Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
Rock Chalk

Challenge Cache Survey open until Dec 21

Recommended Posts

Although people refer to puzzle caches all the time in conversation... so I think they are a thing... even though they are part of a larger set... yes, they are a thing :)

Yeah, it's a common term, but "puzzle caches" aren't an official cache type, they're just a class of Mystery cache. :omnomnom: I call mystery caches with puzzles puzzle caches too; it's just easier :P

 

I just thought you were suggesting that challenge caches sat on one side of a line with regard to D & T ratings and all other cache types sat on the other side of the line - which clearly isn't true. That's all :)

Right, technically there is no line. There are only Mystery Caches, a catch-all physical cache listing type.

 

"Puzzle cache" is a colloquial term for mystery caches where a puzzle is used to determine the cache/logsheet location (or the field puzzle attribute to indicate a puzzle not outlined on the listing).

"Challenge cache" is an official term for an exception to mystery caches where an ALR is permitted; the problem is there's no way to provide the difficulty of completing that ALR (which is unrelated to determining location of the physical cache/logsheet), so the D and T are in this case allowed to take the challenge into consideration. And therein lies the problem.

 

My apologies - I thought you were drawing a line / making a differentiation when you said this:

 

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache. With challenge caches... they may reflect the challenge, or not, or both.

 

And D & T are allowed to take into consideration pretty much whatever the CO thinks appropriate - on all cache types (even non-official ones).

 

So I still don't see what makes challenge caches special in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not trying to change your opinion about what the D and T should define for a physical cache type (locating the logsheet vs posting the Find log), I'm just hoping that you'll understand that there is a unique and clear issue with definitions in regards to D and T in the context of challenge caches, where some prefer it one way, and some prefer it another, and a few solutions or workarounds have been proposed. Saying "there is (or I see) no issue" is neither here nor there. There is. And enough of an issue to be included in the survey. Please, please just see that.

 

I understand that some people are very very concerned about these ratings because they see them as scores. They aren't.

 

I understand that some people incorrectly believe it's possible to impose some sort of objectivity to these ratings. It isn't.

 

I understand that the survey reflects myriad concerns that were raised in initial consultations with members, many of whom are under the mistaken impression that D/T ratings are some sort of reward system, or that they should somehow magically encompass everything there is to know about a cache. That doesn't mean those concerns are actually interesting or particularly valid in the grander scheme of things.

Share this post


Link to post

My apologies - I thought you were drawing a line / making a differentiation when you said this:

 

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache. With challenge caches... they may reflect the challenge, or not, or both.

 

And D & T are allowed to take into consideration pretty much whatever the CO thinks appropriate - on all cache types (even non-official ones).

 

So I still don't see what makes challenge caches special in this regard.

 

Regarding the bold - yes, but appropriate to what? For all physical cache types, it's locating the cache and signing the logsheet. With the challenge cache ALR, it may also be relevant to the additional qualification having nothing to do with locating and signing the logsheet.

So in the case of the challenge cache exception, is it appropriate to locating, or approriate to qualifying? Qualifying for a challenge is only relevant to the challenge cache exception, which is not an explicit cache type with a definition of its own; yet it implies a different interpretation of D and T of the Mystery Cache listing.

 

That's why there are suggestions, which have various impacts on reviewer/appeals work, to (from what I can recall):

* Make the challenge cache its own type (D and T have a defined meaning per the listed cache type)

* Create a challenge ALR attribute (doesn't address the D and T issue, but does address other concerns; so not really a suggestion for this particular issue)

* Leave as is but require the challenge D and T, or cache D and T, to be listed separately in the description along with other listing requirements for challenges

* Separate and create a new property and metric for the challenge rating leaving the listing D and T relevant to the physical cache as per all other physical cache types

* Any other suggestions...?

Share this post


Link to post

 

And D & T are allowed to take into consideration pretty much whatever the CO thinks appropriate - on all cache types (even non-official ones).

 

So I still don't see what makes challenge caches special in this regard.

 

You kinda just stated what makes it "special". In the case of other cache types, it's not really a decision. The D and T may be subjective, but they still only tell the person reading it that it pertains to THAT cache.

 

On challenges...well, it may or may not mean the rating for THAT cache. It may or may not mean the combined/averaged ratings for every other cache needed to fulfill the challenge. It may or may not mean some abstract rating relating to the requirement of the challenge itself, with no regards to any particular caches at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that some people are very very concerned about these ratings because they see them as scores. They aren't.

Subjective. Some do, some don't. See that.

 

I understand that some people incorrectly believe it's possible to impose some sort of objectivity to these ratings. It isn't.

That's why we have guidelines and definitions. Of course you can't impose perfect ratings. But again, this is not about subjective accuracy, it's about definitions.

 

I understand that the survey reflects myriad concerns that were raised in initial consultations with members, many of whom are under the mistaken impression that D/T ratings are some sort of reward system, or that they should somehow magically encompass everything there is to know about a cache. That doesn't mean those concerns are actually interesting or particularly valid in the grander scheme of things.

Stop labeling every single person who cares about the intent of the Difficulty and Terrain ratings of a cache as "mistaken" and caring only about "scores". That is patently untrue, and unhelpful.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me jump in here for a moment or four from a challenge cache owners standpoint with a different point of view. Kinda long.

 

I am opposed to archiving all active challenge caches and having to redo them.

 

I am opposed to requiring a "checker" to say yea or nae to a completion of requirements as I see no way of doing that with our CCIO cache or any cache of it's type. I am sure there will be people out there with suggestions and will entertain ideas but read the cache page first.

 

We have a challenge cache - GCR9XY, Counting Counties in Oregon - where one has to find a Small, Regular or large cache in each of Oregon's 36 counties. No Micro or virtual listings accepted. Sounds simple and really is, IF you read the cache page and understand the cache size restriction.

 

It has been out for slightly over 10 years with only 93 finds and as I understand it, it is the first of it's kind in geocaching.

 

Yes, we did locate a cache of these requirements BEFORE publishing the cache just to prove it could be done. (As we have done for the other challenge caches we have out also.)

 

I maintain a Charter membership with GC.com for the PQ option, a GSAK account to be able to work with location / placement requirements and a mapping program to deal with placement in the counties.

 

That being said, from my standpoint there are a lot of cachers out there who are whiners, pure and simple.

 

How is it my fault when you drive from Portland to Eastern Oregon, locate only ONE cache in each county and fail to realize it is a micro, therefore out of the running for this cache and then want me to grant "you" an exception this one time?

