Reviewers Reviewing D/T?

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

Agreed on all points - although if I'd organised an activity which was the focus of the event (unofficial part?) and nobody took part I'd probably think twice about organising another one.

 

And without trying even slightly to be antagonistic - I have to ask why if you see the event as inclusive of the (in this case) rafting - you actually make the distinction of official event at all?

 

The impression I got from both the reviewers and from Groundspeak is that they don't see the event as everything.

 

*edit to fix ANOTHER typo - I'm just not with it today

Edited November 25, 2014 by Team Microdot

[+redsox_mark]

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

...........

 

 

In my area too (as I posted earlier); about 25% of recent events are > D1.

 

The way I interpreted Keystone's comments is that event D/T ratings is a "point of emphasis" which reviewers may question. And I expect they are more likely to question higher ratings (e.g. 3 or more). Some reviewers may question anything which isn't D=1 (someone reported this is what was happening in their area); others I may let a D=1.5 go through without questioning it, but question a D=4.

Edited November 25, 2014 by redsox_mark

[+Ambrosia]

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.

 

Agreed on all points - although if I'd organised an activity which was the focus of the event (unofficial part?) and nobody took part I'd probably think twice about organising another one.

 

And without trying even slightly to be antagonistic - I have to ask why if you see the event as inclusive of the (in this case) rafting - you actually make the distinction of official event at all?

 

The impression I got from both the reviewers and from Groundspeak is that they don't see the event as everything.

 

*edit to fix ANOTHER typo - I'm just not with it today

You know, part of the reason that we're probably going back and forth a bit is just unfortunately the way I worded my first post. I'm not feeling well tonight, and sometimes I don't make as much sense as I would like when I'm ill. I told myself that I should wait and post some other time.

[+Team Microdot]

You know, part of the reason that we're probably going back and forth a bit is just unfortunately the way I worded my first post. I'm not feeling well tonight, and sometimes I don't make as much sense as I would like when I'm ill. I told myself that I should wait and post some other time.

 

I'm not trying to pick apart your post - I'm genuinely interested in this discussion point and how your view / experience of it compares to my own - particularly if what you're getting back from Groundspeak / reviewer(s) is consistent with my experience - or not, as the case may be.

 

For example - is the reason you use the term official event, despite yourself classing all the component parts together as The Event some personal choice / distinction or under the guidance / instruction of reviewer(s) / Groundspeak?

 

In any case - hope you're feeling better soon

[cezanne]

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.

 

For the rock climb I'm not expecting any debates with reviewers. Given what Keystone wrote and how some reviewers argued who forced event descriptions to be changed so as to turn the event into a meet and greet style with optional activities offered I wonder however whether Groundspeak HQ still is fine with this way of rating events which is based on the hardest, but optional (from their point of view) part.

 

Put differently, if the (optional) rafting part goes to the terrain rating (which in my opinion it should), then there is no reason to restrict the D-rating of events to D=1 either. If the whole thing is just about arriving at the meeting point for the eating, then most events would end up with low terrain ratings too (except cases where the meeting point is hard to reach, but that most probably is not the case for your rafting event example).

 

Cezanne

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+Ambrosia]

You know, part of the reason that we're probably going back and forth a bit is just unfortunately the way I worded my first post. I'm not feeling well tonight, and sometimes I don't make as much sense as I would like when I'm ill. I told myself that I should wait and post some other time.

 

I'm not trying to pick apart your post - I'm genuinely interested in this discussion point and how your view / experience of it compares to my own - particularly if what you're getting back from Groundspeak / reviewer(s) is consistent with my experience - or not, as the case may be.

 

For example - is the reason you use the term official event, despite yourself classing all the component parts together as The Event some personal choice / distinction or under the guidance / instruction of reviewer(s) / Groundspeak?

 

In any case - hope you're feeling better soon

Well, I think things have changed over time. Now, it's been a while, so I may get my facts wrong, but I'll say it as I remember it. When we first made a rafting event in 2006, it was seen as sort of a moving event, I think - and we wanted to emphasize that we were going to find something like eight caches along the way. That's where we were counseled to have a get together afterwards, to be more of the "official" event.

 

But it seems that things have relaxed over time, and possibly different sort of events are seen as being more ok. The biggest thing is not to make an emphasis on caching, but an activity like rafting could be fine.

 

Now, again, don't take this as fact, because I'm not hugely clear on this point - even though I know I should be.

 

I've come to see the whole thing as one event, because it really is. There's nothing like getting off the river after hours of rafting, to a nice BBQ waiting right there for you. We've had a lot of fun with these events, and it's nice to include everyone. A couple times, we had a nice little group who would drive to different bridges along the route and lean over, take pictures of the rafters, and say hi as they go under. We've also picked up people who wanted to cut short their rafting trip. It's one of my best memories of a late friend, Allanon.

[+Team Microdot]

You know, part of the reason that we're probably going back and forth a bit is just unfortunately the way I worded my first post. I'm not feeling well tonight, and sometimes I don't make as much sense as I would like when I'm ill. I told myself that I should wait and post some other time.

 

I'm not trying to pick apart your post - I'm genuinely interested in this discussion point and how your view / experience of it compares to my own - particularly if what you're getting back from Groundspeak / reviewer(s) is consistent with my experience - or not, as the case may be.

 

For example - is the reason you use the term official event, despite yourself classing all the component parts together as The Event some personal choice / distinction or under the guidance / instruction of reviewer(s) / Groundspeak?

 

In any case - hope you're feeling better soon

Well, I think things have changed over time. Now, it's been a while, so I may get my facts wrong, but I'll say it as I remember it. When we first made a rafting event in 2006, it was seen as sort of a moving event, I think - and we wanted to emphasize that we were going to find something like eight caches along the way. That's where we were counseled to have a get together afterwards, to be more of the "official" event.

 

But it seems that things have relaxed over time, and possibly different sort of events are seen as being more ok. The biggest thing is not to make an emphasis on caching, but an activity like rafting could be fine.

 

Now, again, don't take this as fact, because I'm not hugely clear on this point - even though I know I should be.

 

I've come to see the whole thing as one event, because it really is. There's nothing like getting off the river after hours of rafting, to a nice BBQ waiting right there for you. We've had a lot of fun with these events, and it's nice to include everyone. A couple times, we had a nice little group who would drive to different bridges along the route and lean over, take pictures of the rafters, and say hi as they go under. We've also picked up people who wanted to cut short their rafting trip. It's one of my best memories of a late friend, Allanon.

 

I'm with you - I see the whole thing as the event and I'm fine with people taking part in those parts which they enjoy and are capable of.

 

I don't see any need to complicate the construction of the event page with caveats about what people need to take part in / not take part in - my attitude is that people will read the page and decide if it's for them or not - and either come along or not come along. I don't see why we should need to pretend that the event is something it isn't just to encourage people to come along to something that probably isn't going to be a satisfactory experience for them.

 

It's interesting that you mention that as far back as 2006 your rafting event was considered a moving event and that you were steered toward making the offical event something static at the end. That at least fits with my own recent experience and suggests that this has been Groundspeak's 'philosophy' for a longer term than I had believed.

 

In contrast though, based on that same recent experience, it looks to me like things haven't relaxed.

 

Thanks for the feedback

[cezanne]

 

Well, I think things have changed over time. Now, it's been a while, so I may get my facts wrong, but I'll say it as I remember it. When we first made a rafting event in 2006, it was seen as sort of a moving event, I think - and we wanted to emphasize that we were going to find something like eight caches along the way. That's where we were counseled to have a get together afterwards, to be more of the "official" event.

 

But it seems that things have relaxed over time, and possibly different sort of events are seen as being more ok. The biggest thing is not to make an emphasis on caching, but an activity like rafting could be fine.

 

 

I find that interesting as my experience is the other way around. Things used to be much more relaxed and it has been easy to get published a moving event (none of them had caching as the intended activity) while since a while this does not work out at all in my country. The current formulation of the guidelines appears to be pretty strict about the fact that the event takes place at the posted coordinates meaning the all not sedentary activities automatically are classified as somehow not being part of the real event but are just tolerated and maybe even welcomed side activities. It's this latter aspect with which I have an issue and that also influences the rating discussion.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+Ambrosia]

Perhaps, then, I misunderstood someone and things do need to be completely static, as they have been in the past.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

And without trying even slightly to be antagonistic - I have to ask why if you see the event as inclusive of the (in this case) rafting - you actually make the distinction of official event at all?

 

I don't want to antagonize Ambrosia either (hope you feel better) but that's a good point, when considering this sentence in the guidelines..." If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community or it will happen without a Geocaching.com listing, it is likely not an Event Cache."

