Reviewers Reviewing D/T?

3.1k · November 21, 2014

Did this not get posted yet? It's the Ratings article from the Help Center.

It does state, "Geocache ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in British Columbia, Canada is most likely going to be a very different experience from a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland." But it doesn't really deal with "why".

Now, I can't seem to find the link to that 2001 thread discussing the ratings process that served as the foundation for the ClayJar tool. Anyone have a link? Searches aren't really getting me anywhere on the forum search, or from search engines.

The discussion and the tool it created were trying to put as objective a measure as possible for what is quite subjective. It's like trying to tame a tiger, really (apparently); you can only do so much. But the idea is more clearly discussed in the Help Center article about adjusting by half-stars if you have the opinion that is is "not that hard" or "not that easy". So, an "easy" multi gets a D3 from the tool, but you may think it isn't that hard ("I've done a D3 traditional, and it was HARD!"...), so take it down to D2.5.

I'd agree that a D3 traditional might have me generally thinking, "Wow, that took a bit of work...", and I could go out and find a multi (which should be, according to the tool a D3 as well) in less effort. In my mind I'd say that the multi was overrated, but the truth of the matter is the fact that we are unable to factor in the difficulty meant to be rated slightly more objectively for something nuanced like finding more than 1 spot enroute to a final, or how fast I was able to do that to be "done".

Once one can admit to yourself that ratings are general across the game, as well as more specific to each cache type, one can really start to consider these "overrated mutlis", as cases specific to each cache type. It's not easy, but it's a matter of fact.

But, if we were to update a rating tool, we'd have to consider some baselines, such as "how low is the lowest D rating for the easiest multi?", and then be able to ask, "in relation to the easiest traditional, how much more difficult is this multi?" I'd say, as I did above, that a multi shouldn't have a D rating lower than 2. Even if I could find a simple 2-leg multi in less than 30 minutes, it is still a full star more difficult to find 1 location, and then a second.

It's those types of baselines that helped set up the semi-objective tool to help tame a subjective beast.

Edited November 21, 2014 by NeverSummer

3.1k · November 21, 2014

I can tell you're troubled with the fact that you can't have an event be "as the owner intended", and some may "abuse" the attended log by just "dropping in".

It 'aint necessarily so.

Of course I can't speak for Cezanne but what troubled me was:

1. The difficulty of explaining the scope of the event in a clear way for all attendees

2. The fact that effectively I had to pretend that the event was the first thirty minutes of what actually lasted most of an afternoon - and that thirty minutes amounted to standing around on a car park (parking lot for US viewers) waiting to engage in what was really the focus of the event.

So, what I see you saying here is that you'd like to see event listings have more clearly written descriptions. Simple enough a hope, yes. Tough to convince all of the users to be on the same page and "do better", but that's life.

I'd agree wholeheartedly that some events need to be more clear about the what, when, and where. And that is, unfortunately, not the real focus of this thread.

No - that wasn't what I was saying at all. Try reading it again.

The focus of the thread is meant to be about Reviewers Reviewing D/T. In the case of my event the reviewer didn't do this - but did restrict fairly heavily how the rest of the page had to be presented - and I rated the D/T for the whole event as I saw it - incuding the activities Groundspeak classed as not a part of the event. Had I rated it according to what Groundspeak classed as the event it would have related to standing on a flat car park for 30 minutes which would have completely misinformed all but the one attendee who attended and did only that.

So you see my post is entirely related to the thread. Thanks for making me justify it

See what I emphasized from your #2. To me that read that you sounded troubled that you had to wait, doing nothing, for 30 minutes while you waited for the event to start. Sorry that I didn't read it how you intended. Now I see what you're saying; thank you for making it more clear to this chilly Alaska resident, what with our cold weather and the fact that I'm responding to people in the thread. :anicute: (I see what you did there. Your bait stinks)

____________

As a follow-up to another post above...since when can't you have a "traveling" event? We just had a raft trip event posted here in Alaska this fall. Meet at the launch, and we're going rafting. I think some folks showed, but didn't raft, so they logged the event...I think. (I haven't checked at this moment to be sure, but that's what I recall)

In that case, if someone showed to the launch after the listed time and nobody was there, they just assumed they missed the event and went on their merry way. But the event was about getting some folks to join in for a raft trip on a scenic river in the peak of fall color. I'm sure the owner didn't mind if people came to the launch but didn't join in. There were limited seats, and it cost enough to be prohibitive to some cachers, so it doesn't sound unreasonable to be welcoming and happy to see anyone who showed, and not deny them a (trivial, really) "attended" log for that event even if they didn't raft.

Short answer - I don't know since when but it applied to the event I organised in October.

Is it just me, or is it getting a bit chilly in here?

Interesting. So, we're not only talking about a specific case with the OP having a Reviewer ask to edit D/T, but also some inconsistent execution of event review and approval.

To me, I'd think whatever "travelling" event you planned would have been approved. That's just been my experience with events in the US, in North Carolina, Minnesota, Oregon, and Alaska.

Sorry I'm responding to responses. I'd multiquote, but then people complain about that, too. Again, your bait stinks. :anibad:

4.6k · November 21, 2014

Again, your bait stinks.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this (note complete lack of smileys indicating that I'm completely serious).

6.1k · November 21, 2014

Not too certain how much the reviewers are actually reviewing event D/T. Checking a few locally, here is a mega event listed at 1.5/1.5

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC56TP7_metrogathering

I'm pretty certain that people in wheelchairs were able to attend, but don't have any idea why the listing would exclude them. I'm sure that it wasn't intentional, but someone with limited mobility might believe it. It's one thing to stand out in a crowd by being in a chair, but to have the D/T exclude them for no apparent reason might annoy someone. It was in a grassy field near parking. I recall a gully, but there was a bridge or another way around.

Don't understand the difficulty of 1.5 either. It seems to be a case of doing something just because. Or perhaps someone wants to keep their stats up.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5G24G_styling-beer

A 2/2 at a sports bar. Don't see any ramp entrance, but a wheelchair might make it over the one step, and Im sure someone would help them in. Even so it should be a 1/1.5 at the most.

In fact there are quite a few listed in other states as 1.5/1.5 that are wheelchair accessible with handicap parking. I don't have any idea what the 1.5 difficulty is all about either. Perhaps some have an obsessive compulsive desire to have matching numbers? But why seemingly exclude those in a wheelchair? :huh:

Edited November 21, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

3.1k · November 21, 2014

Again, your bait stinks.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this (note complete lack of smileys indicating that I'm completely serious).

I figured the

"Is it just me, or is it getting a bit chilly in here? "

was a shot at me, or my participation/response to responses, and that you're coyly placing some "troll bait". I might be wrong, and I'm prepared to eat crow if that is, in fact, the truth.

6.8k · November 21, 2014

Now, I can't seem to find the link to that 2001 thread discussing the ratings process that served as the foundation for the ClayJar tool.

The real issue is that those who discussed the topic in 2001 did not have those caches in mind where the ClayJar tool works very bad.

The discussion and the tool it created were trying to put as objective a measure as possible for what is quite subjective.

They made this effort for the type of caches they had in mind and that's the problem.

It's like trying to tame a tiger, really (apparently); you can only do so much. But the idea is more clearly discussed in the Help Center article about adjusting by half-stars if you have the opinion that is is "not that hard" or "not that easy". So, an "easy" multi gets a D3 from the tool, but you may think it isn't that hard ("I've done a D3 traditional, and it was HARD!"...), so take it down to D2.5.

I already told you that there are tons of multi caches out that are the equivalent of the 1* level description. They do not even correspond to the description of 2* which says that an average cacher will not have problems to deal with this cache within 30 minutes. 3* already talks of a challenge for an experienced cacher. More than 50% of the multi caches in my area are not even considered close to being a challenge.

The tool and the description of the difficulty levels are contradictory for more than half of the European style multi caches.