 

How is it my fault that you "complete" this challenge to your satisfaction, work it so your in Bend Sunday afternoon and want me to verify your cache size and placement in the next hour so you can head back home and you fail to have a cache in each county or one of the wrong size and I say no, incomplete listing?

 

How is it my fault that your from out of state and have any of these issues on a "once in a lifetime" trip? You can read and understand a map but not a cache page?

I have it in the cache description that I WILL read each and every cache submitted for this challenge to check for size description.

Why is it my fault if the cache owner has failed to list the right size with GC.com and state right on the cache page it is a micro or nano cache and I reject the cache? Or if the cache owner has changed the container size for some reason and failed to adjust the cache page?

 

To be blunt, I have adjusted this cache several times to try and accommodate as many people as possible and still maintain the integrity and concept of this cache as much as possible. I am not sure I could do any less and maintain the concept of this cache. ( I refuse to consider adding micro containers.)

 

More to come.

 

+1

 

These are challenge caches and in my book, they should come close to living up to their name. If a person wants to get them, they need to put forth the effort and do them per the CO's instructions. For me, and i know i'm in the minority here, the fun is actually completing a challenge cache the way its owner intends. I'm not going to try and cheat my way through it and i'm not going to cry to an owner if i screw up.

 

As a cache owner, i don't want people crying to me that my cache is unfair because my stipulations are too hard or that i insist that it's completed as intended. You had a choice of just ignoring the cache and walking away in the first place. Why people want special treatment because they goof up, or downright cheat, is beyond me. Luckily, i haven't had too much this on our caches. On the few that come through, i agree,,, it isn't fun hearing from those entitled whiners.

Share this post


Link to post

My apologies - I thought you were drawing a line / making a differentiation when you said this:

 

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache. With challenge caches... they may reflect the challenge, or not, or both.

 

And D & T are allowed to take into consideration pretty much whatever the CO thinks appropriate - on all cache types (even non-official ones).

 

So I still don't see what makes challenge caches special in this regard.

 

Regarding the bold - yes, but appropriate to what? For all physical cache types, it's locating the cache and signing the logsheet. With the challenge cache ALR, it may also be relevant to the additional qualification having nothing to do with locating and signing the logsheet.

So in the case of the challenge cache exception, is it appropriate to locating, or approriate to qualifying? Qualifying for a challenge is only relevant to the challenge cache

 

OK - I see the differentiation you are making.

 

So for all cache types other than challenge caches you class all the steps required to eventually get your name on the log as the cache whereas you class a challenge cache as a challenge plus a cache.

 

And you think it might be a good idea to have two D/T ratings - one for the challenge and one for the cache?

Share this post


Link to post

[

And D & T are allowed to take into consideration pretty much whatever the CO thinks appropriate - on all cache types (even non-official ones).

 

So I still don't see what makes challenge caches special in this regard.

 

Although cache ratings are subjective for all caches, there is a framework for evaluating the difficulty or terrain. I have a reasonable expectation for what a one star or five star rating is, regardless of whether it is a traditional, multi, letterbox, or puzzle. And I have a reasonable expectation for caches based on how they fall within this matrix. I can use the d/t stars to filter searches if I am planning a trip with my noncaching spouse. I can look at the stars and determine if I even want to read the puzzle page.

 

Since taking the survey, my opinions on this have changed. As I wrote earlier, I don't think the ratings for challenges have any consistency compared to other types of caches with physical containers. I have found them to be meaningless as a way to distinguish one challenge from another. A five star difficulty challenge tells me nothing. I would focus on the cache itself, since that is a better gauge for determining if I might want to look for it, and eliminate ratings for the challenge portion.

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

 

And D & T are allowed to take into consideration pretty much whatever the CO thinks appropriate - on all cache types (even non-official ones).

 

So I still don't see what makes challenge caches special in this regard.

 

You kinda just stated what makes it "special". In the case of other cache types, it's not really a decision. The D and T may be subjective, but they still only tell the person reading it that it pertains to THAT cache.

 

On challenges...well, it may or may not mean the rating for THAT cache. It may or may not mean the combined/averaged ratings for every other cache needed to fulfill the challenge. It may or may not mean some abstract rating relating to the requirement of the challenge itself, with no regards to any particular caches at all.

 

I've found caches which required finding other caches first - to gather information or what-have-you.

 

On some of those caches the D/T ratings did indeed reflect the effort involved in finding the 'feeder' caches - and not pertaining to THAT cache, as you put it.

 

In that sense challenge caches are not special.

Edited by Team Microdot

Share this post


Link to post

That's why we have guidelines and definitions. Of course you can't impose perfect ratings. But again, this is not about subjective accuracy, it's about definitions.

 

And it is entirely reasonable that those definitions are flexible, variable and allow the cache owner room to exercise discretion based on the nature and intention of a given cache. It really doesn't make sense to be so excessively vigilant about policing D/T on challenge caches, but not others. Again, it comes back to the perception of these ratings as scores or rewards. I don't see this gnashing of teeth when a traditional has a questionably high rating, maybe a comment or two in the logs. But as soon as challenge caches are involved, it's about fairness and integrity and definitions and the sky is falling.

Share this post


Link to post

OK - I see the differentiation you are making.

 

So for all cache types other than challenge caches you class all the steps required to eventually get your name on the log as the cache whereas you class a challenge cache as a challenge plus a cache.

 

And you think it might be a good idea to have two D/T ratings - one for the challenge and one for the cache?

Precisely. *yay* The challenge is the ALR, meaning an exception to "the cache [listing]" as defined by the cache type.

Just a minor adjustment: "cache types other than challenge caches" I think is a common type of phrase that is a source for some of the confusion, just like saying "puzzle cache" if someone doesn't understand that "puzzle cache" isn't a cache type (nor is the challenge cache). Puzzle caches aren't even an exception to the Mystery Cache type, it's just a variation of what makes Mystery Caches what they are. The Challenge component itself is unique in that it is an exception to the definition of a Mystery Cache (any physical cache, really in that it's about logging the Find not locating the cache), but there is no definitive way to show the DT for the challenge ALR as well as the DT for the cache per the cache type.

 

I've found caches which required finding other caches first - to gather information or what-have-you.

On some of those caches the D/T ratings did indeed reflect the effort involved in finding the 'feeder' caches - and not pertaining to THAT cache, as you put it.

In that sense challenge caches are not special.