 

In other words, at least according to the guideline, we can't organize a rafting trip with some friends, or join an already scheduled trip with a rafting company, then "invite" geocachers by posting it as an event on the site to make it an "official geocaching event".

 

As far as flash mobs events go even though the guidelines have the following sentence "Event Caches facilitate the social aspect of geocaching." I think it's pretty obvious that reviewers and GS condone flash mobs as a valid geocaching event. They even have a souvenir for the WWFM events. The only one I've attended was a WWFM event at the main train station in Zurich. Once the horn blew indicating the end of the flash mob everyone went to a meeting point outside the station for group photos and to put an "attended" card in a large box so that organizers could count attendees. If I recall they ended up about 20 attendees short of the requirement for mega-event status. There was certainly a lot of socializing for at least twenty minutes at that location before many dispersed and went caching tn the area. I ran into a group at a nearby earthcache, then after finding another traditional I sat down and had a beer at an outdoor restaurant to wait for a couple of of other geocachers I had planned on meeting. I watched several other cachers find that traditional while waiting. When the cachers I planned to meet arrived we went and found a couple more cachers before going to another event in another location. It was one of the most fun geocaching days I've ever had.

[cezanne]

In other words, at least according to the guideline, we can't organize a rafting trip with some friends, or join an already scheduled trip with a rafting company, then "invite" geocachers by posting it as an event on the site to make it an "official geocaching event".

 

I agree. But why is it any different to organize a meet and greet in a restaurant exclusively for geocachers than a rafting/paddling/hiking activity etc exclusively for geocachers?

 

Why is eating/drinking any more geocaching related than skating/paddling etc?

[cezanne]

In other words, at least according to the guideline, we can't organize a rafting trip with some friends, or join an already scheduled trip with a rafting company, then "invite" geocachers by posting it as an event on the site to make it an "official geocaching event".

 

I agree. But why is it any different to organize a meet and greet in a restaurant exclusively for geocachers than a rafting/paddling/hiking activity etc exclusively for geocachers?

 

Why is eating/drinking any more geocaching related than skating/paddling etc?

 

And why can't events be moving?

[+redsox_mark]

I agree. But why is it any different to organize a meet and greet in a restaurant exclusively for geocachers than a rafting/paddling/hiking activity etc exclusively for geocachers?

 

Why is eating/drinking any more geocaching related than skating/paddling etc?

 

And why can't events be moving?

 

I don't think it is an issue of "moving" specifically.

 

The relevant guidelines is

 

An Event Cache should not be set up for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search. If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community or it will happen without a Geocaching.com listing, it is likely not an Event Cache. Examples include concerts, fairs, sporting and scouting events.

 

There are 2 aspects to this. One is the first sentence - they don't want a cache hunt to be an event. (And there is a moving aspect there).

 

The second aspect seems more about not wanting to combine the caching event with some other type of "event".

 

If the event is arranged by and for geocachers to "facilitate the social aspect of geocaching", and not "for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search", you should be able to move around, play games, paddle boats, ice skate, use playground equipment - whatever you want to do which is available at the venue. As well as eat and drink. You just have to be careful if doing those things involves a mandatory purchase; then you could fall foul of the commercial guidelines.

Edited November 25, 2014 by redsox_mark

[+Team Microdot]

I agree. But why is it any different to organize a meet and greet in a restaurant exclusively for geocachers than a rafting/paddling/hiking activity etc exclusively for geocachers?

 

Why is eating/drinking any more geocaching related than skating/paddling etc?

 

And why can't events be moving?

 

I don't think it is an issue of "moving" specifically.

 

The relevant guidelines is

 

An Event Cache should not be set up for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search. If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community or it will happen without a Geocaching.com listing, it is likely not an Event Cache. Examples include concerts, fairs, sporting and scouting events.

 

There are 2 aspects to this. One is the first sentence - they don't want a cache hunt to be an event. (And there is a moving aspect there).

 

The second aspect seems more about not wanting to combine the caching event with something else.

 

If the event is arranged by and for geocachers to "facilitate the social aspect of geocaching", and not "for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search", you should be able to move around, play games, paddle boats, ice skate, use playground equipment - whatever you want to do which is available at the venue. As well as eat and drink. You just have to be careful if doing those things involves a mandatory purchase; then you could fall foul of the commercial guidelines.

 

I was specifically told by a reviewer that I could not have a moving event.

 

The event I organised was not an organised cache hunt.

 

Had I rated the event on the basis of what constituted the event according to Groundspeak it would have been a D1/T1.

 

I rated the event from the perspective of an attendee taking part in the event and the organised activities - D3/T2.5 and that rating was never questioned.

[+redsox_mark]

Well I guess one would need to define what a "moving event" is. I don't see any guideline for that, and I don't fully understand what it is.

 

I was responding to cezanne's comment "Why is eating/drinking any more geocaching related than skating/paddling etc?"

 

I think you can have an event at a park, where there are activities people can do (like paddle a canoe, or skate).

[+Team Microdot]

Well I guess one would need to define what a "moving event" is. I don't see any guideline for that, and I don't fully understand what it is.

 

Join the club. I don't think there's a publicly available written description anywhere.

[cezanne]

they don't want a cache hunt to be an event.

 

Yes, and I have no issues with this part.

 

The second aspect seems more about not wanting to combine the caching event with some other type of "event".

 

I do not have issues with that either.

 

If the event is arranged by and for geocachers to "facilitate the social aspect of geocaching", and not "for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search", you should be able to move around, play games, paddle boats, ice skate, use playground equipment - whatever you want to do which is available at the venue.

 

In my recent experience this is only seems possible as side activities and not as the defining component of the event.

And moreover they require that the event takes place at the posted coordinates which does not hold when the event is a hiking starting in A and moving around (not in a 30m circle around restaurant tables).

 

As well as eat and drink. You just have to be careful if doing those things involves a mandatory purchase; then you could fall foul of the commercial guidelines.

 

Which is not true at all. While you can theoretically visit a restaurant and spend time there, it is not really an option not to consume anything there (which often even means that one needs to consume or at least pay for stuff one does not want to get). There is much more freedom for a hiking event that takes place in a forest.

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[cezanne]

Well I guess one would need to define what a "moving event" is. I don't see any guideline for that, and I don't fully understand what it is.

 

The guideline says that the event needs to take place at the posted coordinates (which is understood as header coordinates).

I think that's the part of the guidelines that is used to reject events that are not the event equivalent of a traditional cache.

 

I think you can have an event at a park, where there are activities people can do (like paddle a canoe, or skate).

 

Yes, you can, but you need to provide meeting coordinates and some start and end time for the event at these coordinates.

Everyone who comes during that period to the posted coordinates is taking part in the event.

The side activities do not play a role. They are apparently just an additional offer from the point of view of Groundspeak

and not an integral part of the event. With "official event" I do have this integral part meaning in mind. Clearer now?

 

You can invite for a group hike on an event listing, but it has to work like that

"We meet at parking lot (header coordinates) starting from 9:00. At 9:30 we leave for a hike to B which can be joined whoever wants to come

along." Then the event is the meeting from 9:00-9:30 and everything which follows is just an optional activity, but it is not the event per se.

 

It also seems possible to include into an event listing several waypoints for different activities (to avoid event stacking)

that either take place simultaneously or one after the other, but each need to be provided with static coordinates, beginning and ending time.

So if the locations for the activities in the park are not very close to each other, you probably would either need something like a welcome desk or meeting point where all the time someone is available to welcome newly arriving cachers or there needs to be strict plan when happens what.

A hike or a paddle along a river is not fitting into that type of plan.

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

Well I guess one would need to define what a "moving event" is. I don't see any guideline for that, and I don't fully understand what it is.

 

The guideline says that the event needs to take place at the posted coordinates (which is understood as header coordinates).

I think that's the part of the guidelines that is used to reject events that are not the event equivalent of a traditional cache.

 

I think you can have an event at a park, where there are activities people can do (like paddle a canoe, or skate).

 

Yes, you can, but you need to provide meeting coordinates and some start and end time for the event at these coordinates.

Everyone who comes during that period to the posted coordinates is taking part in the event.

The side activities do not play a role. They are apparently just an additional offer from the point of view of Groundspeak

and not an integral part of the event. With "official event" I do have this integral part meaning in mind. Clearer now?

 

You can invite for a group hike on an event listing, but it has to work like that

"We meet at parking lot (header coordinates) starting from 9:00. At 9:30 we leave for a hike to B which can be joined whoever wants to come

along." Then the event is the meeting from 9:00-9:30 and everything which follows is just an optional activity, but it is not the event per se.