These issues have been brought up early onwards (as early as 2003 at least) but have always been ignored. So what happened is nothing else than the result of this ignorance.

Once one can admit to yourself that ratings are general across the game, as well as more specific to each cache type, one can really start to consider these "overrated mutlis", as cases specific to each cache type. It's not easy, but it's a matter of fact.

People in Europe who do multis routinely will care much more to have a scale available that tells them whether a multi cache is appropriate for them on a particular day and will care less about whether some guys in the US are not happy with the fact that caches will most probably will never visit are not rated in a fully consistent manner.

Groundspeak would have had the chance to react early on to adapt the tool to work nicely for multi caches and mystery caches as well in a consistent manner.

But, if we were to update a rating tool, we'd have to consider some baselines, such as "how low is the lowest D rating for the easiest multi?", and then be able to ask, "in relation to the easiest traditional, how much more difficult is this multi?" I'd say, as I did above, that a multi shouldn't have a D rating lower than 2. Even if I could find a simple 2-leg multi in less than 30 minutes, it is still a full star more difficult to find 1 location, and then a second.

Actually, I think what the searchers are really interested in is some estimate on how much time they should reserve for a cache and not have an accurate tool to determine whether cache A is harder than cache B or the other way round.

That is also the reason why I rate my caches according to the description of the D-levels.

If I rate a cache with D=2* this means that the description for D=2* fits in my opinion and that can be used worldwide as a guidance and makes much more sense than rating a cache as 3* that is done in 2 minutes even by a newbie.

It also would completely skew the 81-matrices and other D/T statistics as it would have a strong bias towards multi caches being rated higher than appropriate.

Cezanne

4.6k · November 21, 2014

Again, your bait stinks.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this (note complete lack of smileys indicating that I'm completely serious).

I figured the

"Is it just me, or is it getting a bit chilly in here? "
was a shot at me, or my participation/response to responses, and that you're coyly placing some "troll bait". I might be wrong, and I'm prepared to eat crow if that is, in fact, the truth.

No need to eat crow - you were spot on with that observation - although it was more of an expression of my feelings about the tone of some of your responses to my posts rather than deliberate troll bait.

I can be a little abrasive at times but the posts I'm placing here are just me trying to put a view across and - although it pains me a little bit - that view coincides with some of the observations cezanne has brought to the thread about what's allowed within the event framework these days and what isn't.

6.8k · November 21, 2014

To me, I'd think whatever "travelling" event you planned would have been approved. That's just been my experience with events in the US, in North Carolina, Minnesota, Oregon, and Alaska.

Some time ago such events have been routinely published in Austria, too (and I have taken part in a kind of cache rally many years ago in Germany) but now that's not any longer the case.

They still allow to mention activities that take place before or after the official event but do not allow any longer the event to be the moving activity and that of course has a big influence on the D/T rating (but not only on the rating).

Given the current formulation of the event guidelines I'm surprised that events where the event is the paddle tour are still published in some areas as in this setup the event is not taking place at the posted coordinates (which is required in the guidelines). In my area one would have to add something like "We meet at the parking lot X at the header coordinates. Event start time: 9:00. Event end time: 9:30. At 9:30 we start for a group hike to Y and who wants can join in." (One also could have the activity first and the event at the end.)

Let me stress again that I do not have the slightest issue if the organizers of a moving event in former times allowed attended logs for those who did not take part in the moving activity. That's not my business. I'm unhappy with the way the event guidelines changed which turned events in very inflexible traditional like caches.

Of course such events are then 1/1 events and the whole attractive part is not any longer part of the official event.

If your area is different (though it is surprising that "at the posted coordinates" could mean different things to different people), then it is not surprising that you do not understand why I feel that the rating issue for events

is not just a topic to come up with weird ideas about events that never will take place.

Edited November 21, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · November 21, 2014

No need to eat crow - you were spot on with that observation - although it was more of an expression of my feelings about the tone of some of your responses to my posts rather than deliberate troll bait.

I can be a little abrasive at times but the posts I'm placing here are just me trying to put a view across and - although it pains me a little bit - that view coincides with some of the observations cezanne has brought to the thread about what's allowed within the event framework these days and what isn't.

No worries! I'm among the few and proud that can take it all on the chin, hand some back, and then laugh it off with you over some virtual pints of malty beverage.

Sorry if I came across as too "cold"...I understand just as well that responses here can be tough to articulate without sounding harsher than intended.

4.6k · November 21, 2014

No need to eat crow - you were spot on with that observation - although it was more of an expression of my feelings about the tone of some of your responses to my posts rather than deliberate troll bait.

I can be a little abrasive at times but the posts I'm placing here are just me trying to put a view across and - although it pains me a little bit - that view coincides with some of the observations cezanne has brought to the thread about what's allowed within the event framework these days and what isn't.

No worries! I'm among the few and proud that can take it all on the chin, hand some back, and then laugh it off with you over some virtual pints of malty beverage.

Sorry if I came across as too "cold"...I understand just as well that responses here can be tough to articulate without sounding harsher than intended.

Cheers

3.1k · November 21, 2014

Now, I can't seem to find the link to that 2001 thread discussing the ratings process that served as the foundation for the ClayJar tool.

The real issue is that those who discussed the topic in 2001 did not have those caches in mind where the ClayJar tool works very bad.

The discussion and the tool it created were trying to put as objective a measure as possible for what is quite subjective.

They made this effort for the type of caches they had in mind and that's the problem.

They didn't need to. In fact, I have no problem continuing to use the tool for rating caches with any and all examples of "new" caches. That's the beauty of that tool--it's simplistic enough, and general enough to try and marginalize the subjectivity of the ratings.

It's like trying to tame a tiger, really (apparently); you can only do so much. But the idea is more clearly discussed in the Help Center article about adjusting by half-stars if you have the opinion that is is "not that hard" or "not that easy". So, an "easy" multi gets a D3 from the tool, but you may think it isn't that hard ("I've done a D3 traditional, and it was HARD!"...), so take it down to D2.5.

I already told you that there are tons of multi caches out that are the equivalent of the 1* level description. They do not even correspond to the description of 2* which says that an average cacher will not have problems to deal with this cache within 30 minutes. 3* already talks of a challenge for an experienced cacher. More than 50% of the multi caches in my area are not even considered close to being a challenge.

The tool and the description of the difficulty levels are contradictory for more than half of the European style multi caches.

These issues have been brought up early onwards (as early as 2003 at least) but have always been ignored. So what happened is nothing else than the result of this ignorance.

But that's just the point, cezanne. A multi is, by nature, more complicated then just finding the easiest traditional. Because of the additional leg(s), no matter the length or perceived "difficulty" equate to a more highly rated D.

Are you saying that the "European style" is intentionally taking liberties with the rating system as it was set out by the foundation and guidelines?

Once one can admit to yourself that ratings are general across the game, as well as more specific to each cache type, one can really start to consider these "overrated mutlis", as cases specific to each cache type. It's not easy, but it's a matter of fact.

People in Europe who do multis routinely will care much more to have a scale available that tells them whether a multi cache is appropriate for them on a particular day and will care less about whether some guys in the US are not happy with the fact that caches will most probably will never visit are not rated in a fully consistent manner.

Groundspeak would have had the chance to react early on to adapt the tool to work nicely for multi caches and mystery caches as well in a consistent manner.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the frequency one encounters a cache type dulls one's ratings. That's not consistent, and it's (IMO) misguided.

It isn't a nationalistic issue here, cezanne; it isn't USA versus European style. It is all about all of us being "global community" of geocachers. I'm not trying to say "USA, All the way!", I'm trying to say that we can all do better to make the game consistent across borders, and that can happen with use of the tool Groundspeak recommends.