 

Hmm... right. Cache series. Where the final (mystery) cache of the series is intended to found only after finding a set of other caches with the details required in order to determine the location for this final cache's coordinates.

 

I wouldn't think that the cache should be rated based on including the D and T of the other caches in the series, or just based on the task of completing the 'puzzle' required to calculate coordinates. I think I've seen the former before, but mostly in those cases the D has still been reflective of solving the puzzle and the T remained relevant only for that particular cache. I'd be interested to hear what a reviewer says about that - what their guidelines are for rating the DT of an independent series final.

 

I would think that a reviewer wouldn't allow the T of the final listing to reflect the T of finding the other caches in the series, but I would think that they would allow the D to be rated on the fact that you have to find the needed information to solve the puzzle (for the location of the final cache) in the other caches and would still fall under puzzle/task required to locate the cache and sign the logsheet.

 

That is to say, you don't have to post a Find log on the other caches in the series - you could focus just on the series "final" mystery cache, setting out to only to retrieve the information hidden at the other provided locations, all in an effort to locate the final physical cache and logsheet. (the series final can't require Find logs on the other caches in the series; that would be an ALR not related to locating the cache in question)

 

But it's still a distinct task from qualifying for an unrelated challenge as an ALR.

Additionally, one can still obtain the physical cache location for the series final and sign the logsheet to post the Find without even having to do anything else with the series (unlike the challenge cache variant).

But good example.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

And it is entirely reasonable that those definitions are flexible, variable and allow the cache owner room to exercise discretion based on the nature and intention of a given cache. It really doesn't make sense to be so excessively vigilant about policing D/T on challenge caches, but not others.

I agree. But this isn't about policing DT accuracy, it's about what the DT implies about the listing. The search for the cache? Or the qualification for the challenge?

 

Again, it comes back to the perception of these ratings as scores or rewards.

No it doesn't.

 

as soon as challenge caches are involved, it's about fairness and integrity and definitions and the sky is falling.

Nope, it's not about fairness and integrity. It's about definitions and understanding. There are reasons why they exist. They are not irrelevant. They have purpose.

 

The sky is not falling. But you know, Groundspeak did release a survey to find out what people think and understand about the D and T in the context of challenge caches, and how they feel about other common concerns and about the concept overall.

You can find people who think the sky is falling because challenge caches merely exist.

You can find people who think the sky is falling because other people want them abolished.

You can also find people who would like to help find ways improve the game for everyone who enjoys it in their own way.

Share this post


Link to post

And it is entirely reasonable that those definitions are flexible, variable and allow the cache owner room to exercise discretion based on the nature and intention of a given cache. It really doesn't make sense to be so excessively vigilant about policing D/T on challenge caches, but not others.

I agree. But this isn't about policing DT accuracy, it's about what the DT implies about the listing. The search for the cache? Or the qualification for the challenge?

 

Again, it comes back to the perception of these ratings as scores or rewards.

No it doesn't.

 

as soon as challenge caches are involved, it's about fairness and integrity and definitions and the sky is falling.

Nope, it's not about fairness and integrity. It's about definitions and understanding. There are reasons why they exist. They are not irrelevant. They have purpose.

 

The sky is not falling. But you know, Groundspeak did release a survey to find out what people think and understand about the D and T in the context of challenge caches, and how they feel about other common concerns and about the concept overall.

You can find people who think the sky is falling because challenge caches merely exist.

You can find people who think the sky is falling because other people want them abolished.

You can also find people who would like to help find ways improve the game for everyone who enjoys it in their own way.

 

More commonly, we find people who want to obfuscate and complicate things based on personal preferences that have little relevance to the actual game.

Share this post


Link to post

We have a challenge cache - GCR9XY, Counting Counties in Oregon - where one has to find a Small, Regular or large cache in each of Oregon's 36 counties. No Micro or virtual listings accepted. Sounds simple and really is, IF you read the cache page and understand the cache size restriction.

 

If I were in charge this would violate my single-dimension rule and I would have it archived. But I am not in charge and I definitely am not important. So if it meant the difference between no challenges and allowing your (and all other) challenges, I am erroring on the side of anything goes.

Share this post


Link to post

We have a challenge cache - GCR9XY, Counting Counties in Oregon - where one has to find a Small, Regular or large cache in each of Oregon's 36 counties. No Micro or virtual listings accepted. Sounds simple and really is, IF you read the cache page and understand the cache size restriction.

 

If I were in charge this would violate my single-dimension rule and I would have it archived. But I am not in charge and I definitely am not important. So if it meant the difference between no challenges and allowing your (and all other) challenges, I am erroring on the side of anything goes.

 

Good to see you're not in charge B)

This is exactly the kind of challenges I like. No time limit, a reasonable variety of caches to find to qualify... It would be high on my to-do list if it wasn't 8000+ Km from here.

Share this post


Link to post

We have a challenge cache - GCR9XY, Counting Counties in Oregon - where one has to find a Small, Regular or large cache in each of Oregon's 36 counties. No Micro or virtual listings accepted. Sounds simple and really is, IF you read the cache page and understand the cache size restriction.

 

If I were in charge this would violate my single-dimension rule and I would have it archived. But I am not in charge and I definitely am not important. So if it meant the difference between no challenges and allowing your (and all other) challenges, I am erroring on the side of anything goes.

 

Good to see you're not in charge B)

This is exactly the kind of challenges I like. No time limit, a reasonable variety of caches to find to qualify... It would be high on my to-do list if it wasn't 8000+ Km from here.

 

Don't get me wrong.. I'd easily be sucked into wasting my time on it too even though I personally dislike "this kind" of challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

On the one hand, I'm not buying the basic logic here that says it makes no sense to consider the ALR when rating the cache.

 

On the other hand, while I accept the logic of thinking the ALR is relevant, I find such adjusted rating useless. I already know how hard the ALR is, and I already got whatever credit was due me for finding the individual required caches, so I want the rating to tell me only about the part I don't know about, which is finding the cache itself.

 

So I agree that COs should rate challenge caches based on finding the cache itself, and I have to admit the only reason I can think of for doing anything else is as an inappropriate reward. I don't want reviewers to forbid such inflated ratings, but I'd be OK with them recommending cache based ratings in the same way they discourage hints like "too easy for a hint".