 

It also seems possible to include into an event listing several waypoints for different activities (to avoid event stacking)

that either take place simultaneously or one after the other, but each need to be provided with static coordinates, beginning and ending time.

So if the locations for the activities in the park are not very close to each other, you probably would either need something like a welcome desk or meeting point where all the time someone is available to welcome newly arriving cachers or there needs to be strict plan when happens what.

A hike or a paddle along a river is not fitting into that type of plan.

 

That fits precisely with my understanding of what has been explained to me by my local reviewers.

[+NeverSummer]

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.

Cezanne, you're referencing what are essentially the "guidelines" for cache rating. Those are helpful ways to rate the cache, but are not exclusive or exhaustive (just look at all the examples you've come up with that could go up or down from what you've presented).

 

A multicache is rated through ClayJar and helps align with the general language for ratings at the end. If you know the history of how those generalities were created, you'd understand that it is far more complicated than you're trying to make it. Those ratings are helpful guides to rate from the hip, but ClayJar is more comprehensive in how it gets to those final numbers.

 

A multi will take less than 30 minutes in the "easiest multi" example, no? But the idea that it isn't just a "walk up and grab it" Traditional cache is key. Even if you might know that it is an "easiest multi", you still would have to do the extra (even if it is very simple) work to know that this multi is "super-duper easy-peasey".

 

Time to find/complete a cache is incredibly variable across humanity. Your 5 minutes could be another's 2 hours. You can't rate solely on time estimates to find/log caches.

[cezanne]

Cezanne, you're referencing what are essentially the "guidelines" for cache rating. Those are helpful ways to rate the cache, but are not exclusive or exhaustive (just look at all the examples you've come up with that could go up or down from what you've presented).

 

Keep in mind that what I referenced is also the output the ClayJar system provides along with the suggested rating.

 

So if I enter answers for which the tool provides me with D=3 and at the same time provides me with a text for D=3* that does not fit at all,

I need to assume that I either made a mistake in answering the questions (which I can exclude in many cases) or that the tool makes a mistake (by not

taking all situations into account and be having been thought up in 2001 in the US).

 

I'm sorry, but I can't help stating that

suggesting D=3* for something that takes on average 5 minutes and at the same time stating that D=3* means a serious challenge and that

D=1* means a few minutes is not what I expect from a recommendable rating tool.

If the tool and the guidelines contradict each other, I stick with the guidelines. If they deliver the same, fine.

 

In contrast to what you apparently understood from my comments I have played around with the the ClayJar tool a lot and also have analysed all combinations of answers and what the tool

provides. When I wrote that I'm not using the tool for my caches, this means that my ratings are based on my initial estimate and often I update them later based on experiences provided by finders.

This works far better for my caches than anything else.

 

 

 

A multicache is rated through ClayJar and helps align with the general language for ratings at the end. If you know the history of how those generalities were created, you'd understand that it is far more complicated than you're trying to make it. Those ratings are helpful guides to rate from the hip, but ClayJar is more comprehensive in how it gets to those final numbers.

 

No, it is not. Actually, when the tool has been set up, those people did not have the slightest idea about the variety of caches the system later would have to be used for.

 

A multi will take less than 30 minutes in the "easiest multi" example, no?

 

No and others have explained why.

 

But the idea that it isn't just a "walk up and grab it" Traditional cache is key. Even if you might know that it is an "easiest multi", you still would have to do the extra (even if it is very simple) work to know that this multi is "super-duper easy-peasey".

 

Yes, of course, but the definition of D=1* is not taking about walk up and grab it traditional.

 

Time to find/complete a cache is incredibly variable across humanity. Your 5 minutes could be another's 2 hours. You can't rate solely on time estimates to find/log caches.

 

Of course not, but the time needed on average does play a role in what is also used to define the star levels.

If someone needs 2 hours for a cache (not for the walking part or for taking a break), then D=1 is certainly awfully wrong and I never would suggest D=1*.

 

Of course it is not always easy to make estimations for the average. It makes no sense for example to answer the question whether a slope is too steep to ride a bicycle up to answer this from the perspective of a person who is either much more fit than the average or much less fit than the average. In both cases the output will be skewed and not helpful.

 

 

I'm rating my caches for those who visit them.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

Well, I've resigned myself to my corner, and you appear content at yours. I'm fine with that.

 

What I can take from this conversation is that we're different, yet I can see that the "European way" will be significantly different in the interpretation of the D/T ratings for some caches (like your multis, cezanne; I'll expect them to be more difficult than rated, even if just slightly).

 

I can only hope that, unlike some discourse, you can take something from what I and others have presented to you about consistent cache ratings.

 

Lastly, I'll say something that I hadn't thought of until reading the most recent back-and-forth here. I like to (stating preference not founded in guidelines) rate caches imagining that the person seeking it hasn't found a cache like this before, and may not have cached at all before. That isn't a bad way to think of things. Meaning, even if I make the "easiest multi" (takes only a few moments to find), it will be more difficult for a novice/the uninitiated to understand the nuance of a multi versus the "easiest traditional" (takes only a few moments to find, in plain sight, e.g.).

 

It's hard not to get jaded--to think "that was a cinch" after finding that second LPC. But think of your first. Why do we end up seeing so many replicates of that hide style? Because we were all newbies and thought that it was a really novel and "cool" way to hide a geocache in plain sight. Now we all groan when we see another and deride them as the end of "quality geocaching" as we all know it. I'd still rate that LPC a D2, even if I think most folks out there playing the game will have no problem with it. It's those new and uninitiated that really need that extra nudge to know that this isn't so simple necessarily.

[cezanne]

I can only hope that, unlike some discourse, you can take something from what I and others have presented to you about consistent cache ratings.

 

I use to find interest into exchanging views about rating caches and I have taken part in such dicussions already more than a decade ago.

 

As a systematic person I do not appreciate that the rating system and the guidelines are not more helpful in obtaining consistency. I just learnt to live with this.

Even within my country there are quite large differences - there are even sayings like "Vienna stars" which refer to the fact that there are differences between Vienna and say Tyrol.

 

I like to (stating preference not founded in guidelines) rate caches imagining that the person seeking it hasn't found a cache like this before, and may not have cached at all before.

That isn't a bad way to think of things.

 

If you have relatively easy caches that are targeted to beginners, that's fine.

Otherwise you might mislead and disappoint your real target audience considerably.

 

I do understand that in the area where you live now your situation is very different from my area.

In my area there are hundreds of experienced cachers that go caching regularly and that have found many multi caches and mystery caches and it is not

uncommon that people hide a multi cache or mystery cache as their first cache (I have done so in 2003 as well).

There never has been something exotic about non traditionals and there have been times when my multi percentage was much higher than it is now (where still 1/4 of my

finds are multis and every other find is not a traditional though this percentage is constantly getting worse).

 

Hardly anyone around here is however familiar with lamp post caches. So if someone would construct such a lamppost like they exist in the US regularly,

the first such cache would need to get a much higher rating than in the US.

The a few minutes routine work multi cache with virtual stages is something here even beginners do not hesitate to go for while in your area

this is certainly something more challenging than a lamp post hide.

 

These differences need to be taken into account. It would be absurd to rate a classic lamp post hide with 2.5*-3* in areas where they are common

while in my area this might be the appropriate rating at the moment. So even the best tool (which is not available) cannot avoid that there will

be regional influences and differences.

 

For rating my own caches hiding styles and things like that play no role at all. My caches are never about the hideout and that's the type of caches

Clayjar really did not have in mind when coming up with his tool. It's all mainly about reaching the hideout(s) and finding containers.

[+Team Microdot]

These differences need to be taken into account. It would be absurd to rate a classic lamp post hide with 2.5*-3* in areas where they are common

while in my area this might be the appropriate rating at the moment. So even the best tool (which is not available) cannot avoid that there will

be regional influences and differences.

 

Can you clearly describe a system which you believe would work effectively - better than the current system AND be simple enough that people would adopt it AND be able ro use it wherever in the world they were caching from one day to the next and regardless of their background?

 

Given that some geocachers cache around the globe I don't grasp how regional differences can come into play at all - a hill is a hill in any country and the basic cache type definitions are the same the world over.

 

Educate us - describe to us your Utopian system.

[cezanne]

These differences need to be taken into account. It would be absurd to rate a classic lamp post hide with 2.5*-3* in areas where they are common

while in my area this might be the appropriate rating at the moment. So even the best tool (which is not available) cannot avoid that there will

be regional influences and differences.