But, if we were to update a rating tool, we'd have to consider some baselines, such as "how low is the lowest D rating for the easiest multi?", and then be able to ask, "in relation to the easiest traditional, how much more difficult is this multi?" I'd say, as I did above, that a multi shouldn't have a D rating lower than 2. Even if I could find a simple 2-leg multi in less than 30 minutes, it is still a full star more difficult to find 1 location, and then a second.

Actually, I think what the searchers are really interested in is some estimate on how much time they should reserve for a cache and not have an accurate tool to determine whether cache A is harder than cache B or the other way round.

Surely you're joking. That is, in fact, the whole point, cezanne.

"Time to do it" can be outlined in the description ("It took beta testers 30 minutes to complete this. Plan accordingly..."). Time can also impact the D rating, as outlined in the Help Center article, as well as the provided and recommended rating tool.

That is also the reason why I rate my caches according to the description of the D-levels.
If I rate a cache with D=2* this means that the description for D=2* fits in my opinion and that can be used worldwide as a guidance and makes much more sense than rating a cache as 3* that is done in 2 minutes even by a newbie.

It also would completely skew the 81-matrices and other D/T statistics as it would have a strong bias towards multi caches being rated higher than appropriate.

Cezanne

Simply using the descriptions can net an accurate rating in some cases. But really, the tool helps wiggle out the details that help one get to those descriptions. It's in the details--and as you've outlined, interpretation of those end descriptions taken in fundamentalist language is a slippery slope leading to inaccurate and inconsistent ratings of caches on a scale that is bigger than one would hope...even for geographic locational differences.

Edited November 21, 2014 by NeverSummer

3.1k · November 21, 2014

To me, I'd think whatever "travelling" event you planned would have been approved. That's just been my experience with events in the US, in North Carolina, Minnesota, Oregon, and Alaska.

Some time ago such events have been routinely published in Austria, too <snip>

They still allow to mention activities that take place before or after the official event but do not allow any longer the event to be the moving activity<snip>

Given the current formulation of the event guidelines I'm surprised that events where the event is the paddle tour are still published in some areas as in this setup the event is not taking place at the posted coordinates (which is required in the guidelines). In my area one would have to add something like "We meet at the parking lot X at the header coordinates. Event start time: 9:00. Event end time: 9:30. At 9:30 we start for a group hike to Y and who wants can join in." (One also could have the activity first and the event at the end.)

<snip>

I'm unhappy with the way the event guidelines changed which turned events in very inflexible traditional like caches.

<snip>

If your area is different (though it is surprising that "at the posted coordinates" could mean different things to different people), then it is not surprising that you do not understand why I feel that the rating issue for events

is not just a topic to come up with weird ideas about events that never will take place.

This idea is news to me. I don't know what it is about the interpretation of the guidelines, or the nuances of the listing here to the Reviewer versus the Reviewer there. Perhaps the Reviewers there are slapping wrists because of the liberties being taken on event listings. Who knows.

But so far as I know, events with "meeting at the coordinates for a hike," or the like, are still getting approved.

Perhaps it is because the event listing says it starts at the coords at, say, 9am, and return to the carpark :anibad: at 3. That way people can meet at the start, participate in the middle, and/or show at the end? I really don't know.

To me this sounds like less about the ratings, and more about asking TPTB and some Reviewers what the directive is for these types of events. I had never heard one couldn't have an event like what I've described for a raft trip, hike, or the like.

The other event types are more cut-and-dry in the guidelines and Help Center. You still can't event stack: Events must stand on their own merit. Aside from that, it really becomes too much of a philosophical discussion about D/T ratings for events. But, really, if one tries to be consistent in rating caches, they'd use the provided and recommended tool to rate the cache. That rating would improve consistency and also help squash the personal preference side of things because there is a tool that is shaped to fit the most variety of cases.

I hold the opinion that the ClayJar tool is timeless, and that claiming it doesn't cover the "new and exotic" ideas that are more modern is obtuse. The tool was perfected to handle many, many options, and the beauty is in the simplicity and consistency it can provide. If you are unsure, question a rating, or really want to improve the globalized consistency of the game, one would use the recommended tool described in the Help Center, and available on all cache submission pages. I still rate my caches from the hip, but then I check against the ClayJar tool. If I'm too far off from the tool's result, I adjust my cache rating to be more in line with the more objective tool, and away from my subjective mind.

6.8k · November 21, 2014

Simply using the descriptions can net an accurate rating in some cases. But really, the tool helps wiggle out the details that help one get to those descriptions.

The tool does a reasonably good job for some class of caches and fails for others. If a cache that requires 5 minutes of effort, gets a rating suggestion of 3* or higher, than something is awfully wrong (also with respect to the difficulty descriptions which state something contradictory).

It would have been no big deal to add a few further questions with regard to the difficulty along the same lines as it is done for the terrain. The only question that is asked for D clearly has the search at GZ in mind.

If some adaption of the tool had been done more than 10 years ago, it would have had a lot of advantages. Now it is probably too late anyway and moreover, not enough people seem to see it as a real problem.

It's quite sarcastic when you refer to old style multi caches hidden in Europe in 2002 and 2003 as being new and exotic ideas. When I have hidden my first caches, the cache type multi cache has already been available and so it can be expected that the rating tool can handle such cases in a reasonable manner (my first cache, a multi cache has a D=3* rating due to its nature including a fields puzzle and is not a 5 minutes multi cache - but even given that I got comments from time to time that the rating is too high and never that it is too low).

The population density is much higher in my home area than in Alaska or also your previous home area. This is and other differences also influence the type of caches that are hidden. This is not an issue of coming up with exotic ideas. The stages of multi caches most often serve just the purpose of guiding along a route and not the purpose to offer a twist or increase the challenge.

When caching in different areas and countries one has to learn anyway that the changes not only with respect to the ratings can be enormous. As the big majority of international travellers is hardly doing multi caches when travelling, it's probably more a philosophical issue than an issue which affects many people. For sure more people would be affected and seriously annoyed if the easiest multi caches started at D=2.5*. That would create a tremdendous uproar in countries where multi caches (and particularly those with virtual stages) are common.

Edited November 21, 2014 by cezanne

6.8k · November 21, 2014

Perhaps it is because the event listing says it starts at the coords at, say, 9am, and return to the carpark at 3. That way people can meet at the start, participate in the middle, and/or show at the end?

Maybe the reviewer then regards just the start and the end as the event? (That could make sense because they in that case take both place at the posted coordinates which is required in the new version of the guidelines for some reason I cannot understand.)

I wonder whether they accept a higher terrain rating for such an event when the start and end point are a parking lot. They have to accept the higher rating if the event takes place up on a mountain, but I wonder what happens in the case you mentioned above. That also would provide us with an indication whether my conjecture is true that in the case above the event is just seen as the period at the start and period at the end.

Cezanne

Edited November 21, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · November 21, 2014

Simply using the descriptions can net an accurate rating in some cases. But really, the tool helps wiggle out the details that help one get to those descriptions.

The tool does a reasonably good job for some class of caches and fails for others. If a cache that requires 5 minutes of effort, gets a rating suggestion of 3* or higher, than something is awfully wrong (also with respect to the difficulty descriptions which state something contradictory).

I'm assuming you're talking about a multi again? If it takes 5 minutes of effort to go from stage 1 to the final stage of a multi, it is still rated as a D3 by ClayJar, yes. Now, did you read what else I wrote, and what the guidelines say about rating caches? If you think it's easier than what you get from the tool, you can drop it a 1/2 star.

I think "the easiest multi" should still be a D2, because not everyone will finish in 5 minutes, and it is inherently more difficult to go to 2 spots versus 1 in the case of "the easiest traditional".

It would have been no big deal to add a few further questions with regard to the difficulty along the same lines as it is done for the terrain. The only question that is asked for D clearly has the search at GZ in mind.
If some adaption of the tool had been done more than 10 years ago, it would have had a lot of advantages. Now it is probably too late anyway and moreover, not enough people seem to see it as a real problem.