Share this post


Link to post

I think there is certainly a place for knowing the difficulty of a challenge though. Not the terrain of a challenge - that's contained in whatever caches I choose to use to qualify - but the difficulty of the challenge. I mean, if you have to find high terrain caches in order to qualify, then the terrain ratings are already posted in accordance to those other cache tasks; so the difficulty of the challenge component would just be related to how hard it is to qualify. I know that's kind of a hazy reasoning, but I do think there is value in having the challenge qualification difficulty (terrain not needed) at least somewhere, separate from the cache DT rating. And yes, that's whether or not I already qualify for the challenge. It is after all a rating by the CO's judgement for the difficulty of accomplishing what is required to qualify, not a live rating of how difficult it is now for me specifically to qualify (such as, it may be a 1.0 for me if I already qualify).

 

Just like a 4 terrain treeclimb for me may be really easy, but for another it could be near impossible, that rating is based on the CO judgement of the terrain. So it's best if I look at it that way - "The terrain is rated 4 according to the owner's opinion, and isn't necessarily what I would consider a 4, so I can still know what to expect [if I know the CO well enough]". In the same way, when I look at a challenge - "The challenge is rated 4.5 difficulty according to the owner's opinion, and isn't necessarily how hard it is for me to qualify at this moment. Let me go check..."

 

So I tend to look at the DT in this order:

* Do I know the CO? If yes, it's the DT according to them, not me, so I have a better idea of what to expect.

* If no, do I know the region and local community? If yes, I may judge the DT in relation to other caches I've found in the area by the local community.

* If no, it's the DT according to, presumably, a general consensus of what to expect with DTs, typically by my own experience.

* Even then I'll keep that in mind... Expecting the DT to be in accordance with my own opinions all the time may well leave me complaining about "inaccurate" DTs :P They are what they are (as long as I know what they're describing :ph34r:)

 

For example, "Tequila: 81 Proof" is rated 5/5 (a very old challenge pre-recent listing requirements). The cache itself is more like a 1.5/2.0. But there's no way to know that unless it's mentioned in the description (it's not). It's 5 and 5 because it requires finding caches of all 81 DT combinations; the challenge is comprised of finding multiple 5T's and 5D's. But if I were to distinguish the elements of the cache into ratings, I might explain it as such:

1) Difficulty of spotting the container at the posted coordinates (quite obvious)

2) Terrain for getting to the container at the posted coordinates (short walk along a trail/field/forest)

3) Experiencing every terrain from 1.0 through 5.0, 9 times each

4) Experiencing every difficulty from 1.0 through 5.0, 9 times each

5) Searching for, selecting and successfully logging as found qualifying caches composed of each additional property requirement (type, date restrictions)

#1 and 2 are the D and T for the cache

#3 and 4 are the D and T for qualifying caches

#5 is the difficulty of the challenge qualification (and not comprised of the required D's and T's of the qualifying caches I chose)

 

That's at least how I would describe the components. And with the current challenge caching setup, #3-5 are conflated into #1 and 2, somehow; unless the CO chooses to list #1 and 2 in the cache description.

 

In my region, I may publish a challenge cache like T81 something like 1.5D, 2.0T and 5.0C as a 5 difficulty challenge (finding and logging valid caches under its date requirements is freaking hard! :P Even though yes today that challenge wouldn't get published as it breaks current challenge cache parameters)

 

Likewise, in one region an alphabet challenge with a powertrail nearby of A-Z caches I may rate a 2 for challenge difficulty, where in another region far from any set of caches leading towards qualification I may rate a 5 for the challenge.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Likewise, in one region an alphabet challenge with a powertrail nearby of A-Z caches I may rate a 2 for challenge difficulty, where in another region far from any set of caches leading towards qualification I may rate a 5 for the challenge.

 

Unless someone from a different region is coming into town for half a day and must rely on their own local caches for the challenge, perhaps making that D2 challenge closer to a D4.

 

Perhaps it should just be clearly stated that any challenge cache DT ratings need to be for the cache itself and the difficulty of the challenge is to be judged solely by the cacher hoping to complete it. The ALR "challenge rating" is ultimately VERY subjective...I would say even more so than the standard D and T ratings. A CO assigned rating would, at best, be debatable and, at worst, be worthless.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me jump in here for a moment or four from a challenge cache owners standpoint with a different point of view. Kinda long.

Thank you for jumping in. I think you've provided a few examples of the problems that would be caused by the proposed solutions.

 

On the other hand, you've also provided a perfect example for the "challenge caches cause too much angst" crowd, so allow me to be a little critical in my response.

 

That being said, from my standpoint there are a lot of cachers out there who are whiners, pure and simple.

First, I simply deny that it's "a lot" of cachers that are whiners. Yeah, a few get some kind of entitlement in their heads, but generally even they seem to have simply not yet grasped the fact that not being able to log a find isn't that big of a deal, no matter how desirable the cache is.

 

But certainly you'll see more than most. That's because your challenge cache is more desirable than most, and having missed the restriction, someone hoping to get a find for it would be extremely disappointed. I agree that's no excuse, and I'm certainly not suggesting you give away credit where it wasn't earned, but I'm wondering if you'd have less trouble if you were more sympathetic. I'm sure you don't actually say, "No, you can't claim the find you obnoxious whiner," but I fear your responses might be much closer to that than, "I'm so sorry, but you obviously missed the important detail that micros are not allowed. I wish I didn't have to, but your find is rejected."

 

Actually, I started that by saying "you'd have less trouble", but what I'm really thinking is that you yourself would enjoy the experience more. When you see people begging or even whining, you should be happy that they consider your challenge cache to be so important. And you should see yourself as doing as much as you can to help people meet the challenge, even though in most cases, the most you can do it point out the problems and steer them towards solutions.

 

How is it my fault when you drive from Portland to Eastern Oregon, locate only ONE cache in each county and fail to realize it is a micro, therefore out of the running for this cache and then want me to grant "you" an exception this one time?

First of all, it's not your fault. I don't think they think it's your fault. I think, to a greater or lesser degree, they recognize that they're the ones that screwed up. They're just trying to get you to give them a break. Again, I do NOT want you to give them a break, but I think it would help if you'd recognize this as sad begging through which they're hoping to overcoming their mistake, not entitled demands based on their belief that your challenge is faulty.

 

Let me hasten to add that you probably do get actual entitled demands from obnoxious whiny jerks, but I'm suggesting that you not assume every fallacious request is of this class, and, in fact, I encourage you to treat every request as a good hearted mistake even when you can see for a fact that it's not.