Can you clearly describe a system which you believe would work effectively - better than the current system AND be simple enough that people would adopt it AND be able ro use it wherever in the world they were caching from one day to the next and regardless of their background?

 

I'm a bit puzzled what the essence of your question really is as you chose the above quote about lamp post hides.

 

Yes, I think that one can come up with a minor adaption of the Clayjar tool that fixes the issues with puzzle caches and multi caches and helps to reduce the cases where the tool

e.g. suggests a D=3* rating for a cache which takes only 5 minutes for the average cacher.

 

One would not have to add too much, but more than one question for rating the D would be necessary.

 

A more elegant approach would be to have a third rating along the lines what NiraD suggested earlier in this thread. That way the D rating would not mix up things that should

probably not be mixed.

 

Independently from what I wrote above, I think that there will remain cases where regional differences will persist.

Rating a lamp post cache in 2014 in the US with D=3* would be wrong and will not be the outcome if a US hider uses the Clayjar tool.

 

If as in my example someone in my country would build such a lamp post just to hide a cache there, this would be a challenging cache for the

local cachers and even D=2* will be too low as many would have to come at least twice or ask for help from friends.

 

The only way I see to deal with such issues is to provide additional information in the text, but sometimes this will make the cache easier.

For example, one hardly would want to write that one used a hideout which is very popular in some areas but new in this region as this gives away more

than one might want to give away.

 

 

Given that some geocachers cache around the globe I don't grasp how regional differences can come into play at all - a hill is a hill in any country and the basic cache type definitions are the same the world over.

 

While there are cachers that travel a lot, in my experience the proportion of caches that are visited by such travelers is quite small. They mainly focus on a relatively small spectrum of caches many of which are not borderline cases for rating them.

 

As your statement regarding a hill is concerned, of course a hill is a hill, but apart from regional differences, even the personal fitness plays a role in answering questions asked by the Clayjar tool so of course the region comes into play even if this often happens unintentionally.

 

I'm not an advocat of huge regional differences with respect to ratings. I just observe that they exist. For a few issues I would have ideas how to fix them, for others I do not have the slightest idea and also there is no way to reach the majority of cachers anyway.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

While there are cachers that travel a lot, in my experience the proportion of caches that are visited by such travelers is quite small.

 

Since the beginning of 2013, about 2/3 of my finds have been while traveling. Only about 1/4 of them have been within 20 miles.

 

 

[cezanne]

While there are cachers that travel a lot, in my experience the proportion of caches that are visited by such travelers is quite small.

 

Since the beginning of 2013, about 2/3 of my finds have been while traveling. Only about 1/4 of them have been within 20 miles.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that, but I meant something else. Sorry for not being clear. I meant that among the many caches that are hidden nowadays in cache dense areas only a relatively small

percentage will ever be visited by travelers. I'd say that more than 80% of the non traditionals with rating at least 2/2 hidden in my province will never get a find from someone from really far away. For those caches it is much more important that the ratings provide a reasonable information for cachers from Austria and the neighbouring countries or experiences in one of those countries than having ratings that are useless for 99% of the visitors while being helpful for some guys living thousands of km away who will never come to visit those caches.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

These differences need to be taken into account. It would be absurd to rate a classic lamp post hide with 2.5*-3* in areas where they are common

while in my area this might be the appropriate rating at the moment. So even the best tool (which is not available) cannot avoid that there will

be regional influences and differences.

Can you clearly describe a system which you believe would work effectively - better than the current system AND be simple enough that people would adopt it AND be able ro use it wherever in the world they were caching from one day to the next and regardless of their background?

 

I'm a bit puzzled what the essence of your question really is as you chose the above quote about lamp post hides.

 

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would be puzzled - given that you offered lamp post hides as an illustrative example of how you believe regional differences in D rating can arise. If it wasn't a good example, why raise it?

 

Actually I already realise I should avoid asking further questions as that will only result in another hail storm of infinitely small detail which will dilute the topic of conversation to the point where you end up answering no questions at all and the thread just rolls on becoming ever more tedious and pointless - so ignore that last question. The point is - you used it as an example and I simply quoted what you had written - so there's really no need for you to be puzzled at all.

 

Yes, I think that one can come up with a minor adaption of the Clayjar tool that fixes the issues with puzzle caches and multi caches and helps to reduce the cases where the tool

e.g. suggests a D=3* rating for a cache which takes only 5 minutes for the average cacher.

 

One would not have to add too much, but more than one question for rating the D would be necessary.

 

I didn't ask you to modify the clayjar system - you have already made it painfully clear that you consider the clayjar system woefully inadequate and out of date - so let's scrap it and replace it with your Utopian system

 

I asked you to offer up yor proposed alternative system - and to make sure that it was better than the clayjar system and to explain why your system is better.

 

Let's draw a line under the fact that you class the clayjar system as completely unsuitable for purpose and let's instead hear in clear, simple, unambiguous terms a description of the Utopian system you have in mind to replace it.

 

A more elegant approach would be to have a third rating along the lines what NiraD suggested earlier in this thread. That way the D rating would not mix up things that should

probably not be mixed.

 

I'm not sure that increased complexity goes hand-in-hand with increased elegance but if it forms part of your Utopian system then please feel free to include this in the description of that system.

 

Independently from what I wrote above, I think that there will remain cases where regional differences will persist.

Rating a lamp post cache in 2014 in the US with D=3* would be wrong and will not be the outcome if a US hider uses the Clayjar tool.

 

If as in my example someone in my country would build such a lamp post just to hide a cache there, this would be a challenging cache for the

local cachers and even D=2* will be too low as many would have to come at least twice or ask for help from friends.

 

The only way I see to deal with such issues is to provide additional information in the text, but sometimes this will make the cache easier.

For example, one hardly would want to write that one used a hideout which is very popular in some areas but new in this region as this gives away more

than one might want to give away.

 

I think someone else raised the point earlier that ANY hide (they referred specifically to lamp post hides) will probably be more difficult for anyone who hasn't seen that type of hide before - and the next time they see that type of hide it will be easier. Presumbably your Utopian system can cope with that too

 

 

As your statement regarding a hill is concerned, of course a hill is a hill, but apart from regional differences, even the personal fitness plays a role in answering questions asked by the Clayjar tool so of course the region comes into play even if this often happens unintentionally.

 

And I bet your Utopian system can even cope with this distinction - the rating self-adjusts depending on how fit I am, or if that day I have a little head cold or have stubbed my big toe - or have a splinter in my finger.... and so on... ad infinitum... to account for every tiny potential nuance

 

I'm not an advocat of huge regional differences with respect to ratings. I just observe that they exist. For a few issues I would have ideas how to fix them, for others I do not have the slightest idea and also there is no way to reach the majority of cachers anyway.

 

I doubt very much that you're referring to a traditional Dutch alcoholic beverage made from eggs, sugar and brandy, so I'm going to assume you meant advocate. Sorry - that was a cheap shot, but only meant in jest (and this is no doubt the point where I notice many typo's in my own text - but that's the way it goes)...

 

If you're not an advocate for huge regional differences with respect to ratings then your Utopian system doesn't need to take those into account - so that should make things a little easier for you

 

So now - please go ahead and describe the system you've designed that's going to replace the outdated and woefully inadequate clayjar system - over to you!

[+NeverSummer]

I can only hope that, unlike some discourse, you can take something from what I and others have presented to you about consistent cache ratings.

 

I use to find interest into exchanging views about rating caches and I have taken part in such dicussions already more than a decade ago.

 

As a systematic person I do not appreciate that the rating system and the guidelines are not more helpful in obtaining consistency. I just learnt to live with this.

Even within my country there are quite large differences - there are even sayings like "Vienna stars" which refer to the fact that there are differences between Vienna and say Tyrol.

 

I like to (stating preference not founded in guidelines) rate caches imagining that the person seeking it hasn't found a cache like this before, and may not have cached at all before.

That isn't a bad way to think of things.

 

If you have relatively easy caches that are targeted to beginners, that's fine.

Otherwise you might mislead and disappoint your real target audience considerably.

 

I do understand that in the area where you live now your situation is very different from my area.

In my area there are hundreds of experienced cachers that go caching regularly and that have found many multi caches and mystery caches and it is not

uncommon that people hide a multi cache or mystery cache as their first cache (I have done so in 2003 as well).

There never has been something exotic about non traditionals and there have been times when my multi percentage was much higher than it is now (where still 1/4 of my

finds are multis and every other find is not a traditional though this percentage is constantly getting worse).

 

Hardly anyone around here is however familiar with lamp post caches. So if someone would construct such a lamppost like they exist in the US regularly,

the first such cache would need to get a much higher rating than in the US.