You're right. If you can program it, go for it. But for now, the tool does deal with those questions, but you have to be a bit less fundamentalist in the interpretation of the words. Again, I've never had a problem rating a cache with the tool (my cache or someone else's) to find it was too far off.

To develop a new tool like you want will mean some tough programming for weighting questions, and applying averages and scores in ways that can be calculated to present an accurate and readable result. For now, the tool works pretty darn well if you use it. (And it doesn't sound like you do, or have, cezanne. It sounds more like you tossed it out in favor of opinion and "European style".)

When caching different areas and countries, one has to learn anyway that the changes not only with respect to the ratings can be enormous. As the big majority of international travellers is hardly doing multi caches when travelling, it's probably more a philosophical issue than an issue which affects many people. For sure more people would be affected and seriously annoyed if the easiest multi caches started at D=2.5*. That would create a tremdendous uproar in countries where multi caches (and particularly those with virtual stages) are common.

Uproar. I'd love to see that...

Differences are going to happen. We're a strange bunch of apes, we humans. What with our self awareness and cultural influences and language barriers and all... But the fact remains that it shouldn't be enormous. A 2 versus a 3, sure. But a 1 versus a 3? No way.

That's no different than the example I used about Alaska: Most folks are used to snowmobiles and 4-wheelers, and rivers, and mud, and steep terrain with no roads other than an overgrown 2-track. So because it is "commonplace", terrain often gets underrated. And that's something people who live here are becoming more acutely aware of, and the Reviewer and the state-wide organization are trying to temper down. People would move here, or visit, and say, "How in the world could that scramble up that hillside be only a T2?", and the owner would say, "because it's only 500 feet of distance...that's not that far..." But the fact remains that the hillside requires hand-on scrambling, and it should be rated higher. Just because someone can run a 4-minute mile doesn't mean I can. Just because you think a multi with 5 minutes of work is easy, doesn't mean that it isn't by nature more difficult--especially compared to that "easiest traditional".

You can say, "For a multi, this is an easy one...", but the way the ratings system is designed, a multi should be rated more difficult than a traditional because of the nature of the hide. It's like saying that a traditional with some good camo should be rated higher than an ammo can sitting in plain sight. It just is, because that's the way it is. Multis are harder, and that's why the ClayJar tool rates them as such.

Can we keep going rounds on the D3 rating for any and all multicaches? Sure. What I'm trying to say is that we should be able to massage the tool's results a bit in light of the specific cases of hides. But there should be some more consistent ground rules of how low to go. According to the Help Center, that would be D2.5. I'd argue that D2 would be reasonable for the easiest multi, but that 1.5 or 1 are not--especially when considering what a D1/1.5 traditional would be: super simple.

3.1k · November 21, 2014

Perhaps it is because the event listing says it starts at the coords at, say, 9am, and return to the carpark at 3. That way people can meet at the start, participate in the middle, and/or show at the end?

Maybe the reviewer then regards just the start and the end as the event? (That could make sense because they in that case take both place at the posted coordinates which is required in the new version of the guidelines for some reason I cannot understand.)

I wonder whether they accept a higher terrain rating for such an event when the start and end point are a parking lot. They have to accept the higher rating if the event takes place up on a mountain, but I wonder what happens in the case you mentioned above. That also would provide us with an indication whether my conjecture is true that in the case above the event is just seen as the period at the start and period at the end.

Cezanne

Mid=blown.

Yeah, then all events would be 1/1, or 1/1.5 if not wheelchair accessible.

But if the event is a kayak trip, mountain hike, or whatever, then it would only be T, not D. :anibad:

Edit to add (so it doesn't trigger a new notification...):

I think that the ClayJar tool could work more toward what you and I can see as common ground. As far as that last question is concerned, look at the second option: "Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while."

What if that one was changed to say, "And/or may be an offset or simple 2-leg multicache"? Then it renders a D2 in that "easiest" option. With some wiggle, once could say it was down to a D1.5, but again, I say to look at a D1 or D1.5 traditional and tell me that a cache where you go to more than 1 spot is easier than a traditional where an ammo can is simply under an obvious stick pile (D1.5)

Edited November 21, 2014 by NeverSummer

3.1k · November 22, 2014

I think "the easiest multi" should still be a D2, because not everyone will finish in 5 minutes, and it is inherently more difficult to go to 2 spots versus 1 in the case of "the easiest traditional".

I beg to differ. We recently completed a power trail of multi-caches where the containers were on fence posts about 4 feet off the ground and marked with reflective tape. You could spot them from 200 feet away as you were driving along.

In this particular instance, you had to either do a projection or highlight the cache page's white text on white background to get the final coordinates. It was easy to determine the coordinates, so I had no problem with the caches' 1-star difficulty ratings. (I also would have been okay with 1.5 stars.)

But if the owner didn't care about creating geo-art, then they could have stated on the cache page: "The cache is located on the fence post 15 feet west of the posted coordinates." In that case, finders wouldn't have to do any prior work to determine the coordinates and simply spot the caches as they drive up to the posted coordinates. That type of multi would very appropriately be rated 1-star in difficulty. It wouldn't be hard to find these at a rate of one cache per minute, and very few "searchers" would require more than three minutes per cache. This would be a tiny bit harder than the easiest traditional, but the difference would be so negligible that it wouldn't justify even an extra half star.

That said, however, the Clayjar system would suggest the appropriate 1-star difficulty rating since the cache "is in plain sight."

Edited November 22, 2014 by CanadianRockies

15.3k · November 22, 2014

I think "the easiest multi" should still be a D2, because not everyone will finish in 5 minutes, and it is inherently more difficult to go to 2 spots versus 1 in the case of "the easiest traditional".

I'll grant you that the easiest multi-cache is inherently more difficult than the easiest traditional cache.

But so what? That does not mean that the easiest multi-cache is inherently at least D2.

One cache can be more difficult than another, and yet they can both be D1 caches. If both "can be found in a few minutes of searching", then they're both D1 caches. And yes, I've found multi-caches that could be found in a few minutes of searching.

3.1k · November 22, 2014

I think "the easiest multi" should still be a D2, because not everyone will finish in 5 minutes, and it is inherently more difficult to go to 2 spots versus 1 in the case of "the easiest traditional".

I beg to differ. We recently completed a power trail of multi-caches where the containers were on fence posts about 4 feet off the ground and marked with reflective tape. You could spot them from 200 feet away as you were driving along.

In this particular instance, you had to either do a projection or highlight the cache page's white text on white background to get the final coordinates. It was easy to determine the coordinates, so I had no problem with the caches' 1-star difficulty ratings. (I also would have been okay with 1.5 stars.)

<snip>

That said, however, the Clayjar system would suggest the appropriate 1-star difficulty rating since the cache "is in plain sight."

But knowing to highlight a white/white for coords, or to know how to project a waypoint is a more difficult task than simply following an arrow to a traditional in plain sight. The fact that it was easy for you does not mean it would be easy for others, etc.

I think "the easiest multi" should still be a D2, because not everyone will finish in 5 minutes, and it is inherently more difficult to go to 2 spots versus 1 in the case of "the easiest traditional".
I'll grant you that the easiest multi-cache is inherently more difficult than the easiest traditional cache.

But so what? That does not mean that the easiest multi-cache is inherently at least D2.

One cache can be more difficult than another, and yet they can both be D1 caches. If both "can be found in a few minutes of searching", then they're both D1 caches. And yes, I've found multi-caches that could be found in a few minutes of searching.

It doesn't have to "mean" it is, I'm just saying that we can actually deal with modern and more accurate cases for "easy multis" by including the language I used above to the second option of the ClayJar's last question. Meaning, if the ClayJar is used consistently, we'd always end up with D3 "easy multis", and that just doesn't add up in some (most, European?) cases.