 

I have it in the cache description that I WILL read each and every cache submitted for this challenge to check for size description.

Why is it my fault if the cache owner has failed to list the right size with GC.com and state right on the cache page it is a micro or nano cache and I reject the cache? Or if the cache owner has changed the container size for some reason and failed to adjust the cache page?

OK, here it seems like you're being something of a tight a**. Someone using a cache marked small is trying in good faith to meet the requirement, yet you make them subject to your interpretation of information they might not have even noticed. I think it would show good will for you to let these slide.

 

To be blunt, I have adjusted this cache several times to try and accommodate as many people as possible and still maintain the integrity and concept of this cache as much as possible. I am not sure I could do any less and maintain the concept of this cache. ( I refuse to consider adding micro containers.)

It sounds like a great challenge cache, and I think denying micros is an interesting touch that certainly ups the anti without being unreasonable. So it's exactly the kind of challenge cache I don't want to see prevented by any proposed solutions to the hypothetical "challenge cache problem". But please do your part by trying to make the experience more pleasant for all even when there are problems meeting the requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

Likewise, in one region an alphabet challenge with a powertrail nearby of A-Z caches I may rate a 2 for challenge difficulty, where in another region far from any set of caches leading towards qualification I may rate a 5 for the challenge.

 

Unless someone from a different region is coming into town for half a day and must rely on their own local caches for the challenge, perhaps making that D2 challenge closer to a D4.

 

Perhaps it should just be clearly stated that any challenge cache DT ratings need to be for the cache itself and the difficulty of the challenge is to be judged solely by the cacher hoping to complete it. The ALR "challenge rating" is ultimately VERY subjective...I would say even more so than the standard D and T ratings. A CO assigned rating would, at best, be debatable and, at worst, be worthless.

*hesitant nod* I can see your argument.

I'd like to see challenge difficulty remain as a tangible metric (for instance, I might like to search for high difficulty challenges if I want to set some long-term goals, and I might like to search for easy challenges to flag caches that I'm able to find and log if I'm in the area)... but I do see how the ratings themselves could be seen as highly subjective per the finder moreso than the owner, while both perspectives have their use. Imagining a challenge caching system with no rating for challenge difficulty, I can see how it could exist, but it does remove some functional features that would be desirable as well. hm.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

OK - I see the differentiation you are making.

 

So for all cache types other than challenge caches you class all the steps required to eventually get your name on the log as the cache whereas you class a challenge cache as a challenge plus a cache.

 

And you think it might be a good idea to have two D/T ratings - one for the challenge and one for the cache?

Precisely. *yay* The challenge is the ALR, meaning an exception to "the cache [listing]" as defined by the cache type.

Just a minor adjustment: "cache types other than challenge caches" I think is a common type of phrase that is a source for some of the confusion, just like saying "puzzle cache" if someone doesn't understand that "puzzle cache" isn't a cache type (nor is the challenge cache). Puzzle caches aren't even an exception to the Mystery Cache type, it's just a variation of what makes Mystery Caches what they are. The Challenge component itself is unique in that it is an exception to the definition of a Mystery Cache (any physical cache, really in that it's about logging the Find not locating the cache), but there is no definitive way to show the DT for the challenge ALR as well as the DT for the cache per the cache type.

 

I was quite pleased when I managed to understand what you were getting at - I saw it as progress.

 

But then you went back to arguing semantics and minutiae and I felt the life draining from me again.

 

I'm not a fan of the it's only a game posters but I am starting to appreciate how they feel. Debating to this level of detail just feels trivial and pointless and for that reason, I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post

OK - I see the differentiation you are making.

 

So for all cache types other than challenge caches you class all the steps required to eventually get your name on the log as the cache whereas you class a challenge cache as a challenge plus a cache.

 

And you think it might be a good idea to have two D/T ratings - one for the challenge and one for the cache?

Precisely. *yay* The challenge is the ALR, meaning an exception to "the cache [listing]" as defined by the cache type.

Just a minor adjustment: "cache types other than challenge caches" I think is a common type of phrase that is a source for some of the confusion, just like saying "puzzle cache" if someone doesn't understand that "puzzle cache" isn't a cache type (nor is the challenge cache). Puzzle caches aren't even an exception to the Mystery Cache type, it's just a variation of what makes Mystery Caches what they are. The Challenge component itself is unique in that it is an exception to the definition of a Mystery Cache (any physical cache, really in that it's about logging the Find not locating the cache), but there is no definitive way to show the DT for the challenge ALR as well as the DT for the cache per the cache type.

 

I was quite pleased when I managed to understand what you were getting at - I saw it as progress.

 

But then you went back to arguing semantics and minutiae and I felt the life draining from me again.

 

I'm not a fan of the it's only a game posters but I am starting to appreciate how they feel. Debating to this level of detail just feels trivial and pointless and for that reason, I'm out.

:unsure:

I just said why a phrase could be a cause for confusion we're seeing. Demonstrated by what we clarified just a little earlier.

"cache types" are Traditional, Mystery, Earthcache, etc. "Challenge cache" isn't a cache type, neither is "puzzle cache"; they're variants of the physical Mystery cache type, where the challenge implements an ALR exception. I'm just trying to focus on definitions for objective clarity moving forward, so we're all on the same page. I don't think I'm using any terminology or definitions that are beyond the guidelines (at least which I don't prepend with 'I think' or 'AFAIK' and whatnot :))

 

I'm all for "it's only a game", at least as far as opinions about how others play or demanding others play your way. But games have rules and definitions so people can at least understand how to play, in a consistent way, and as far as Groundspeak wishes to define their system. We're just trying to work through ways to streamline this challenge cache thing, a relatively new aspect of the game that's had some growing pains :sunsure:

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not a fan of the it's only a game posters but I am starting to appreciate how they feel. Debating to this level of detail just feels trivial and pointless and for that reason, I'm out.

 

Was surprised the D/T debate took off like it did as i just don't see it as that big a deal.

 

I don't think i've ever come across a challenge cache rated on the container by itself. Imo, it really wouldn't make any sense to rate one this way. Since we're supposed to complete the challenge and also find the container, it only makes sense that the ratings should encompass both. Of course, it is nice when COs provide additional info concerning the ratings such as, the final itself lives up to the listed rating.

Share this post


Link to post

It's been fun taking the survey more than once.

 

:D

 

I've gotten to the point where I mentally substitute "state" for "province" without much effort.