The a few minutes routine work multi cache with virtual stages is something here even beginners do not hesitate to go for while in your area

this is certainly something more challenging than a lamp post hide.

 

These differences need to be taken into account. It would be absurd to rate a classic lamp post hide with 2.5*-3* in areas where they are common

while in my area this might be the appropriate rating at the moment. So even the best tool (which is not available) cannot avoid that there will

be regional influences and differences.

 

For rating my own caches hiding styles and things like that play no role at all. My caches are never about the hideout and that's the type of caches

Clayjar really did not have in mind when coming up with his tool. It's all mainly about reaching the hideout(s) and finding containers.

I'm sure that Michael Schumacher would say that, to him, driving a car around a race track is easy. To the rest of us mere mortals, it's not that easy to set a lap time like The Stig.

 

I'll have to remember that expectations are higher in "Europe"...

 

Any cache can be visited by a new or unfamiliar cacher. The systems designed may help new users find caches more suitable to their abilities, but ANY cacher is bound to find a new type of cache that is difficult the first time around (which the listing owner may consider "super easy!").

 

It's one thing if I hide a LPC and state in the description that the cache is under the street lamp and to "just lift the bottom skirt to reveal the cache." Most LPCs have only a hint, and more still leave it to the imagination when you get to GZ for where it might be hidden. When I encounter that kind of LPC (the vast majority of them), I don't assume it's under the lamp skirt. And, for an uninitiated/newbie, they'd be hard up to imagine that a cache would be hidden under that seemingly static piece of private property.

 

Even saying "LPC" or "Skirt Lifter" isn't a great hint to someone who doesn't know what that is supposed to mean.

 

You assume much, cezanne. Not everyone "knows" what the rest of us knows. And even some cachers who have been at this for a while haven't yet encountered an LPC for example. Therein is why I think you're seriously misguided to rate caches lower for D (or T) just because you and your cronies are familiar with the hide or style.

[cezanne]

You assume much, cezanne. Not everyone "knows" what the rest of us knows. And even some cachers who have been at this for a while haven't yet encountered an LPC for example. Therein is why I think you're seriously misguided to rate caches lower for D (or T) just because you and your cronies are familiar with the hide or style.

 

It gets ridiculous. I made an argument that in my area a cacher made lamp post cache hide to imitate what exists in the US would need to have a higher D rating and not a lower one than in the US.

The average Austrian cacher has never ever heard about a LPC and most will guess LP=lost place which is used in Germany and Austria for abandoned structure/location. (Like they use "handy" for mobile phone.)

 

Of course this would apply to the first such cache - if later on 10 cachers would also build their own lamp posts, then people would get to know about this and the higher rating will not any longer be appropriate and what the average cacher in my country expects to be able to deduce from a rating.

 

Another example: One way of calculating waypoints which is awfully wrong from the mathematical point of view but very common in some areas works like this

if N1 is N 48° 26.345' and A=500 and B=3, then N2 = N1 + A*B means that N2 is N 48° 27.845'. I never use this style of coordinate manipulation, but still it is standard in

many regions. I have not yet encountered a cache where the rating takes into account that this kind of calculation might confuse some people. Most of those who use this style

have become acquainted with this style from the very beginning and it's normal for them. And the same thing happens over and over with respect to many different aspects.

 

Neither you nor myself will change anything with regard to that.

 

I'd say that any cacher who is doing caches in a different region, will have to adapt and will have to expect that in another region one can be like a newbie despite of being very experienced in one's own region. Clayjar's last question depends considerably on the notion of an experienced cacher, but it cannot take into account that the experiences made in different regions are different.

What is fairly obvious in some region, can be a real challenge for someone coming from a different area.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 25, 2014 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

 

Another example: One way of calculating waypoints which is awfully wrong from the mathematical point of view but very common in some areas works like this

if N1 is N 48° 26.345' and A=500 and B=3, then N2 = N1 + A*B means that N2 is N 48° 27.845'. I never use this style of coordinate manipulation, but still it is standard in

many regions. I have not yet encountered a cache where the rating takes into account that this kind of calculation might confuse some people. Most of those who use this style

have become acquainted with this style from the very beginning and it's normal for them. And the same thing happens over and over with respect to many different aspects.

 

Neither you nor myself will change anything with regard to that.

 

I'd say that any cacher who is doing caches in a different region, will have to adapt and will have to expect that in another region one can be like a newbie despite of being very experienced in one's own region. Clayjar's last question depends considerably on the notion of an experienced cacher, but it cannot take into account that the experiences made in different regions are different.

What is fairly obvious in some region, can be a real challenge for someone coming from a different area.

 

You're trying to tell me that the gibberish you've posted above is supposed to be easy?

 

I don't care how "familiar" that is to the locals...that's not simple in the least.

 

You really didn't understand my Schumacher analogy, did you?

 

Are you really trying to say that it doesn't matter how difficult the cache really is, so long as the locals see it as easy?

 

Also, I'd say quite the opposite; that the ClayJar output is more accurate for the uninitiated cacher than it is for a more experienced cacher.

[+tozainamboku]

It's beyond me to understand how such a triviality as D/T numbers can twist people's knickers so much.

 

These values seemed to have been added to the initial Geocache database on a whim. Nobody knew what they meant, you were just told to enter a a values from 1 to 5 for them when you submitted a cache. 1 was easiest and 5 was most difficult. Of course this caused a great deal of discussion in the early forum resulting is the guidelines from which Clayjar developed his website to assign values. I wasn't around then, I probably would have looked askance at the whole process and suggested that a 1 to 5 scale isn't a particularly good way to do this. How about a choice: Easy, Medium, or Hard; or if you had to have 5 categories: Very Easy, Somewhat Easy, Medium, Somewhat Hard, Very Hard. The 1/2 stars are stupid and unnecesarily confusing.

 

The early discussions were for traditional caches, the other kinds of caches were not existent or at least not common (even in Europe where they became common soon afterwards). When events were added people didn't even consider these number had any meaning for events. Everyone was aware that Groundspeak had decided to list events in the Geocache database - essential forcing a square peg into a round hole. Who really cared that events had D/T. Back then events had container sizes as well. (so did virtual caches).

 

I don't know what has changed to make some silly numbers that someone might use to get a rough idea if a cache was going to be hard or easy into magic numbers whose accuracy (or lack thereof) causes such knickers twisting. Perhaps it is due to Grounspeak's efforts to limit abusive owners from deleting logs. The idea being that you can't 'force' people to participate in most activities by deleting or withholding online logs. So people think an event is always D1 since it only involves showing up. Perhaps it is that rare cache type where you apparently can withhold online logs - the challenge cache, and in particular the challenge of filling a fizzy grid. Some people tend to get twisted knickers because the traditional ability to put nonsense D/T numbers for an event or for a so-called liars cache means 5/5 and some other combinations can be gotten through what some view as false pretense. Jeez, just loosen your pants so they don't bunch up. It's a fun game and nitpicking over accuracy just seem inappropriate to me.

[cezanne]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would be puzzled - given that you offered lamp post hides as an illustrative example of how you believe regional differences in D rating can arise. If it wasn't a good example, why raise it?

 

It was an example which I used in an attempt to illustrate that I think that even with the perfect system there will be regional differences.

 

I would have expected your question about my ideas about an improved rating tool based on a different quote and not on the quote you selected.

 

I didn't ask you to modify the clayjar system - you have already made it painfully clear that you consider the clayjar system woefully inadequate and out of date - so let's scrap it and replace it with your Utopian system

 

I asked you to offer up yor proposed alternative system - and to make sure that it was better than the clayjar system and to explain why your system is better.

 

I'm sorry I misunderstood what you asked me about.

 

I think that coming up with a completely new system is really what you call it - utopian.

 

My remarks were rather targeted towards trying to fix a few main issues with the Clayjar tool while keeping the side effects on the caches where the tool works reasonably well as small as possible.

I still think that an approach along these lines would be the most promising one.

 

The Clayjar system cannot be blamed to deliver bad results for puzzle caches and for multi caches where the effort does not come from a search at GZ as no question is asked which deals with these aspects. Adding 1-2 questions or adding additional contents to some of the provided answers, would already cover many more cases in a reasonable manner.

 

Given the huge amount of caches that already exist and that do not have owners that would react to any change, any completely new system is something pretty much unrealistic.

Back in 2003 one could have tried to make really large changes and switch to a new system (I would have preferred it that way back then).

 

I never claimed that I could provide a perfect utopian system within a few minutes (or even a few hours). I also do not think that such a system can be designed by a single person.

