches I suspect things were different.

I think a bigger confusion is what is meant by an "average geocache hunter" (who would find a D2 cache in half an hour or less). A lot of people seem to take it as a "typical experienced geocacher that I might go geocaching with", but people like that are probably a few standard deviations above the median experience level of currently active geocachers. And they're well above the mean as well. So you end up with an LPC or an FPC or a GRC or some other TLA cache that experienced geocachers know to look for, and less-experienced geocachers (who are much more typical) see the D1 rating and wonder how it could be "in plain sight", and expect to have found it "in a few minutes of searching."

 

Personally I don't have a "X-minute rule"; I look until I'm not enjoying it. For some caches that could be an hour or more, but for most, for me, it is less than 30 mins.

Same here. The other night, I spent more than 2 hours on a multi-stage puzzle cache. I was having fun the whole time. But there are times when I log a DNF after only 15 minutes or less.

 

Good point. Just this past weekend I found one of those fake electrical plate caches. Since I've seen them several times before I spotted it as soon as I got out of the car. It was very well placed, though, and for a new cacher who's never seen one it would most likely never have been identified for what it was.

 

I remember being completely stumped by a couple of these when I first started....took me 2 or 3 trips, extended searches, and a tip from the CO before I finally found it.

[+dprovan]

But the above post makes me think of something more related to "Geocaching has changed". Those D/T guidelines I believe are quite old. Today I think if a cache takes an average of 20-30 minutes to find, most cachers would think that is more than D2... as most cachers don't spend that amount of time on a single cache. Back when there were far fewer caches I suspect things were different.

Yeah, it's definitely true that the ratings have changed, at least in practice if not "officially", and it's one of the changes I think is all for the better. I laugh every time someone brings up the D2 equals 20-30 minutes, although even funnier is the idea that anyone would look for -- or would want to look for -- one cache all day, which is what's implied by the higher ratings. If we stuck to those numbers, 99% of all caches would be D1 and the difficulty rating would be useless, so I, for one, am glad no one seems use them anymore.

 

Personally, I have a hard time believing that even the old timers in the glory days thought it was reasonable to search all afternoon for a cache, even if it was at the end of a great hike to a wonderful location. Finding a cache is the fun part; searching for the cache is just a means to that end.

[+J Grouchy]

But the above post makes me think of something more related to "Geocaching has changed". Those D/T guidelines I believe are quite old. Today I think if a cache takes an average of 20-30 minutes to find, most cachers would think that is more than D2... as most cachers don't spend that amount of time on a single cache. Back when there were far fewer caches I suspect things were different.

Yeah, it's definitely true that the ratings have changed, at least in practice if not "officially", and it's one of the changes I think is all for the better. I laugh every time someone brings up the D2 equals 20-30 minutes, although even funnier is the idea that anyone would look for -- or would want to look for -- one cache all day, which is what's implied by the higher ratings. If we stuck to those numbers, 99% of all caches would be D1 and the difficulty rating would be useless, so I, for one, am glad no one seems use them anymore.

 

Personally, I have a hard time believing that even the old timers in the glory days thought it was reasonable to search all afternoon for a cache, even if it was at the end of a great hike to a wonderful location. Finding a cache is the fun part; searching for the cache is just a means to that end.

 

Yeah...can't say I've ever spent 30 minutes in a single stretch looking for any particular cache. Maybe combining the time on multiple visits, my longest search would approach 30 to 45 minutes. I'll generally resort to a DNF if I don't find it within 15 minutes...often even less time than that.

[+Sagefox]

Is it a problem with the hide, or the coordinates?

 

Nope, it is a good hide, not evil, and the coordinates were o.k.

 

I found it this afternoon within one minute but that was due to luck and circumstance. It was totally out of sight when I sort of stumbled on it. I heard a clue while looking elsewhere. This hide will vary depending on how well the natural camo is put back. If only partially exposed it will be a 1.0 (D) but I would not call it a 2.0. For some people it will be a 2, maybe 2.5 but for most the 1.5 seems o.k. to me.

[+Mrs & Mrs Bickerson]

This is all excellent feedback! Thanks so much, it's great to hear.

I took off a bit of the cammo last night since it was so totally obscured I think it was much harder than similar caches we found with a score under 100. With almost no cammo it will be more achievable for new cachers but still a challenge. I'll count on cachers' logs to tip newbees off. I'll also post some notes and keep it a bit exposed.

Happy caching![/size]

[+niraD]

Personally, I have a hard time believing that even the old timers in the glory days thought it was reasonable to search all afternoon for a cache, even if it was at the end of a great hike to a wonderful location. Finding a cache is the fun part; searching for the cache is just a means to that end.

Some of us enjoy challenges. My record so far has been 6 DNFs on a single cache, before finally finding it on my 7th trip. That probably represented 4-5 hours total search time.

 

And I've found a number of multi-caches and multi-stage puzzle caches where the entire adventure took 2+ hours.

 

I'm not really an old-timer though, since I didn't start until 2006. But there were some real old-timers on some of those multi-cache and multi-stage puzzle cache trips.

[+redsox_mark]

Personally, I have a hard time believing that even the old timers in the glory days thought it was reasonable to search all afternoon for a cache, even if it was at the end of a great hike to a wonderful location. Finding a cache is the fun part; searching for the cache is just a means to that end.