I've also found multis that could be found in a matter of moments. But to know that it could be is different than just walking up to a D1 plain-sight ammo can; that multi isn't a D1.

6.8k · November 22, 2014

That said, however, the Clayjar system would suggest the appropriate 1-star difficulty rating since the cache "is in plain sight."

Yes, but only if the rater does not choose the answer where the term multi leg arises which will happen often in practice anyway when the first answer already applies.

15.3k · November 22, 2014

I've also found multis that could be found in a matter of moments. But to know that it could be is different than just walking up to a D1 plain-sight ammo can; that multi isn't a D1.

A traditional cache that "can be found in a few minutes of searching" is different from a traditional cache that is "in plain sight". A traditional cache that "can be found in a few minutes of searching" could even be ten times harder than a traditional cache that is "in plain sight".

But that doesn't mean that they can't both be D1 caches.

6.8k · November 22, 2014

I wonder whether they accept a higher terrain rating for such an event when the start and end point are a parking lot. They have to accept the higher rating if the event takes place up on a mountain, but I wonder what happens in the case you mentioned above. That also would provide us with an indication whether my conjecture is true that in the case above the event is just seen as the period at the start and period at the end.

Mid=blown.

Yeah, then all events would be 1/1, or 1/1.5 if not wheelchair accessible.

But if the event is a kayak trip, mountain hike, or whatever, then it would only be T, not D.

Of course in those cases the major difficulty comes from the terrain.

My point is that the two issues how D/T for events are to be rated and what is regarded as official part of an event are closely connected. I'm both unhappy with Groundspeak's new approach to moving events and with the consequences this is starting to have on the D/T-rating. Right now it seems that not all reviewers are yet strict about the D/T rating of events, but I guess in a few months this will have changed (for many other changed stances of Groundspeak it worked similarly that there has been some delay and differing paces of implementation in the review practice).

I'd regard it as absolutely unacceptable if an urban ice skating event had to be to rated by a low terrain rating by the reasoning that the ice skating area can be reached in a T=1 or T=1.5 manner and that people cannot be/are not forced to skate.

3.1k · November 22, 2014

I think "the easiest multi" should still be a D2, because not everyone will finish in 5 minutes, and it is inherently more difficult to go to 2 spots versus 1 in the case of "the easiest traditional".

I beg to differ. We recently completed a power trail of multi-caches where the containers were on fence posts about 4 feet off the ground and marked with reflective tape. You could spot them from 200 feet away as you were driving along.

In this particular instance, you had to either do a projection or highlight the cache page's white text on white background to get the final coordinates. It was easy to determine the coordinates, so I had no problem with the caches' 1-star difficulty ratings. (I also would have been okay with 1.5 stars.)

But if the owner didn't care about creating geo-art, then they could have stated on the cache page: "The cache is located on the fence post 15 feet west of the posted coordinates." In that case, finders wouldn't have to do any prior work to determine the coordinates and simply spot the caches as they drive up to the posted coordinates. That type of multi would very appropriately be rated 1-star in difficulty. It wouldn't be hard to find these at a rate of one cache per minute, and very few "searchers" would require more than three minutes per cache. This would be a tiny bit harder than the easiest traditional, but the difference would be so negligible that it wouldn't justify even an extra half star.

That said, however, the Clayjar system would suggest the appropriate 1-star difficulty rating since the cache "is in plain sight."

But knowing to highlight a white/white for coords, or to know how to project a waypoint is a more difficult task than simply following an arrow to a traditional in plain sight. The fact that it was easy for you does not mean it would be easy for others, etc.

First, those white/white coordinates are so easy to solve that it might bump the difficulty up from 1 star to 1.5 stars (as I noted).

Second, I anticipated your objection. That's why I mentioned a slightly different hypothetical which doesn't require any prior work to determine the coordinates. You snipped that paragraph. I reinserted it and made it bold. This type of multi certainly could be rated 1-star difficulty.

3.1k · November 22, 2014

That said, however, the Clayjar system would suggest the appropriate 1-star difficulty rating since the cache "is in plain sight."

Yes, but only if the rater does not choose the answer where the term multi leg arises which will happen often in practice anyway when the first answer already applies.

The cache I described is an offset cache; you walk directly to the cache. There's only one leg.

Of course, very few systems can guarantee that nobody will misapply them.

Edited November 22, 2014 by CanadianRockies

November 23, 2014

I've never understood how an regular event can't be anything but a 1 difficulty. Even it's on top of Mount Everest, it's still a 1 difficulty but would be a 5 for the terrain. Or 500 feet in the ocean in scuba, it's still a 1 difficulty.

Have you ever NOT been able to find an event once you reach ground zero?????

I arrived for an event at a restaurant. They host had reserved a room that was way in the back that wasn't immediately noticeable. After pacing the restaurant a couple of times and making a phone call, I finally found the event. D2, at least.

3.3k · November 23, 2014

I've never understood how an regular event can't be anything but a 1 difficulty. Even it's on top of Mount Everest, it's still a 1 difficulty but would be a 5 for the terrain. Or 500 feet in the ocean in scuba, it's still a 1 difficulty.

Have you ever NOT been able to find an event once you reach ground zero?????

I arrived for an event at a restaurant. They host had reserved a room that was way in the back that wasn't immediately noticeable. After pacing the restaurant a couple of times and making a phone call, I finally found the event. D2, at least.

Maybe, maybe not. Did you make it harder than it had to be by not having full info or asking the right questions? The rating takes the easiest reasonable scenario into account. *Maybe* 1.5.

6.8k · November 23, 2014

The cache I described is an offset cache; you walk directly to the cache. There's only one leg.

Of course, very few systems can guarantee that nobody will misapply them.

One of the issues is that the Clayjar tool is also translated to some other languages, e.g. to German and

there instead of legs the questions refers to multi caches. Moreover, leg can still be interpreted in different ways even when using the English version. How many legs has a multi cache with three virtual stages and the final? 4? (Count also the way to the header coordinates), 3? (stage 1- stage2-stage3-final), 1 (only count the way to a physical stage)?

German language people when using translations like the one here

http://www.gc-reviewer.de/hilfe-tipps-und-tricks/schwierigkeits-gelaendewertung/

or the one provided by Groundspeak (very similar to each other)

http://www.geocaching.com/hide/rate.aspx

(you can switch temporarily to other languages in your profile to see the result - the French version is better than the German one as it uses étapes for legs)

will end up in the conflict to either ignore the formulation of the third part of the last question or they will end up with D=3. The big majority chooses option 1.

My personal experience is reasonably good with relying on the English version of the description of the * levels, but have less reasonable experiences with applying the rating tool (for many reasons not only the rating of multi caches, e.g. it never provides 1.5* for the terrain even though it knows about half stars).

Cezanne

Edited November 23, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · November 23, 2014

The cache I described is an offset cache; you walk directly to the cache. There's only one leg.

Of course, very few systems can guarantee that nobody will misapply them.

One of the issues is that the Clayjar tool is also translated to some other languages, e.g. to German and there instead of legs the questions refers to multi caches. Moreover, leg can still be interpreted in different ways even when using the English version. How many legs has a multi cache with three virtual stages and the final? 4? (Count also the way to the header coordinates), 3? (stage 1- stage2-stage3-final), 1 (only count the way to a physical stage)?

Once again, the cache I described does not have multiple legs or multiple caches, virtual, physical, or otherwise. It's an offset cache that's very close to the posted coordinates, in plain sight, and is marked with reflective tape. You can see it from 200 feet away, park right next to it, and walk directly to the one and only container.

Edited November 23, 2014 by CanadianRockies

1.1k · November 23, 2014

I'd regard it as absolutely unacceptable if an urban ice skating event had to be to rated by a low terrain rating by the reasoning that the ice skating area can be reached in a T=1 or T=1.5 manner and that people cannot be/are not forced to skate.