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

Makes me wonder why people want to own challenge caches :ph34r:

 

I can feel the "fun" leaving my body reading through that post. I'm not sure what the attraction of owning a Challenge is if you have to put up with that level of aggravation.

 

Some CO's don't suffer the aggravation - they just accept all logs :(

Some of CO's of challenge caches don't get any aggravation - and we don't accept all logs! <_< But then, what do I know, I just own a CC but don't claim to know what all CO's go thru...

Share this post


Link to post

Although people refer to puzzle caches all the time in conversation... so I think they are a thing... even though they are part of a larger set... yes, they are a thing :)

Yeah, it's a common term, but "puzzle caches" aren't an official cache type, they're just a class of Mystery cache. :omnomnom: I call mystery caches with puzzles puzzle caches too; it's just easier :P

 

I just thought you were suggesting that challenge caches sat on one side of a line with regard to D & T ratings and all other cache types sat on the other side of the line - which clearly isn't true. That's all :)

Right, technically there is no line. There are only Mystery Caches, a catch-all physical cache listing type.

 

"Puzzle cache" is a colloquial term for mystery caches where a puzzle is used to determine the cache/logsheet location (or the field puzzle attribute to indicate a puzzle not outlined on the listing).

"Challenge cache" is an official term for an exception to mystery caches where an ALR is permitted; the problem is there's no way to provide the difficulty of completing that ALR (which is unrelated to determining location of the physical cache/logsheet), so the D and T are in this case allowed to take the challenge into consideration. And therein lies the problem.

 

the question is: why does it matter?

It just does. Clearly. Because it's in the survey! If it really doesn't matter to you, then why do you have a problem with discussing any solution? If you take issue with that, then clearly it does matter to you. You prefer it one way, not any other.

 

We all know that we need to consider D/T differently when we look at a traditional versus a puzzle or an Earthcache. Why is it so vexing that we also have to consider it differently for a challenge cache?

Nope, because "Challenge Cache" is not a cache type. "Puzzle cache" is not a cache type. Both are "Mystery Caches".

We interpret the intent of the D and T based on cache type:

 

If you see a Mystery Cache you know the posted coordinates may not indicate the physical cache location, and if the listing contains a puzzle you know the D is intended to relate to solving the puzzle towards determining the location of the cache and signing the loghseet.

 

If you see a Traditional, you know the physical cache is at the posted coordinates, and you know the D is intended to relate to locating the physical container and signing the logsheet at posted coordinates.

 

If you see a "Field Puzzle" attribute on any cache, you know the D is intended to take the field puzzle into consideration to access the logsheet for signing at the cache's determined coordinates.

 

If you see an Earthcache, you know there is no physical container but a geology-related task to complete starting at the posted coordinates, and you know the D is intended to relate to the difficulty of the tasks required to answer questions posed by the CO.

 

If you see a Mystery Cache you know the posted coordinates may not indicate the physical cache location, and if the listing contains a challenge logging requirement, you know the D is intended to relate to... relate to... determining the location of the cache? ...or qualifying for the additional challenge logging requirement? If the description contains a puzzle as well, well that doesn't help. If the description says "the cache IS at the posted coordinates", well that doesn't help. If the cache states another D and T, ah hey, that does help! Now we know how hard it'll be to locate and sign the logsheet and to qualify for the challenge ALR to post the Find Log.

 

I'm not trying to change your opinion about what the D and T should define for a physical cache type (locating the logsheet vs posting the Find log), I'm just hoping that you'll understand that there is a unique and clear issue with definitions in regards to D and T in the context of challenge caches, where some prefer it one way, and some prefer it another, and a few solutions or workarounds have been proposed. Saying "there is (or I see) no issue" is neither here nor there. There is. And enough of an issue to be included in the survey. Please, please just see that.

I do see what you are asying. But I don't see that much difference from D/T's on puzzles vs. D/T's on challenges. Both may reflect a difference from finding (in the field, which is what you are talking about with challenges) the actual container. Yes, the puzzle is part of the find - generally just to get the co-ords - but is different from finding the cache itself: A D4 puzzle with a container that's only D1 to find. I don't see why one is a 'problem' and the other isn't. If the D/T is about the physical find, then it should be the same for all types. So if there is a separate D* for challenges, there should be a separate D* for puzzles.

 

Some of us have been here long enought to remember how challenges were at first. You complete the task, contact the CO and get the co-ords for the container. So the D* WAS for the challenge and that's carried over since the change (which was to solve problems with slow/missing/non-responsive CO's).

Share this post


Link to post

Makes me wonder why people want to own challenge caches :ph34r:

 

I can feel the "fun" leaving my body reading through that post. I'm not sure what the attraction of owning a Challenge is if you have to put up with that level of aggravation.

 

Some CO's don't suffer the aggravation - they just accept all logs :(

Some of CO's of challenge caches don't get any aggravation - and we don't accept all logs! <_< But then, what do I know, I just own a CC but don't claim to know what all CO's go thru...

 

Did someone claim to know what all CO's go through? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
I do see what you are asying. But I don't see that much difference from D/T's on puzzles vs. D/T's on challenges. Both may reflect a difference from finding (in the field, which is what you are talking about with challenges) the actual container. Yes, the puzzle is part of the find - generally just to get the co-ords - but is different from finding the cache itself: A D4 puzzle with a container that's only D1 to find. I don't see why one is a 'problem' and the other isn't. If the D/T is about the physical find, then it should be the same for all types. So if there is a separate D* for challenges, there should be a separate D* for puzzles.

Yep, and again, I discuss that above a few times, referring to what the D and T can fundamentally refer to.

1) Locating the cache physically and signing the log (D and T),

2) Brain-work for determining the physical location of the cache and/or access to the logsheet to sign the log (D), and

3) Additional logging requirements that have nothing to do with locating anything related to the physical cache (D, T?)

Yes 1 and 2 are distinct from each other, but there is a much greater divide separating 3. Finding a Traditional is best described as #1, finding a Mystery with a puzzle is best described as #1 incorporating #2. Finding a Mystery with a challenge now incorporates #3.

Some people like that they're all combined, some people think that incorporating 3 makes the listing DT inaccurate for locating the physical cache, some just don't care either way especially if the extra info is in the description :P

 

Plus, unlike challenge caches, I don't see significant (or any, that I recall) forum complaints about the problems with inaccurate puzzle DT ratings ;)

Share this post


Link to post

On the one hand, I'm not buying the basic logic here that says it makes no sense to consider the ALR when rating the cache.