It would not the input of a larger number of people coming from different areas and a lot of work.

 

I'm confident that every group of cachers who works seriously on an improved system will be able to come up with something that has less weaknesses than the Clayjar tool as now much more experiences are known than have been in 2001. So that's not amazing at all and does not depend too much on who takes part. It only plays a role that people from different regions take part.

 

Let's draw a line under the fact that you class the clayjar system as completely unsuitable for purpose and let's instead hear in clear, simple, unambiguous terms a description of the Utopian system you have in mind to replace it.

 

If you understood me in that way, you misunderstood me. The Clayjar has a number of serious weaknesses in particular when it comes to multi caches and puzzles caches and every rating system will always suffer from subjective input and regional differences, even the best Utopian system the most clever person could come up with.

 

 

 

A more elegant approach would be to have a third rating along the lines what NiraD suggested earlier in this thread. That way the D rating would not mix up things that should

probably not be mixed.

 

I'm not sure that increased complexity goes hand-in-hand with increased elegance but if it forms part of your Utopian system then please feel free to include this in the description of that system.

 

The idea is not increased complexity, but to separate searching effort from difficulty components which come from a completely different side.

Don't you think that it is like comparing apples and oranges to compare the effort needed by figuring out what a poem in the cache description will have you to say for stage x of a cache

with the effort to search a container at ground zero?

 

Actually, when you read through the questions in the Clayjar system and also the rating guidelines, then aspects like fields puzzles do not play a role at all.

 

Of course an alternative approach would be to define at some point that the D-rating comprises everything which is not captured by the T-rating.

 

That might seem less complex, but it would need to be communicated to the community. Right now some cachers think that the D-rating only applies to the tasks at GZ.

 

I think someone else raised the point earlier that ANY hide (they referred specifically to lamp post hides) will probably be more difficult for anyone who hasn't seen that type of hide before - and the next time they see that type of hide it will be easier. Presumbably your Utopian system can cope with that too

 

No, it could not and it would not even be one of my goals. I can live with the fact that the rating does take into account the average cacher in the area.

 

 

As your statement regarding a hill is concerned, of course a hill is a hill, but apart from regional differences, even the personal fitness plays a role in answering questions asked by the Clayjar tool so of course the region comes into play even if this often happens unintentionally.

 

And I bet your Utopian system can even cope with this distinction - the rating self-adjusts depending on how fit I am, or if that day I have a little head cold or have stubbed my big toe - or have a splinter in my finger.... and so on... ad infinitum... to account for every tiny potential nuance

 

Now you get sarcastic. I never claimed anything about my ability to come up with a better system. Pointing out some weaknesses of the system in use

and pointing out that some of these could be improved relatively easily is something much more modest.

Moreover, I'm convinced that no reasonable system exists where there will be no subjective and regional influences.

 

So now - please go ahead and describe the system you've designed that's going to replace the outdated and woefully inadequate clayjar system - over to you!

 

Again: I never claimed to have designed such an utopian system. It would take many days to do so and to cooperate with other cachers to come up with something nice.

 

I'm sure that I made a number of further typos. I'm tired and I did read what I wrote.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 26, 2014 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

Toz, all well and good. You sometimes like to twist knickers for someone even when they aren't in fact twisted. It keeps things interesting, that's for sure.

 

I don't disagree with you. The game was "simpler" and the ratings were just a helpful way to keep things more clear as the game evolved from simplicity to innovation and experimentation.

 

But we do live in the here and now, and that is a game where people use the ratings for "challenge caches", publicly displaying their statistics for the masses, and general bragging rights. Seeking a cache of any type with that special combination becomes more and more important, and thereby the game got more complicated.

 

So, we evolve. The fact remains that the game has changed and it isn't a bad idea to revisit this now-fundamental part of the game: D/T ratings.

 

If it doesn't bother you, then you're welcome to keep on truckin'...I'd hate to see your knickers in a twist about something you care little about!

[cezanne]

The early discussions were for traditional caches, the other kinds of caches were not existent or at least not common (even in Europe where they became common soon afterwards).

 

I'm aware of that and that's one of the main reasons why the Clayjar tool has its weakness exactly for these type of caches.

 

I don't know what has changed to make some silly numbers that someone might use to get a rough idea if a cache was going to be hard or easy into magic numbers whose accuracy (or lack thereof) causes such knickers twisting.

 

Actually, the terrain rating is something extremely important in my selection of geocaches that I can give a try.

That has nothing to do with twisting knickers.

I'm sorry to say that a rough idea of whether something is easy or hard is just by far not enough for me. I need much in addition to ratings, but the ratings are something I really care about.

 

Do you accuse someone in a wheelchair who insists on 1* being used only for handicapped accessible caches of the same sort of thing than you apparently apply to higher ratings?

 

I'm aware of the fact that the central part of this discussion is not about the general importance of D/T ratings, but I replied to your post as I think you bring up your knickers argument far too often and in situations where it does not apply in general (it might apply to certain people).

[+niraD]

If you know the history of how those generalities were created, you'd understand that it is far more complicated than you're trying to make it. Those ratings are helpful guides to rate from the hip, but ClayJar is more comprehensive in how it gets to those final numbers.

When someone asks me what the difficulty and terrain ratings mean, I am not going to explain the history of the rating system, and I am not going to have them experiment with a web-based rating app (ClayJar or otherwise) to see what ratings are produced by various settings.

 

I'm going to point them to the Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain (D/T) document in the Help Center, or to a similar list.

 

If the history and/or a web-based rating app help you, then that's great. But those things do not define what the difficulty and terrain ratings mean.

[+Team Microdot]

Moreover, I'm convinced that no reasonable system exists where there will be no subjective and regional influences.

 

At last

 

The clayjar system is exactly that - a reasonable system that exists and is subject to subjective and regional influences - and as long as people understand that they can work with it as a rough guide with little to no difficulty at all.

 

Problem solved

 

On that basis - and the basis you are unable to come up with a better system, continuing to subjectively identify an infinite number of alleged issues with the clayjar system seems, to me at least, rather pointless.

[cezanne]

Moreover, I'm convinced that no reasonable system exists where there will be no subjective and regional influences.

 

At last

 

The clayjar system is exactly that - a reasonable system that exists and is subject to subjective and regional influences - and as long as people understand that they can work with it as a rough guide with little to no difficulty at all.

 

But it does not take into account puzzle caches and many types of multi caches and by coming up with maybe 2 additional questions, the results could be far more satisfactory and the regional differences would be not that large for those type of caches.

 

There was a good reason why more than one question has been asked for rating the terrain. Back when the system was brought up, just asking one question for difficulty was a reasonable decision.

That has changed later and the changes are more eminent in some regions than in others. The issue is that the Clayjar tool never has been adapted which could have done without big efforts and without increasing the complexity by more than epsilon.

 

 

On that basis - and the basis you are unable to come up with a better system, continuing to subjectively identify an infinite number of alleged issues with the clayjar system seems, to me at least, rather pointless.

 

I told you that it would not be hard to fix some of the weak points of the Clayjar system. I only told you that it would take days and a larger group of people to come up with the Utopian system you asked me for.

 

Don't you think that it is an issue if some cachers like NeverSummer believe that the easiest multi cache should be rated D=3* while others rate such caches as D=1*?

What I wrote is not based on a personal problem I have. The way multi caches are rated in those areas where I use to visit multi caches is far away from rating easy multi caches with D=3* so I

do not have an issue personally.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

 

I told you that it would not be hard to fix some of the weak points of the Clayjar system. I only told you that it would take days and a larger group of people to come up with the Utopian system you asked me for.

 

 

Take as long as you need

 

Remember of course that the project will fail if all the group members focus on describing in infinite detail what is wrong with the current system and then focus on describing in infinite detail what is wrong with any suggestions put forward.

 

Don't you think that it is an issue if some cachers like NeverSummer believe that the easiest multi cache should be rated D=3* while others rate such caches as D=1*?

What I wrote is not based on a personal problem I have. The way multi caches are rated in those areas where I use to visit multi caches is far away from rating easy multi caches with D=3* so I

do not have an issue personally.

 

For someone who has no personal issue you seem to have invested an enormous amount of effort in protesting against the current system and against input from others.

 

Myself I rarely even look at D/T ratings in any case, unless for the purposes of trying to rate my own cache hides in a standard way - and I've never really struggled to use the existing tools to reach a rating that I'm happy with.