I find it much easier to glide across the rink than to walk around it. I would rate the walk around the rink a T1. :laughing:

3.1k · November 24, 2014

I think "the easiest multi" should still be a D2, because not everyone will finish in 5 minutes, and it is inherently more difficult to go to 2 spots versus 1 in the case of "the easiest traditional".

I beg to differ. We recently completed a power trail of multi-caches where the containers were on fence posts about 4 feet off the ground and marked with reflective tape. You could spot them from 200 feet away as you were driving along.

In this particular instance, you had to either do a projection or highlight the cache page's white text on white background to get the final coordinates. It was easy to determine the coordinates, so I had no problem with the caches' 1-star difficulty ratings. (I also would have been okay with 1.5 stars.)

But if the owner didn't care about creating geo-art, then they could have stated on the cache page: "The cache is located on the fence post 15 feet west of the posted coordinates." In that case, finders wouldn't have to do any prior work to determine the coordinates and simply spot the caches as they drive up to the posted coordinates. That type of multi would very appropriately be rated 1-star in difficulty. It wouldn't be hard to find these at a rate of one cache per minute, and very few "searchers" would require more than three minutes per cache. This would be a tiny bit harder than the easiest traditional, but the difference would be so negligible that it wouldn't justify even an extra half star.

That said, however, the Clayjar system would suggest the appropriate 1-star difficulty rating since the cache "is in plain sight."

But knowing to highlight a white/white for coords, or to know how to project a waypoint is a more difficult task than simply following an arrow to a traditional in plain sight. The fact that it was easy for you does not mean it would be easy for others, etc.

First, those white/white coordinates are so easy to solve that it might bump the difficulty up from 1 star to 1.5 stars (as I noted).

Second, I anticipated your objection. That's why I mentioned a slightly different hypothetical which doesn't require any prior work to determine the coordinates. You snipped that paragraph. I reinserted it and made it bold. This type of multi certainly could be rated 1-star difficulty.

I snipped because that isn't a multi. With 15ft to the cache location, we're talking search areas within average GPS accuracy ranges.

By using the multi or mystery cache type, they are adding a layer of additional difficulty to what would otherwise be a point-and-shoot scenario of cache searching. Because that person may decide to bury their "easy" cache into the multi or mystery cache type, they are upping the difficulty by nature.

6.8k · November 24, 2014

I'd regard it as absolutely unacceptable if an urban ice skating event had to be to rated by a low terrain rating by the reasoning that the ice skating area can be reached in a T=1 or T=1.5 manner and that people cannot be/are not forced to skate.

I find it much easier to glide across the rink than to walk around it. I would rate the walk around the rink a T1.

SO you would rate such an event with T=1* ? Taking part in the intended manner requires both skating shoes and the ability to use them.

3.1k · November 24, 2014

I snipped because that isn't a multi. With 15ft to the cache location, we're talking search areas within average GPS accuracy ranges.

By using the multi or mystery cache type, they are adding a layer of additional difficulty to what would otherwise be a point-and-shoot scenario of cache searching. Because that person may decide to bury their "easy" cache into the multi or mystery cache type, they are upping the difficulty by nature.

Then make the offset 50 feet. The point is, with a powertrail of offset multi-caches that are 4-feet high on fence posts and marked with reflective tape, one can spot them from 200 feet away as one is driving down the road. As one approaches the posted coordinates, one merely looks 50 feet down the road, easily spots the cache, parks right next to it, and walks directly to the cache container. Even if you include driving time, it probably would take less than two minutes for the average geocacher to spot, park, walk to the cache, sign the log, return to their vehicle, drive, and spot the next multi.

The only reason such multis are slightly harder than very similar traditionals is that one has to remember to look an extra 50 feet down the road from the posted coordinates, which is very easy. It's a tad more difficult but not enough to warrant bumping its difficulty rating to 1.5. I might give it a difficulty rating of 1.1 stars, if such a thing existed.

3.1k · November 24, 2014

I snipped because that isn't a multi. With 15ft to the cache location, we're talking search areas within average GPS accuracy ranges.

By using the multi or mystery cache type, they are adding a layer of additional difficulty to what would otherwise be a point-and-shoot scenario of cache searching. Because that person may decide to bury their "easy" cache into the multi or mystery cache type, they are upping the difficulty by nature.

Then make the offset 50 feet. The point is, with a powertrail of offset multi-caches that are 4-feet high on fence posts and marked with reflective tape, one can spot them from 200 feet away as one is driving down the road. As one approaches the posted coordinates, one merely looks 50 feet down the road, easily spots the cache, parks right next to it, and walks directly to the cache container. Even if you include driving time, it probably would take less than two minutes for the average geocacher to spot, park, walk to the cache, sign the log, return to their vehicle, drive, and spot the next multi.

The only reason such multis are slightly harder than very similar traditionals is that one has to remember to look an extra 50 feet down the road from the posted coordinates, which is very easy. It's a tad more difficult but not enough to warrant bumping its difficulty rating to 1.5. I might give it a difficulty rating of 1.1 stars, if such a thing existed.

Still a reasonable EPE radius, but I know what you're getting at.

The fact still remains that knowing about the offset is more difficult, and certainly more difficult than the "easiest traditional". You can argue only at a D1.5, but I'd still hold that a multi starts at D2 by nature.

The rating systems aren't exponentially harder--this isn't the Richter scale here. The ratings are whole numbers 1-5. Then one can adjust up or down .5 if it doesn't quite "fit". So, I suppose that if you're talking about a multicache where the "offset" is not only listed in the description, but also marked at GZ with flagging/reflective tape, and the cache isn't too difficult to find at that flagging/tape (no difficult camo, in an obvious spot, etc.), then you could start with the D2 multi and "downgrade" to D1.5. I can see that, yes.

But I don't think any multi can ever be rated a D1, and believe that most multis out there should be D2 for a "one leg", or higher if you add legs (D3 for 2+ legs, higher than D3 if the waypoints are well camouflaged, for example).

6.8k · November 24, 2014

But I don't think any multi can ever be rated a D1, and believe that most multis out there should be D2 for a "one leg", or higher if you add legs (D3 for 2+ legs, higher than D3 if the waypoints are well camouflaged, for example).

But then often the following becomes ridiculous

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

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

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

and I do think that cachers should be able to let them guide by this to get a feeling. I do not want to reserve a good portion of an afternoon and expect a challenge when the involved multi cache turns out to be a at most 10 minutes routine type of thing.

Writing down three numbers from three signboards at a distance of 50m each (3 legs already) is certainly not considered to be challenging by any cacher I have ever learnt to know.

The fact still remains that knowing about the offset is more difficult, and certainly more difficult than the "easiest traditional". You can argue only at a D1.5, but I'd still hold that a multi starts at D2 by nature.

I'd say that if a cache will be found within 5-10 minutes this is much closer to 1* than to 2*. So I see no reason why to exclude 1.5*. So by which nature?

People want to have a rough estimate of how much time/effort is expected to be needed on the average. They will care about which tool has been used to come up with a reasonable estimate.

Edited November 24, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · November 24, 2014

I snipped because that isn't a multi. With 15ft to the cache location, we're talking search areas within average GPS accuracy ranges.

By using the multi or mystery cache type, they are adding a layer of additional difficulty to what would otherwise be a point-and-shoot scenario of cache searching. Because that person may decide to bury their "easy" cache into the multi or mystery cache type, they are upping the difficulty by nature.

Then make the offset 50 feet. The point is, with a powertrail of offset multi-caches that are 4-feet high on fence posts and marked with reflective tape, one can spot them from 200 feet away as one is driving down the road. As one approaches the posted coordinates, one merely looks 50 feet down the road, easily spots the cache, parks right next to it, and walks directly to the cache container. Even if you include driving time, it probably would take less than two minutes for the average geocacher to spot, park, walk to the cache, sign the log, return to their vehicle, drive, and spot the next multi.