 

On the other hand, while I accept the logic of thinking the ALR is relevant, I find such adjusted rating useless. I already know how hard the ALR is, and I already got whatever credit was due me for finding the individual required caches, so I want the rating to tell me only about the part I don't know about, which is finding the cache itself.

 

So I agree that COs should rate challenge caches based on finding the cache itself, and I have to admit the only reason I can think of for doing anything else is as an inappropriate reward. I don't want reviewers to forbid such inflated ratings, but I'd be OK with them recommending cache based ratings in the same way they discourage hints like "too easy for a hint".

I can understand your reasoning for certain types of challenges, but I don't think it applies to all. You could argue that the Fizzy Challenge's D/T rating is already encompassed by the 81 individual caches' D/T ratings, so the Fizzy should simply be rated according to its own cache's D/T.

 

But something like "Find at least one cache per day for 365 consecutive days" is much more difficult (for most of us) than simply finding 365 individual caches at our convenience. And I think the challenge D/T should reflect that difficulty above and beyond those 365 individual caches' D/T ratings (which could all be 1.5/1.5).

 

Similarly, finding a cache in all 50 counties of your state is much more difficult than simply finding 50 individual caches. Even the Fizzy probably is more difficult than the 81 individual finds, since many of us have to travel far and wide to find caches that qualify us for such a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

I would think that a reviewer wouldn't allow the T of the final listing to reflect the T of finding the other caches in the series, but I would think that they would allow the D to be rated on the fact that you have to find the needed information to solve the puzzle (for the location of the final cache) in the other caches and would still fall under puzzle/task required to locate the cache and sign the logsheet.

Other than insisting on T1 for most wheel-chair-accessible caches and D1 for most event caches, I don't think most reviewers will involve themselves with a cache's D/T rating. Some might offer helpful suggestions at times, but disallowing a rating (outside of the ones mentioned above) would (and should) be rare indeed.

 

Specifically for a series bonus find cache, I think cache owners should be given great latitude to assign their ratings. Suppose there was a 4-cache series along a mountain hiking trail. The first two caches provide the coordinates of the final (fifth) bonus cache, and the last two caches repeat this information in case there is a DNF along the way. If the final bonus cache is an easy hide at the trailhead parking area, then I could see the series' cache owner assigning, say, T1.5 to the final to reflect just the final's terrain.

 

But I also think it would be valid to assign a T3 to the final to let potential finders know they have to climb at least as far as the series' second cache to get the information they need to find the final bonus cache. I also think it might be valid to assign a T4 to the final to let potential finders know that they might have to climb to the top of the mountain to get the necessary information (especially if the four series' caches are difficult to find). Personally, I would lean towards the T3 or T4 rating.

 

The D/T ratings are left flexible for a reason. And there often are good reasons that take advantage of that flexability.

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed, though "might have to" may be seen as a weaker reasoning for a rating. I might have to find a couple 5Ts to qualify for a cachetype challenge, but would that be good reason to rate the challenge a 5T? I think within reason, flexibility does make sense. In the case of the series you describe, yeah a reviewer might judge that final T rating of 3 or 4 as 'reasonable'.

 

Here's another example... using the your 5 cache series, if the first two are say 1.5 terrain, and the next two hold redundant info but are there for people who really want the fun of a higher 4.5 terrain, then a cacher has the choice to find the two 1.5Ts or the two 4.5Ts -- So what should the final be rated if its own T is wheelchair accessible*?

 

I think, on a low level, including DTs of caches that "may" need to be found in a cache for which the DTs aren't directly relevant can raise potential issues. Nonetheless, I think it is something the reviewer needs to decide. I don't think there's anything in the guidelines taking that sort of situation into context.

...Maybe GS's decision on Challenge DTs will have ripple effects for series finals :P

 

* That actually raises another good issue - if the series final cache is rated 1T because it's wheelchair accessible, that could be misleading since none of the other caches (well technically none of the locations containing information required to determine the cache's location) are wheelchair accessible. (if it were merely a puzzle to solve, that would be different)

...

...You know what, I think I'm changing my stance on the series final thing, now that I think of it.

 

I mentioned earlier that the T of other caches in a series aren't relevant to the T of the final cache, and that you don't have to "Find" the other caches in order to "Find" the final (otherwise it would be an ALR). However you do need the information hidden at those other 'waypoints', as it were. Looking at it that way, the placement of the coordinate components do require traversing terrain (conveniently rated by the listings they're contained in). In which case, the T rating for the final should reflect all the terrain required to locate the final. If the physical task requires climbing the mountain, even if the final is in the parking lot, then the T should appropriately reflect the climb. Now whether the CO thinks the T should be 1.5 or 4.5 depending on how far the cacher wishes to venture, I dunno; I think that would be between the CO and the reviewer.

However that's based on a set list of caches (waypoints) where required information is hidden, which differs from a challenge

 

tl;dr:

 

If you look at a series as though you have to "Find" the other caches before you can "Find" the final, then the DTs are irrelevant to the series final, and it would be considered an ALR. BUT, as it can't contain an ALR such as having Found It logs on the other series caches, and technically the only requirement for the Find is having the signature in that one final logbook, then the DT should be relevant to the task intended to do so - and that is finding the components to the coordinates which are (conveniently) hidden in other "series" cache locations. In which case the DT should be reflective of that task, regardless of the associated series cache ratings. So that final being a T1.0, with coordinate components hidden in locations that the CO has felt are either two T1.5s or two T4.5s, the final at the very least shouldn't be rated at T1.0. Personally, I may rate it T2.5 or 3 as an average. But a reviewer might suggest lowest common denominator, since the higher T is an optional choice. *shrug*

 

Series Final (as with any other cache): No ALR, so determine a T rating covering all physical tasks required to locate and access the cache logbook.

Still doesn't quite sit right with rating a challenge T based on the T of other possible qualifying caches; but... I dunno. =/

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

It's almost like it would be best to let the cache owner decide how they want to rate it.

Share this post


Link to post

It's almost like it would be best to let the cache owner decide how they want to rate it.

 

Now there's an idea :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. Of course.

 

But rate what?

 

Some people want to know reliably, some people don't care so much. That's the DT issue.

Does Groundspeak need to adjust terminology or presentation so that people know what the DT is in reference to specifically? Or is it enough just to say "The D and T can be whatever the CO wills any day, in regards to anything, so proceed with that knowledge when you look at a listing"? If not the latter, then yep there are rules and guidelines for a reason.