[4wheelin_fool]

There's plenty of D/T flaws and abuse as it is, without some imaginary difficulty for events. Paddling a kayak 50 feet to an island is a terrain of 5, but rappelling 50 feet off a cliff is a 5 also. Neither are equal, but they both have the 5 rating. Same as if you had to free climb up a rock face 500 feet after paddling 10 miles and hiking a few more. Yep, that's a 5 also. Usually the difficulty gets bumped in these cases, but only to compensate for the lack of adequate ratings. Then there are the power trails of challenges which are only 1/1.5s, but listed as 4/4s and so on. It's just a convenient way to pad stats for appearing to do something that you didn't. Now with varying difficulty ratings for events, I don't know how anyone can take the D/T ratings seriously. it's not fantasyland, but just an outdoor activity.

[cezanne]

Now with varying difficulty ratings for events, I don't know how anyone can take the D/T ratings seriously. it's not fantasyland, but just an outdoor activity.

 

Let's put it that way. I'm aware of the fact that the D and T ratings often cannot be taken seriously, but in particular the T-rating (but also to a lesser extent) the D-rating are of great importance to me (as are further informations in the cache listings and logs) to decide whether a cache is feasible for me.

 

If a cache in my local area is rated 2.5* or higher, I will take a much closer look and may ask previous finders who know me in case of doubt what they can tell me about the terrain and if they think that I will be ok.

 

Those cachers who can do almost any terrain and mostly even without special preparation except for very extreme cases, the ratings will play less role and in particular if they belong to the class of cachers not doing many puzzle caches either or doing all of them despite their rating.

 

For a hiking event, the T-rating is important for me even more than for a hike on which I go alone as I need to decide whether the terrain is such that I would end up with being much too slow.

Not taking part in an event hike, but taking part in the event, would be unthinkable to me. So, that's one of the reasons why I'd prefer that events are rated with respect to the intended activity and not the difficulty to reach the starting point.

 

For those who have hardly any restrictions, the ratings will be just numbers.

 

You are free to laugh about me, but I think that a night hiking event is more than D=1 also from the mental point of view and not only from the terrain point of view.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 26, 2014 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There's plenty of D/T flaws and abuse as it is, without some imaginary difficulty for events. Paddling a kayak 50 feet to an island is a terrain of 5, but rappelling 50 feet off a cliff is a 5 also. Neither are equal, but they both have the 5 rating. Same as if you had to free climb up a rock face 500 feet after paddling 10 miles and hiking a few more. Yep, that's a 5 also. Usually the difficulty gets bumped in these cases, but only to compensate for the lack of adequate ratings. Then there are the power trails of challenges which are only 1/1.5s, but listed as 4/4s and so on. It's just a convenient way to pad stats for appearing to do something that you didn't.

 

+1

 

I have written previously about how the automatic T5 rating for a paddle cache is a poor indicator for the actual difficulty involved. In the case of a cache on an island 50 feet from shore, it would be accessible using an inflatable pool toy but would still get a T5 rating because it requires special equipment. Unfortunately, for paddle caches that require longer or more challenging conditions some COs will pad the D rating, even if the cache is in plain site once one has reached GZ.

[cezanne]

In the case of a cache on an island 50 feet from shore, it would be accessible using an inflatable pool toy but would still get a T5 rating because it requires special equipment. Unfortunately, for paddle caches that require longer or more challenging conditions some COs will pad the D rating, even if the cache is in plain site once one has reached GZ.

 

The ratings might be wrong, but I do not think that D should relate only to the difficulty at GZ.

Would you rate a difficult puzzle cache (or multi cache with a fields puzzle) which is hidden in plain sight with D=1?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In the case of a cache on an island 50 feet from shore, it would be accessible using an inflatable pool toy but would still get a T5 rating because it requires special equipment. Unfortunately, for paddle caches that require longer or more challenging conditions some COs will pad the D rating, even if the cache is in plain site once one has reached GZ.

 

The ratings might be wrong, but I do not think that D should relate only to the difficulty at GZ.

Would you rate a difficult puzzle cache (or multi cache with a fields puzzle) which is hidden in plain sight with D=1?

 

I didn't say that the D rating that only reflect the difficulty in finding the cache once at GZ. I just don't that the D rating should reflect difficulty in navigating the terrain.

 

From what I've seen, on a puzzle cache the D rating is generally an aggregation of the difficulty in solving the puzzle and locating the cache once at GZ. Personally, I think that if a cache has a field puzzle (or puzzle which can be solved from home) it should be listed as an unknown, even if it has multiple stages. If there is something about a cache might be considered an exception, I'd rather see it mentioned it in the cache description, rather than coming up with some interpretation of how to apply D/T ratings that could be misleading.

[cezanne]

I didn't say that the D rating that only reflect the difficulty in finding the cache once at GZ. I just don't that the D rating should reflect difficulty in navigating the terrain.

 

I just asked for clarification as you stressed "hidden in plain sight".

 

From what I've seen, on a puzzle cache the D rating is generally an aggregation of the difficulty in solving the puzzle and locating the cache once at GZ.

 

If it's a single stage cache, yes. At least in my area, there are puzzles caches with multiple outdoor stages too (virtual or physical).

 

Personally, I think that if a cache has a field puzzle (or puzzle which can be solved from home) it should be listed as an unknown, even if it has multiple stages. If there is something about a cache might be considered an exception, I'd rather see it mentioned it in the cache description, rather than coming up with some interpretation of how to apply D/T ratings that could be misleading.

 

That would be quite annoying for those who like outdoor puzzles, but hate those where something has to be prepared at home.

Multi caches with fields puzzles are not really an exception, they are very common in some areas. That's another reason why I think that the Clayjar tool is not very helpful for such caches.

 

If it is only the cache description that is sufficient for all, we would not need cache types (traditional, multi, event etc) at all.

 

There is even more that goes into difficulty than solving puzzles, opening tricky containers, coordinate manipulations and searching at GZ from my point of view.

For example, finding a legal approach to an area which is difficult to reach, is not a T-issue for me, but an D-issue too. (That even could happen in wheelchair terrain.)

 

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

There's plenty of D/T flaws and abuse as it is, without some imaginary difficulty for events. Paddling a kayak 50 feet to an island is a terrain of 5, but rappelling 50 feet off a cliff is a 5 also. Neither are equal, but they both have the 5 rating. Same as if you had to free climb up a rock face 500 feet after paddling 10 miles and hiking a few more. Yep, that's a 5 also. Usually the difficulty gets bumped in these cases, but only to compensate for the lack of adequate ratings. Then there are the power trails of challenges which are only 1/1.5s, but listed as 4/4s and so on. It's just a convenient way to pad stats for appearing to do something that you didn't. Now with varying difficulty ratings for events, I don't know how anyone can take the D/T ratings seriously. it's not fantasyland, but just an outdoor activity.

The D/T ratings came about in a period before attributes, before events, and before there were many multicaches and puzzle caches and these were listed as traditionals.

 

I don't know the specifics, but probably when Jeremy was putting together the website he thought about what data would be captured for each cache. I believe in the earliest incarnation there wasn't even a title; they were all called "Geocache". And there weren't cache types; they we all just "Geocache". At some point he though there should be some indication of how difficult a cache was and how hard it was to get to the cache site. So added the D/T ratings and told people: "On a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 be easy and 5 being difficult how would you rate your cache?"

 

The forum community, being then what is is now - highly opinionated and slightly nerdy - began to debate what the numbers meant. In the wonderful ignorance of the masses they decided - after much debate - what each number 1 to 5 meant and that the database should allow .5 points so you can tweak the rating if you cache was something in the middle. Officially, at least for a time, the official definition was 1=easy and 5=difficult, but the descriptions that came out of the forum made it in to the help center and Clayjar wrote his website based on these definitions.

 

I agree that T5='special equipment needed' does say a word about how difficult the terrain is. Often these caches are quite easy to get to if you have the equipment and only difficult it you try without equipment. And in deciding whether this a cache you want to try, it doesn't give you any information about what equipment you need. That was done much better when attributes were added later. It's an example of how the early community used whatever tools Groundspeak gave them to solve problems and how now we are stuck with imperfect solutions.

 

My guess is that misrated caches - particularly events - exist because the system is flawed and people know it. When the field doesn't really apply to a cache, people will put what ever they like.

 

Fizzy challenges and online stats seem to have become the new cause for ill fitting knickers. If it wasn't for these the comment "It's just a convenient way to pad stats for appearing to do something that you didn't" would be meaningless. If someone uses an arbitrary value because the option "N/A" was never given or because of the lousy set of definitions used by Clayjar and now posted in the help center didn't take in to consideration some situation, who would care. You wouldn't accuse them of padding anything. I feel sorry that geocaching has changed this way. However, I'm enjoying the reaction on the forum in two threads now discussing what should be done to untwist their knickers.