The only reason such multis are slightly harder than very similar traditionals is that one has to remember to look an extra 50 feet down the road from the posted coordinates, which is very easy. It's a tad more difficult but not enough to warrant bumping its difficulty rating to 1.5. I might give it a difficulty rating of 1.1 stars, if such a thing existed.

Still a reasonable EPE radius, but I know what you're getting at.

The fact still remains that knowing about the offset is more difficult, and certainly more difficult than the "easiest traditional". You can argue only at a D1.5, but I'd still hold that a multi starts at D2 by nature.

The rating systems aren't exponentially harder--this isn't the Richter scale here. The ratings are whole numbers 1-5. Then one can adjust up or down .5 if it doesn't quite "fit". So, I suppose that if you're talking about a multicache where the "offset" is not only listed in the description, but also marked at GZ with flagging/reflective tape, and the cache isn't too difficult to find at that flagging/tape (no difficult camo, in an obvious spot, etc.), then you could start with the D2 multi and "downgrade" to D1.5. I can see that, yes.

But I don't think any multi can ever be rated a D1, and believe that most multis out there should be D2 for a "one leg", or higher if you add legs (D3 for 2+ legs, higher than D3 if the waypoints are well camouflaged, for example).

If I thought the lowest rating a multi could start at was D2 and could be nudged only 0.5 stars at most, then I'd agree that no multi could ever be rated a D1. But I don't agree with those assumptions.

Based on Clayjar, a cache in plain sight can be rated D1. Having to remember to look 50 feet down the road, when you can see the obvious cache from 200 feet away, makes it a tad bit harder...maybe 0.1 stars, if the rating system was that granular. But, since we have to rate in half-star increments, the proper rating for this kind of super-easy multi is D1 rather than D1.5.

14k · November 24, 2014

I'd regard it as absolutely unacceptable if an urban ice skating event had to be to rated by a low terrain rating by the reasoning that the ice skating area can be reached in a T=1 or T=1.5 manner and that people cannot be/are not forced to skate.

I find it much easier to glide across the rink than to walk around it. I would rate the walk around the rink a T1.

This is probably worth a separate thread but there have been a few types of events mentioned in the thread about specific activities (ice skating, kayaking, a specific hike) where there is an implication that one must engage in that activity to have "attended" the event, and to be able to post an "attended" log. This sounds a bit to me like an ALR and wonder if an event host has ever tried to delete a log posted by someone that showed up, socialized with other attendees but didn't participate in the ice skating, paddle, or go on the hike. If so, has there been a case where the "attendee" petitioned GS to get their log reinstated,and what was their response?

6.8k · November 24, 2014

This is probably worth a separate thread but there have been a few types of events mentioned in the thread about specific activities (ice skating, kayaking, a specific hike) where there is an implication that one must engage in that activity to have "attended" the event, and to be able to post an "attended" log. This sounds a bit to me like an ALR and wonder if an event host has ever tried to delete a log posted by someone that showed up, socialized with other attendees but didn't participate in the ice skating, paddle, or go on the hike. If so, has there been a case where the "attendee" petitioned GS to get their log reinstated,and what was their response?

I do not know a case where a log got deleted in such a case, but I regard it as pretty lame and stupid at the same time to attend a paddle/ice skating etc event, write an attended log and do not try to take part in the activity. There are meet and greets at restaurants for those who are either not willing or able to take part in such activities.

Personally, I do not think that rules were needed, but rather cachers that do not exploit everything that can be exploited.

It's pretty much absurd that the ratings for events should be based on those who take part without taking into consideration what a certain event is about.

Edited November 24, 2014 by cezanne

6.8k · November 24, 2014

This is probably worth a separate thread but there have been a few types of events mentioned in the thread about specific activities (ice skating, kayaking, a specific hike) where there is an implication that one must engage in that activity to have "attended" the event, and to be able to post an "attended" log. This sounds a bit to me like an ALR and wonder if an event host has ever tried to delete a log posted by someone that showed up, socialized with other attendees but didn't participate in the ice skating, paddle, or go on the hike. If so, has there been a case where the "attendee" petitioned GS to get their log reinstated,and what was their response?

I do not know a case where a log got deleted in such a case, but I regard it as pretty lame and stupid at the same time to attend a paddle/ice skating etc event, write an attended log and do not try to take part in the activity. There are meet and greets at restaurants for those who are either not willing or able to take part in such activities.

The next extreme would be that one needs to offer 5 minutes meeting time outside of the restaurant where an event takes place to allow everyone to log the event even without visiting the restaurant (the coordinates are typically coordinates pointing to the entrance and no to the middle of the house).

In this way the atmosphere of certain type of events is completely destroyed.

Edited November 24, 2014 by cezanne

14k · November 24, 2014

This is probably worth a separate thread but there have been a few types of events mentioned in the thread about specific activities (ice skating, kayaking, a specific hike) where there is an implication that one must engage in that activity to have "attended" the event, and to be able to post an "attended" log. This sounds a bit to me like an ALR and wonder if an event host has ever tried to delete a log posted by someone that showed up, socialized with other attendees but didn't participate in the ice skating, paddle, or go on the hike. If so, has there been a case where the "attendee" petitioned GS to get their log reinstated,and what was their response?

I do not know a case where a log got deleted in such a case, but I regard it as pretty lame and stupid at the same time to attend a paddle/ice skating etc event, write an attended log and do not try to take part in the activity. There are meet and greets at restaurants for those who are either not willing or able to take part in such activities.

First of all, I was just asking if anyone had encountered such a scenario. I wasn't condoning showing up, not participating in a certain activity, but posting an attended log and I'm *really* not interested in a debate regarding whether it's okay to do so.

I'm more interested in how GS would respond to someone that had their log deleted because chose not to engage in some activity at an event that had nothing to do with geocaching (e.g. ice skating) but *still* (as I mentioned my last post) spent time socializing with other attendees.

8k · November 25, 2014

I'm more interested in how GS would respond to someone that had their log deleted because chose not to engage in some activity at an event that had nothing to do with geocaching (e.g. ice skating) but *still* (as I mentioned my last post) spent time socializing with other attendees.

I originally started to reply that "no ALRs" applies only to physical caches, There is no published guideline saying you can't have ALRs for events. But...

Originally the commercial guideline was used to require many of these sorts of events to at least have an option to not participate if the activity involved a fee. Even events at restaurants were told that they can't require people to purchase food. However I suppose if there is no fee you might be able to require participation.

However...

Recently Groundspeak has add logging guidelines for event caches that state you can log Attended if you attend the event. Even though you can have a log book at the event, signing the log is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an Event Cache online.

It isn't clear if this is meant to forbid requiring any activity beyond showing up. There is no guidance for how log you have to stay to have attended or if you have to interact with anyone. Surely just sticking your head in the door and the leaving is would not be attending? :unsure:

My guess is that, while Groundspeak wants cache owners to delete bogus logs, they don't think that cache/event owners should get their knickers twisted because somebody thinks they deserve to log a find/attended. The logging guidelines are pretty much to tell cache owners that they no longer have carte blanche to delete find/attended logs for whatever reason they like. Sure, if there is a skating or kayaking event one would hope that people would participate. But you can't use the the online log as a "prize" for participating. Apparently there are only "prizes" for doing challenges.

Edited November 25, 2014 by tozainamboku

15.3k · November 25, 2014

If I thought the lowest rating a multi could start at was D2 and could be nudged only 0.5 stars at most, then I'd agree that no multi could ever be rated a D1. But I don't agree with those assumptions.

Exactly.

NeverSummer, the definition of D1 is not just "in plain sight", and the definition of D1 is not "the easiest possible cache". The definition of D1 is "In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching."

If a cache is in plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching, then it doesn't matter whether it is a traditional cache or a multi-cache or any other type of cache: it is a D1 cache.