 

If they want to provide a clear interface that people like and enjoy, then that is presumably why the relevant questions were on the survey. How big is the actual concern in the grander worldwide community, beyond the walls of the relatively tiny but loud forum community.

Share this post


Link to post

You can't possibly know reliably. Regardless of how excruciatingly detailed these two numbers are defined at this end, it is still always going to be up to cache owners to interpret those definitions into two numbers. Cache owners already take all sorts of things into consideration when they determine these ratings, whether they're supposed to or not. In practical application it is not possible to define them in this precise and detailed way without installing some sort of rigid enforcement, i.e. a greater burden on reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post

...once again. If Groundspeak defines the D and T and difficulty and terrain of finding the cache, then we know what the D and T refer to, despite how accurate we believe them to be in our own opinion. If Groundspeak defines the D and T as that of all tasks required to log the find online, when we know that the D and T can refer to any and all content as provided on the listing. This is not about opinion of DT accuracy, it's about definition of it they even refer to.

Share this post


Link to post

And when cache owners ignore the definitions and continue to assess their own caches based on their own subjective criteria, what purpose does the definition serve?

Share this post


Link to post

...dry.gif

 

by that argument, what purpose do any rules and definitions serve since anyone can ignore anything? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post

...dry.gif

 

by that argument, what purpose do any rules and definitions serve since anyone can ignore anything? :wacko:

 

So you think reviewers should enforce D/T ratings?

Share this post


Link to post

...dry.gif

 

by that argument, what purpose do any rules and definitions serve since anyone can ignore anything? :wacko:

 

So you think reviewers should enforce D/T ratings?

 

The only enforcement that I've seen is a *request* to ensure that a T1 rating is actually accessible. I've seen a *lot* of D5/T5 caches that have an inflated D rating and I don't think I've ever heard of a reviewer enforcing a lowering of the D when the cache is visible from the ground but requires climbing a tree steep cliff.

Share this post


Link to post

...once again. If Groundspeak defines the D and T and difficulty and terrain of finding the cache, then we know what the D and T refer to, despite how accurate we believe them to be in our own opinion. If Groundspeak defines the D and T as that of all tasks required to log the find online, when we know that the D and T can refer to any and all content as provided on the listing. This is not about opinion of DT accuracy, it's about definition of it they even refer to.

Groundspeak has always been rather imprecise/flexible about their D/T definitions. While they say D/T ratings should indicate how hard it is to get to and log a cache, they also say that definition doesn't really apply when special knowledge or equipment is needed...although special equipment like boats might not be needed during some winter months in the northern/southern latitudes (and swimming might be an option during other months).

Share this post


Link to post

So you think reviewers should enforce D/T ratings?

*headdesk* I need a break. :laughing:

 

So the definitions should just exist because it feels nice to have things defined?

Share this post


Link to post

Tasty lunch.

 

So the definitions should just exist because it feels nice to have things defined?

Well then you must advocate throwing out the rulebook and guidelines because who cares about definitions. dry.gif

 

...once again. If Groundspeak defines the D and T and difficulty and terrain of finding the cache, then we know what the D and T refer to, despite how accurate we believe them to be in our own opinion. If Groundspeak defines the D and T as that of all tasks required to log the find online, when we know that the D and T can refer to any and all content as provided on the listing. This is not about opinion of DT accuracy, it's about definition of it they even refer to.

Groundspeak has always been rather imprecise/flexible about their D/T definitions. While they say D/T ratings should indicate how hard it is to get to and log a cache, they also say that definition doesn't really apply when special knowledge or equipment is needed...although special equipment like boats might not be needed during some winter months in the northern/southern latitudes (and swimming might be an option during other months).

Yep. Completely agreed.

...And all are related to finding the geocache and signing the logsheet. Challenges are different in that they are entirely distinct from that aspect of geocaching, and that is why there's the issue of the DT rating. Not the subjectivity of DT pertaining to finding the cache. But that the DT may have nothing to do with finding the cache. So, what does Groundspeak intend for the DT rating in respect to the cache type? For physical caches, all that's required to find the physical cache and sign the logbook? Or all that's required to log the find online, universally, regardless of cache type?

Share this post


Link to post

Tasty lunch.

 

So the definitions should just exist because it feels nice to have things defined?

Well then you must advocate throwing out the rulebook and guidelines because who cares about definitions.

 

I think definitions can be important, but there isn't much sense in going through the exercise of creating rigid and detailed definitions for D/T when it's not possible to really implement or enforce those definitions, and when the only real problems with the current system are that people A) expect too much of it and B ) treat it as a score.

Edited by narcissa

Share this post


Link to post

I think definitions can be important, but there isn't much sense in going through the exercise of creating rigid and detailed definitions for D/T when it's not possible to really implement or enforce those definitions, and when the only real problems with the current system are that people A) expect too much of it and B ) treat it as a score.

So then you must advocate scrapping the D and T because they are entirely subjective; just use the description.

 

...there are properties to a cache and associated definitions. You cannot just shrug them off because "COs can make them whatever they want". They have a point. They have a reason. They have an intent, a practical purpose. It's not about what reviewers enforce, it's about what geocachers and expect within reason.

Share this post


Link to post

I think definitions can be important, but there isn't much sense in going through the exercise of creating rigid and detailed definitions for D/T when it's not possible to really implement or enforce those definitions, and when the only real problems with the current system are that people A) expect too much of it and B ) treat it as a score.

So then you must advocate scrapping the D and T because they are entirely subjective; just use the description.

 

...there are properties to a cache and associated definitions. You cannot just shrug them off because "COs can make them whatever they want". They have a point. They have a reason. They have an intent, a practical purpose. It's not about what reviewers enforce, it's about what geocachers and expect within reason.

 

I don't advocate any major changes to the site because changes cause drama, but it wouldn't bother me if they scrapped it since people are only using them as another type of score.

 

They've always been highly subjective, and that really wasn't much of a problem - if the community felt that a certain rating didn't reflect the cache, they could mention it in their log for the cache owner to consider. Since the challenge cache boom, people have gotten all wound up about whether or not certain caches "deserve" certain ratings.

 

The idea of trying to standardize these ratings is particularly funny in light of the massive outcry that turns up when a cache owner deigns to change the rating on a cache in an effort to bring it in line with community expectations. What's the purpose of defining D/T when cache owners aren't allowed to change them without complaint?

Edited by narcissa

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

×