[cezanne]

If someone uses an arbitrary value because the option "N/A" was never given or because of the lousy set of definitions used by Clayjar and now posted in the help center didn't take in to consideration some situation, who would care. You wouldn't accuse them of padding anything. I feel sorry that geocaching has changed this way. However, I'm enjoying the reaction on the forum in two threads now discussing what should be done to untwist their knickers.

 

But do you really think that's the only way of looking at the topic? I do not care at all in which way other cachers fulfill the requirements of challenges, fill D/T grids etc.

Still it would be nice to be able to trust the D/T-ratings much more and to be able to come up with a consistent rating for one's own caches.

I do not feel too comfortable with filling in just something or something that is interpreted very differently by different people. Some subjective influence will always exist and there will always be cachers who misuse a system or do not care to learn about its proper use. However the current situation is unfortunate in my opinion independently from the only issue you seem to take into account.

[+tozainamboku]

If someone uses an arbitrary value because the option "N/A" was never given or because of the lousy set of definitions used by Clayjar and now posted in the help center didn't take in to consideration some situation, who would care. You wouldn't accuse them of padding anything. I feel sorry that geocaching has changed this way. However, I'm enjoying the reaction on the forum in two threads now discussing what should be done to untwist their knickers.

 

But do you really think that's the only way of looking at the topic? I do not care at all in which way other cachers fulfill the requirements of challenges, fill D/T grids etc.

Still it would be nice to be able to trust the D/T-ratings much more and to be able to come up with a consistent rating for one's own caches.

I do not feel too comfortable with filling in just something or something that is interpreted very differently by different people. Some subjective influence will always exist and there will always be cachers who misuse a system or do not care to learn about its proper use. However the current situation is unfortunate in my opinion independently from the only issue you seem to take into account.

I can understand the desire to use the ratings this way, but geocaching really is too broad to expect this sort of consistency. I understand that some mountaineering organizations have ratings for mountain ascents, some climbing organization have ratings for the difficulty of assisted and unassisted climbs, and some paddling clubs have ratings for difficulty of a rapids. These are looking at a particular aspect of difficulty and rely on both objective and subjective measurements to assign the rating. Yet even here there are difference between various organizations, particularly from country to country and while some people attempt to come up with equivalences between two rating systems they tend to fail at certain points because the different groups select different attributes and measure them differently.

 

My guess is that what you are really looking for is for cachers to use the description to provide several ratings as appropriate for their cache.

The hike to the cache is rated PD with a UIAA grade III+ climb in one section. In winter due to ice this section is WI2 rated. If you start from the river, you will need to traverse a class IV rapids to get to the trail but the hike will be easier with no rock climbing involved.

 

Good luck with a one to five stars.

Edited November 27, 2014 by tozainamboku

[cezanne]

I can understand the desire to use the ratings this way, but geocaching really is too broad to expect this sort of consistency. I understand that some mountaineering organizations have ratings for mountain ascents, some climbing organization have ratings for the difficulty of assisted and unassisted climbs, and some paddling clubs have ratings for difficulty of a rapids. These are looking at a particular aspect of difficulty and rely on both objective and subjective measurements to assign the rating. Yet even here there are difference between various organizations, particularly from country to country and while some people attempt to come up with equivalences between two rating systems they tend to fail at certain points because the different groups select different attributes and measure them differently.

 

I agree. I never expected cache terrain ratings to be comparable to those ratings.

 

However I think that in the case of the D-rating it would not have been no big deal to take into account multi and puzzle caches at least to some extent - of course not every special case can be covered, but in fact the existing Clayjar tool does not even deal in a meaninggul way with mainstream multi and puzzle caches.

 

The description of the D-rating is too much GZ-focussed and that could very easily fixed. There is no reason to treat the T-rating with much more care and ask much more question when rating the terrain with the Clayjar tool.

 

My guess is that what you are really looking for is for cachers to use the description to provide several ratings as appropriate for their cache.

The hike to the cache is rated PD with a UIAA grade III+ climb in one section. In winter due to ice this section is WI2 rated. If you start from the river, you will need to traverse a class IV rapids to get to the trail but the hike will be easier with no rock climbing involved.

 

This is what (on an easier level) would be most helpful for me when deciding whether I can do a cache, but that's certainly not what I'm expecting from a rating system for geocaches.

 

Using 1 up to 5 stars is fine. What disturbs me is rather that the D-rating concept of the Clayjar tool is centered around the difficulty of finding a single single container (not evening opening issues are included as opening the old style containers was of course trivial).

[+NeverSummer]

We'd get a lot farther by simply using the provided tool, and then using more common sense. The rating tool does apply difficulty on the last questions. It really comes down to being willing to honestly assess your cache, or the cache you've been seeking, using that question and its existing language.

 

It isn't clear, or as exhaustive as some may prefer, so the deferral is to just tossing the baby with the bathwater and rating it how they please (or how the region on the whole has shifted to toss babies and bathwater together...).

 

Here's what that last question could include to help the obtuse and unclear:

 

• Cache is in plain sight or is fairly obvious, without an offset or necessary hints or any specialized knowledge other than the provided coordinates.
  
• Cache could be in one of several locations, or coordinates are not provided for the final location. Hunter may have to look for a while; cache is a multi with 1 leg, or offset; Puzzles or challenges that require planning, and/or a short amount of time to solve or find at the location.
  
• Cache may be well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to solve. Puzzles and challenges that may take more than 30 minutes to find/solve for final location.
  
• Cache likely requires special skills, knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find or solve for final coordinates. May require multiple trips to find.
  
• Finding this cache's final location, or opening the container requires specialized knowledge, skills, and/or equipment. Caches with a serious mental or physical challenge not related to the terrain.
  

 

But, really, how finite must the language be beyond what is already present? I still can look at the tools we have to assist in rating caches more objectively and consistently (especially as they apply to how the game has evolved to include rewards for finding specific D/T rating combinations) as it stands. One simply has to be aware of, and discard personal preferences and regional common practice that dismisses the rating tools provided by the host community.

 

The tool becomes less objective and assuredly more controversial if we end up having to include language for specific cache types. We could argue on and on about how to add language or be more inclusive. But really, all we need to know is already there in the tool, and it gets you in the ballpark much more consistently (and arguably more accurately) for what effort it takes to find that cache.

 

I mean, if the multi you seek is "obvious", it isn't that difficult, no. But the fact that I can't follow the arrow to the cache and pick it up with little-to-no mental or physical efforts to find it makes that cache more difficult than a D1. For example the "offset" idea above, where there are reflectors marking the offset location, could be a 2, but really more of a 1.5; a D1 it is not. But a true 1-leg multi (coordinates for a starting point, container or tag with second set of coords for a final) would make more sense as a D2 than that "offset with reflectors" example.

 

Personally, it comes down to this for me: When I see a D1, I expect to click "GO TO", follow the arrow, stop when it is near zeroed out, and then look up/down from my GPSr/phone App for just a moment and find the cache at that spot nearest "0 to next", while not also having to do a single thing AT the location to open the container to sign the log. When I see a D1 where there is no additional info in the description, and no help from a hint, yet the cache is a micro and there are trees, benches, rocks, and many other hiding spots, then I'm pretty perturbed. That would go for an offset, even if it is abundantly clear in the description that all I have to do is look for the nearest reflector 50 feet away. That's a D1.5 because I can't simply "set and forget" my GPS to take me straight to the cache.

 

And there's the event reasoning too: I can set the coordinates as "Go to", and suddenly be where the event is. Done. D1.

 

The ClayJar tool also needs an update to Metric 1. It should read, "Is specialized equipment required to get to the cache location? Yes/No?" That ends up in the T rating. A "yes" pegs that T at 5, and a "no" starts the next metrics at 1; The other questions also pick away at the more finite nuance to place the cache between 1 and 5. The last question isn't about how you get there or how long it takes to get there, it's about the mental effort (and the possible physical-mental effort of opening a puzzle container, e.g.) of finding the cache. Things like extra steps (puzzles or multiple coordinates to locate), will increase the difficulty of finding and opening that cache.

 

Again I'll add: I used to see far more description of caches on the listing. Sometimes the hint would say something like, "Puzzle D4, finding the cache is D1.5." I rarely see this type of help being added to listings anymore. Those ratings don't have to only be in the D/T ratings, but can also help provide helpful, valid, and sometimes more necessary detail to help people know what they're getting into when added to the hint or description.

Edited November 28, 2014 by NeverSummer