Some of us enjoy challenges. My record so far has been 6 DNFs on a single cache, before finally finding it on my 7th trip. That probably represented 4-5 hours total search time.

 

And I've found a number of multi-caches and multi-stage puzzle caches where the entire adventure took 2+ hours.

 

I'm not really an old-timer though, since I didn't start until 2006. But there were some real old-timers on some of those multi-cache and multi-stage puzzle cache trips.

 

Me too on both.

 

But I find the Difficulty ratings a bit confusing. And with the multi-stage ones I've done (which generally involved a lot of walking) what is D vs T. I guess the total search time at each stage counts as D. So 7 stages with 5 mins each means > 2 Difficulty (over 30 mins searching time).

 

If we just think about Traditionals for a moment, and look at the definition of D=3:

 

Challenging

An experienced geocache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

 

If the getting there is Terrain - I can't imagine many cachers spending "a good portion of an afternoon" just searching once they get to GZ. And that is just D=3. But in reality if a cache was expected to take "a good portion of an afternoon" just searching it would get few finds and would be rated higher than D=3.

[4wheelin_fool]

This is all excellent feedback! Thanks so much, it's great to hear.

I took off a bit of the cammo last night since it was so totally obscured I think it was much harder than similar caches we found with a score under 100. With almost no cammo it will be more achievable for new cachers but still a challenge. I'll count on cachers' logs to tip newbees off. I'll also post some notes and keep it a bit exposed.

Happy caching!

 

Some will go out of their way to find something well hidden as a challenge. Instead of removing the camo, perhaps making the hint more descriptive may help. Also, DNFs tend to snowball. One will trigger another more easily up until someone finds it, or the owner checks on it, then everything returns to normal. Sounds like at least a 2 difficulty however.

[4wheelin_fool]

There is someone around here who often writes in their logs

Cachers want to find caches not look for caches

but that is simply not true. Difficult hides are worth looking for, but only if they are rated correctly. Spending a lot of time looking for an incorrectly rated 1.5 means lowering your D/T average unnecessarily, while all the while thinking that it could be missing.

[+dprovan]

Personally, I have a hard time believing that even the old timers in the glory days thought it was reasonable to search all afternoon for a cache, even if it was at the end of a great hike to a wonderful location. Finding a cache is the fun part; searching for the cache is just a means to that end.

Some of us enjoy challenges. My record so far has been 6 DNFs on a single cache, before finally finding it on my 7th trip. That probably represented 4-5 hours total search time.

The question isn't whether such caches are desirable. The question is whether we should reserve over half the difficulty range for the relatively small set of caches that present this level of challenge.

 

To me, the real problem is that the official description of the ratings make time the only criteria. That makes some sense because time is an objective measure, but thank goodness most people don't rate difficulty based on that scale.

[+dprovan]

There is someone around here who often writes in their logs

Cachers want to find caches not look for caches

but that is simply not true. Difficult hides are worth looking for, but only if they are rated correctly. Spending a lot of time looking for an incorrectly rated 1.5 means lowering your D/T average unnecessarily, while all the while thinking that it could be missing.

I don't have an argument with you, but when I see a log like that, it's usually not because the cache is too challenging, just because it's too stupid, like a micro hidden in the middle of a patch of ivy.

[4wheelin_fool]

There is someone around here who often writes in their logs

Cachers want to find caches not look for caches

but that is simply not true. Difficult hides are worth looking for, but only if they are rated correctly. Spending a lot of time looking for an incorrectly rated 1.5 means lowering your D/T average unnecessarily, while all the while thinking that it could be missing.

I don't have an argument with you, but when I see a log like that, it's usually not because the cache is too challenging, just because it's too stupid, like a micro hidden in the middle of a patch of ivy.

 

I would agree with you, but this line is copy and pasted in all of their logs. I previously knew a cacher who would have a fit of anger if they couldn't find something quickly, and then they would make it too obvious for the next person. Some people don't like looking and assume everyone is like they are.

[+niraD]

The question isn't whether such caches are desirable. The question is whether we should reserve over half the difficulty range for the relatively small set of caches that present this level of challenge.

Is there really much difference between a cache that can be found in 10 minutes and a cache that can be found in 12 minutes? Is there really much difference between a 30 minute hike and a 35 minute hike? Do we need that kind of granularity?

 

I don't think the goal should be to have listings evenly distributed across the difficulty/terrain ratings. I think the goal should be to have the ratings represent significant differences, differences that can be used to select which caches you might be interested in attempting. The current system does that well. There is a significant difference (roughly an order of magnitude) between D1 ("a few minutes") and D2 ("30 minutes"). There is a significant difference (roughly an order of magnitude) between D2 ("30 minutes") and D3 ("a good portion of an afternoon"). And so on.

[+dprovan]

Is there really much difference between a cache that can be found in 10 minutes and a cache that can be found in 12 minutes? Is there really much difference between a 30 minute hike and a 35 minute hike? Do we need that kind of granularity?

As I said, difficulty doesn't reduce well to number of minutes. But even if we went with that, I'd claim that, as minor as the difference between 10 minutes and 12 minutes is, it's more significant than the difference between "most of the afternoon" and "all day" because almost all cachers would view either one as being equivalent to "forever".