Changes to D/T affecting statistics?

[+FREDskorpset]

If a CO changes the D/T-ratings of one of his caches, will that change anything in my D/T-matrix if I have already logged the cache? Say I have only one 5/5 and the CO changes it to 4.5/5....will I in that case end up with no 5/5s?

 

Thanks for answering! 

[+The Leprechauns]

Yes,, your D/T matrix would update to reflect the change by the CO.  I speak from personal experience!  Three times, when I was within one or two caches of filling my D/T grid, a CO adjusted a rating and created a new gap.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

8 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

Yes,, your D/T matrix would update to reflect the change by the CO.  I speak from personal experience!  Three times, when I was within one or two caches of filling my D/T grid, a CO adjusted a rating and created a new gap.

It may also have filled in a 4.5/5 box that someone other geocacher was missing.  D/T ratings are intended to be used to accurately reflect that expected experience one will have when attempting to find the cache.  If something changes (for example, a bridge was built that crosses a river) that changes the experience, the D/T ratings should change to reflect the current experience.  The fizzy challenge is just a side game.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, FREDskorpset said:

If a CO changes the D/T-ratings of one of his caches, will that change anything in my D/T-matrix if I have already logged the cache? Say I have only one 5/5 and the CO changes it to 4.5/5....will I in that case end up with no 5/5s?

 

Thanks for answering! 

Yep.    

I feel it's best if the CO rates their cache as accurately as possible.   Someone who did that cache only for a D/T stat now has a change.

Similar to NYPaddleCacher (bridge now over water), if a T5 rope-only tree access hide loses it's limb (for whatever reason...) and the CO reattaches the hide to a lower branch that now can be climbed by hand to access, those terrain changes need to be addressed.  

I have to admit ... though we have a couple 5/5s, we've yet to see one that's actually a D5 (IMO), or this dyslexic old fart probably would never have been able to solve it. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by cerberus1
addification

[+thebruce0]

It's an age-old discussion. I've liked the idea of keeping stats based on log date, rather than current listing details... but that's a complex thing to implement. Most optimal way I can think of is keeping a specific changelog of cache details flashed at end-of-day (local) so the cache stats "as of" a log date can be determined.

A lot of work with little return except to satiate the rare instance that someone's stats are slightly altered unqualifying them for a challenge they haven't yet completed and logged Found, and which technically shouldn't be impossible for them to requalify for.

Still. In theory, I think cache information should be as of the Find log date.

[+frinklabs]

[FEATURE] Include D/T rating in Found It log

[+bflentje]

You solve the problem by going out and finding multiple 5/5's. I will never consider someone else's fizzy when I have to properly rate or re-rate one of my caches. While I understand the debate it still does not make it the cache owner's problem.

[+J Grouchy]

On 8/25/2017 at 8:50 AM, thebruce0 said:

It's an age-old discussion. I've liked the idea of keeping stats based on log date, rather than current listing details... but that's a complex thing to implement. Most optimal way I can think of is keeping a specific changelog of cache details flashed at end-of-day (local) so the cache stats "as of" a log date can be determined.

A lot of work with little return except to satiate the rare instance that someone's stats are slightly altered unqualifying them for a challenge they haven't yet completed and logged Found, and which technically shouldn't be impossible for them to requalify for.

Still. In theory, I think cache information should be as of the Find log date.

I see your argument, and I think that sort of parallels the debate about old caches and how ones like Mingo are no longer the "real" cache placed 17 years ago...yet people still use it to fill in their May 2000 Jasmer spot.  So I'll do ya one further: apply a new "placed on" date to apply to logs following a container replacement, so only finds of the ORIGINAL container can claim May 2000 on their Jasmer.

I actually feel like that's more valid, but it's entirely unenforceable.

Edited August 30, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+bflentje]

7 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I see your argument, and I think that sort of parallels the debate about old caches and how ones like Mingo are no longer the "real" cache placed 17 years ago...yet people still use it to fill in their May 2000 Jasmer spot.  So I'll do ya one further: apply a new "placed on" date to apply to logs following a container replacement, so only finds of the ORIGINAL container can claim May 2000 on their Jasmer.

I actually feel like that's more valid, but it's entirely unenforceable.

Thank goodness I found the original before your heavy handed idea could ever be implemented..  :-)

[+J Grouchy]

1 minute ago, bflentje said:

Thank goodness I found the original before your heavy handed idea could ever be implemented..  :-)

It's why I think the entire concept of the Jasmer grid is completely worthless.

[+bflentje]

3 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

It's why I think the entire concept of the Jasmer grid is completely worthless.

Nahh.. if you think about it strictly as just another fun side game or goal to achieve and stop overthinking it, I think the concept of Jasmer as it is today is just fine. I am triple Jasmer qualified now and have no intentions of being a snob about it. Does not bother me in the slightest that someone didn't find the original container. It's more of a CO issue than a finder issue in my book. Your argument is more valid to me if you debate the existence of Mingo being active in the first place rather than which container one found.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, bflentje said:

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

I see your argument, and I think that sort of parallels the debate about old caches and how ones like Mingo are no longer the "real" cache placed 17 years ago...yet people still use it to fill in their May 2000 Jasmer spot.  So I'll do ya one further: apply a new "placed on" date to apply to logs following a container replacement, so only finds of the ORIGINAL container can claim May 2000 on their Jasmer.

I actually feel like that's more valid, but it's entirely unenforceable.

Thank goodness I found the original before your heavy handed idea could ever be implemented..  :-)

The Spot (GC39) also has May 2005 as the placed date.  I understand that it's not the original container, but it was replaced after only a few months and the original logbook and swag was moved from a leaky 5 gallon bucket to it *current* 50cal ammo can.   Other than the actual container, everything else about it is pretty much identical to when it was placed in May 2000.