A cache that is in plain sight might take less than 30 seconds to find. Another cache might take 10 times as long, but that's still less than 5 minutes. And both of those caches are still D1, regardless of what type they are.

6.8k · November 25, 2014

First of all, I was just asking if anyone had encountered such a scenario.

Yes, I know and I answered that I have not heard about such a scenario. Personally, I would not recommend to anyone to delete such a log - it's not really worth all the debate.

I wasn't condoning showing up, not participating in a certain activity, but posting an attended log and I'm *really* not interested in a debate regarding whether it's okay to do so.

I'm interested into the connection to the rating issue. So does the rating of an event need to be based on the lowest common denominator for attending, i.e. just showing up?

And as a question for you: Would you rate your hypothetical event based on the difficulty of showing up or taking part in what the event is supposed to be?

I'm more interested in how GS would respond to someone that had their log deleted because chose not to engage in some activity at an event that had nothing to do with geocaching (e.g. ice skating) but *still* (as I mentioned my last post) spent time socializing with other attendees.

As far as I understand they (GS) do not require socializing and spending time as a requirement anyway - think of 2 minute flash mobs.

7.3k · November 25, 2014

We have been holding rafting events for eight years. The deal has always been that we would have the coords and the "official" event be our BBQ that is held at the take-out at the end of the rafting trip. More details on the rafting trip (and caching along the way) are discussed in a regional forum post that is linked to the cache page.

Our first event we made a 5/5. I'm not sure what our reasoning was at the time, but it was pointed out to us later that the event was not a 5/5 and that we needed to rate the events more accurately.

For our most recent rafting event (last January), we discussed the rating with other geocachers, and with some reviewers. The conclusion drawn was that the main focus really is on the rafting trip, and the ratings should reflect that (with a 5 terrain). If there are some people who do not want to raft, they can meet us at the take out and participate in the event that way. So the ratings for that event were a 1/5.

4.6k · November 25, 2014

Our first event we made a 5/5. I'm not sure what our reasoning was at the time, but it was pointed out to us later that the event was not a 5/5 and that we needed to rate the events more accurately.

For our most recent rafting event (last January), we discussed the rating with other geocachers, and with some reviewers. The conclusion drawn was that the main focus really is on the rafting trip, and the ratings should reflect that (with a 5 terrain). If there are some people who do not want to raft, they can meet us at the take out and participate in the event that way. So the ratings for that event were a 1/5.

That's interesting because I was told both by the reviewer (after his consultation with the local reviewer community) and by Groundspeak that I should shift the focus of my event page away from the organised activities and toward the 'event itself'.

The 'event itself' amounted to nothing more than standing around on a car park (parking lot) waiting to take part in the organised activites :unsure:

I did however rate the D/T to coincide with the organised activities - and this was not questioned at all as I recall.

*edit to fix typo

Edited November 25, 2014 by Team Microdot

7.3k · November 25, 2014

Our first event we made a 5/5. I'm not sure what our reasoning was at the time, but it was pointed out to us later that the event was not a 5/5 and that we needed to rate the events more accurately.

For our most recent rafting event (last January), we discussed the rating with other geocachers, and with some reviewers. The conclusion drawn was that the main focus really is on the rafting trip, and the ratings should reflect that (with a 5 terrain). If there are some people who do not want to raft, they can meet us at the take out and participate in the event that way. So the ratings for that event were a 1/5.

That's interesting because I was told both by the reviewer (after his consultation with the local reviewer community) and by Groundspeak that I should shift the focus of my event page away from the organised activities and toward the 'event itself'.

The 'event itself' amounted to nothing more than standing around on a car park (parking lot) waiting to take part in the organised activites

I did however rate the D/T to coincide with the organised activities - and this was not questioned at all as I recall.

*edit to fix typo

Well, there are two parts to the event, I guess. The rafting, and the eating afterwards. The whole thing takes five or more hours if you do all of it. I guess we're just rating for the hardest part, like you do when rating a rock climb.

4.6k · November 25, 2014

Well, there are two parts to the event, I guess. The rafting, and the eating afterwards. The whole thing takes five or more hours if you do all of it. I guess we're just rating for the hardest part, like you do when rating a rock climb.

Not according to my attempted discussions with reviewers and Groundspeak.

The event is the event and the activities are the activities and never the twain shall meet :unsure:

7.3k · November 25, 2014

Well, there are two parts to the event, I guess. The rafting, and the eating afterwards. The whole thing takes five or more hours if you do all of it. I guess we're just rating for the hardest part, like you do when rating a rock climb.

Not according to my attempted discussions with reviewers and Groundspeak.

The event is the event and the activities are the activities and never the twain shall meet

I'm a little confused about what you are defining as "activities" and as "event". Perhaps if you could clarify, I could understand a little better.

4.6k · November 25, 2014

Well, there are two parts to the event, I guess. The rafting, and the eating afterwards. The whole thing takes five or more hours if you do all of it. I guess we're just rating for the hardest part, like you do when rating a rock climb.

Not according to my attempted discussions with reviewers and Groundspeak.

The event is the event and the activities are the activities and never the twain shall meet

I'm a little confused about what you are defining as "activities" and as "event". Perhaps if you could clarify, I could understand a little better.

Put simply, in the scenario you described earlier, the rafting would not be classed as part of the event. It's a completely optional activity and certainly NOT - as your reviewer(s) seemed to conclude the focus of the event.

You even said yourself that the official event was the barbecue after the rafting - even though the reviewer(s) classed the rafting as the focus of the event.

It's this pretend the event is not the activities stance that just baffles me.

7.3k · November 25, 2014

Well, there are two parts to the event, I guess. The rafting, and the eating afterwards. The whole thing takes five or more hours if you do all of it. I guess we're just rating for the hardest part, like you do when rating a rock climb.

Not according to my attempted discussions with reviewers and Groundspeak.

The event is the event and the activities are the activities and never the twain shall meet

I'm a little confused about what you are defining as "activities" and as "event". Perhaps if you could clarify, I could understand a little better.

Put simply, in the scenario you described earlier, the rafting would not be classed as part of the event. It's a completely optional activity and certainly NOT - as your reviewer(s) seemed to conclude the focus of the event.

You even said yourself that the official event was the barbecue after the rafting - even though the reviewer(s) classed the rafting as the focus of the event.

It's this pretend the event is not the activities stance that just baffles me.

I see it as everything is the event - from the rafting to the after rafting meal. People can opt in for whatever part they want. If they want to raft and not eat, they can - if they want to eat and not raft, they can - if they want to do everything, they can. I don't see it as two separate things.

I think that events should be open to all people. If there is someone who doesn't feel comfortable rafting, then they can still participate in the event. I would hate to leave anyone out. In fact, I've only rafted maybe 3 of the events, because of health problems.

2.6k · November 25, 2014

I was just looking at both the geocaching.com definitions and "clayjar". First the geocaching.com defintion (from the help center)

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

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

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

If you take the view that "D" only applies once you reach GZ... that would mean a D=3 cache you could spend "a good portion of an afternoon" at GZ looking for it. And for D=4, you may take multiple days at GZ to find it.

Maybe this is a "new vs old" thing... but a cache where you needed to spend a good part of an afternoon searching GZ.. I think it would be rated higher than D=3 today.

Now, clayjar

1 Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious.

2 Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while.

3 Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location.

4 Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to find

5 Finding this cache requires very specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment. This is a serious mental or physical challenge.

Please consider visibility, accessibility, and relative signal strength due to tree cover or other obstructions when answering this question.

I personally like this better, though in some aspects it is less objective. It says things like may have to look "for a while". It still talks about multiple days for D=4...

If you take it literally, though, "may be multi-leg" would result in choosing D=3 for any multi-leg cache, and I agree with those who say a multi can be D=1.

My point is not to nitpick these definitions, but that judgement is needed. There is not a perfectly designed objective system.

Reviewers Reviewing D/T?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment