Why not limit event difficulty?

[+barefootguru]

The caching guidelines state

Tip: Event caches should always have a 1-star difficulty rating because it is easy for geocachers to “find” events. They are in plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching. It does not matter how difficult the event activities may be.

Wondering why GS or reviewers don't enforce this when listing an event, to prevent abusing the rules?

[+Touchstone]

They do in my area.  Maybe you could ask the Publishing Reviewer?  Could be just a mistake or post publication change.

[+WarNinjas]

They didn't used to but lately every event I have seen is a 1.

[+baer2006]

Reviewers do this here (Germany). Some even add something like "Originally published as D1/T1" to their publish log, so that it's super clear to the CO that they are not supposed to change the rating later .

[+Vooruit!]

Great. Now how am I supposed to ever complete my event D/T grid? 

[+AnnaMoritz]

2 hours ago, Vooruit! said:

Great. Now how am I supposed to ever complete my event D/T grid? 

You are not supposed to complete your event D/T grid.

Or visit Germany. Numbers of events with D>1 listed at the moment:

226 D1.5

85 D2.0

26 D1.5

26 D2.5

11 D3.0

6 D3.5

5 D4.0

9 D4.5

4 D5.0

Hope you didn't visit an event in Austria you needed for your grid in 2016 or 2017. All Austrian events (including CITOs) were set or 'set back' to D1 at latest with the last reviewer sweep some time ago, only one single CITO event from 2016 with D > 1 seems to be left from the 2016-2017 period. Now only D1 is allowed around here.

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by AnnaMoritz

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, AnnaMoritz said:

Or visit Germany. Numbers of events with D>1 listed at the moment:

226 D1.5

85 D2.0

26 D1.5

26 D2.5

11 D3.0

6 D3.5

5 D4.0

9 D4.5

4 D5.0

Wow, that's more than I had expected. So it seems that not all reviewers follow the rule that Event = D1. In fact, I made a quick check for the current events in a large radius (200 km) around my home base, and all events with D >= 2 were published by a single reviewer. So maybe you have to ask the right person if you want to host a high-D event .

[+HHL]

"Pars pro toto" seems not to be valid anymore. HQ should stop those Mavericks. ;-)

Hans

[+Isonzo Karst]

Good timing barefootguru - as now both the cache report form and the edit form enforce a D rating of 1 for events.

I just fiddled with the CSP, and there's not the option to adjust D rating, the D module simply isn't on the page. Instead, "Events have a difficulty of 1."

And the edit form likewise.

 

[+barefootguru]

Good to know, thanks @Isonzo Karst.  I’m amused by the consternation that Austria being reset to D1 must have caused (@AnnaMoritz).

[+AnnaMoritz]

6 hours ago, barefootguru said:

 I’m amused by the consternation that Austria being reset to D1 must have caused (@AnnaMoritz).

Haven't heard too much complaints. The majority of events then already had D1 from the beginning until archive anyway. What's was going on in social media, who knows.

Former high-D event series had stopped long before because owners refrained from continuing them watered down.

Some of the wanted high D-ratings from 2017 were completely ridiculous anyway, so I think for them (not the seemingly appropriate D1.5 or D2 for some other events) more people welcomed the 'set back to D1' than the few wanting a high(er) D-rating.

A bit of history: The first bigger noticed sweep was in May 2017 with the argument being "all events are published with D1, so D>1 has to be put back by the owner who changed it or the reviewer archives the event and sets it back to D1". The reviewer made public a case where he told an German event owner (who admitted to have altered the D after publish without bad intention) he has to set difficulty back to D1 per Reviewer Note.

But that would have implied that also dozens of other event owners (not only the geocachers from other countries, mainly Germany, who partly obviously were accustomed to any desired D) were told something like 'D1 or no publish', and the first thing they did after publication was increasing D?

That made me wonder what's happening elsewhere. Two neighboring countries had no active events with D>1 in mid-May: (known strict) Czech Republic (except CITO) and Switzerland (maybe only by chance at this moment). So there D=1 for 'normal' events consistently seemed true.

But Germany, Slovakia, Italy, Netherlands, Norway Sweden, UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Belgium, Luxemburg in Europe and USA, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa on the other hand all had active events with D>1 in mid-May.

So I assumed more likely it might depend on the publishing reviewer whether something else than D1 (depending on their interpretation of 'should') was allowed - because it didn't seem very likely to me that hundreds of owners in so much countries increased D after publish.

Everybody who read the guidelines about 'should be D1' and is a 'learnt Austrian' hat to 'fear' anyway that attending a D>1 might not guarantee a certain D for their statistics. Not before and not after archive. In 2011 (when every D was allowed for events)  there was an event with high D where T was changed long after archive - that opened again a slot in the 9x9 grid for quite a few geocachers (otherwise no one would have noticed it anyway after that long time).

Whether 'correcting' D retroactively not only for normal events, but also for CITOs (where no one expected them to be restricted to D1) is the perfect move, when even in 'strict' Czech Republic there seems still no ban for CITO D>1  - who knows ... but CITOs should be about the good deed anyway, not about DT rewards.

For new events now there can't be any allegations about 'who did what and when' if D1 for events is forced by programming and the outcome is predictable: 'nothing else than D1'.

Personally I would welcome that for all geocaches some core geocache data to be automatically included in publish log: Date/time of publish, cache type, title, D, T, size, public waypoints and attributes. Then you could look up at least partly what happened to a cache you don't recognize any more from the current description. And maybe that would also help to prevent some annoying issues (changing cache type and altering D or T considerably also long after publish for example in order to punish/reward some cachers, sometimes immediately before archiving)

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by AnnaMoritz

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, AnnaMoritz said:

That made me wonder what's happening elsewhere.

I took a look through the events I've attended, and most of them are D1. The ones that aren't either have silly terrain ratings too, or the higher D rating is based on participating in the event activities (e.g., working at a CITO or participating in a rehearsed flashmob activity), not on merely finding the event itself.

[+baer2006]

4 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said:

... but CITOs should be about the good deed anyway, not about DT rewards.

Which reminds me of a CITO here a while ago, which was organized to exterminate giant hogweed in some area. This is hard work, and you have to wear a full-body biohazard suit. It was not winter, and with the gear and the work, you would be sweating like hell . The event was listed as T3 (which I think is reasonable). And then one cacher posted a note, that he would only attend if the rating was changed to T5. I asked him if this was a joke, but he said no, he's going for high T's, and would not go through the trouble if the "reward" was only T3.

Anyway, that was off-topic for a thread about D-ratings. Sorry!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

12 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Which reminds me of a CITO here a while ago, which was organized to exterminate giant hogweed in some area. This is hard work, and you have to wear a full-body biohazard suit. It was not winter, and with the gear and the work, you would be sweating like hell . The event was listed as T3 (which I think is reasonable). And then one cacher posted a note, that he would only attend if the rating was changed to T5. I asked him if this was a joke, but he said no, he's going for high T's, and would not go through the trouble if the "reward" was only T3.

Anyway, that was off-topic for a thread about D-ratings. Sorry!

That looked on topic to me.  It describes an example of why some events should have a higher rating, though it would be the T rating.  Perhaps, GS should allow a higher D rating for events attended by "difficult" geocachers such as the one that wanted to rating changed to a T5.    I know of a periodic CITO event that advertises in the cache listing that the solution to one or more puzzle caches will be provided to attendees.

  

[+hzoi]

On 12/9/2017 at 8:09 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

I know of a periodic CITO event that advertises in the cache listing that the solution to one or more puzzle caches will be provided to attendees.

Sounds like a good argument to lower the difficulty on the puzzle caches, but not up the rating of the CITO. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

Sounds like a good argument to lower the difficulty on the puzzle caches, but not up the rating of the CITO. 

Except that the actual difficulty would only be lowered for those that attended the event.   The CITO event occurred on a section of road that a couple of geocachers sponsored for clean up.  They've also archived and replaced caches (in the exact same location) along that section of road just prior to the event to provide another incentive.  

[+ballbreaker67]

I just found this thread and I like to share my opinion with you. First of all, I agree that 95% of events should be D1 because there is no reason for a higher D-rating. But then there are the 5% which are special. And the new rules give no space to adapt the D-rating to a special event, and that is a pity. Groundspeak acts like a poor government: they "improve" their regulations where is no need to do so. I would give the final decision about an event-D-rating into the hands of the reviewers in order to make exceptions possible, if they are reasonable. For example an event at christmas should have a higher D-rating because it is hard enough to leave the family to attend. Or a clock-change-event  (summer/winter) at 02:00 AM in the morning, to give only two examples. Personally I drove sometimes 100 or even more kilometers to an event if the subject (and the rating) was interesting. Now - when all events are D1 - they are no longer attractive and I will focus my activities on other cache types. I know lots and lots of cachers they think the same way, and in my environment some guys already talk about the "dead of events". No doubt about it that a "stammtisch" (regulars' table) is mentionned as D1. But to forbid something that worked not so bad in the past should always be the last solution. I remember the one year without challenge caches, and they came back with some other rules. Why not aks the event owners to clearly justify their event-D-ratings in order to define some wise limits. Groundspeak might have forgotten that most of the players are paying clients. And if they lose fun, Groundspeak will lose money. In short: it's a game and cheating is part of it. If some cachers need to cheat, they disqualify themselfes and lose reputation. But for what reason Groundspeak is destroying the attractivity of some events? What comes next? All traditional caches wil get a D1-rating too, because they are easy to find if the coordinates are known before? I have filled my DT-grid with all possible 81 event ratings before the new rules were installed. For me it was a pleasure to drive a long way to an interesting event and I met some real cool guys there and we are still in contact. I would never have met them if the event had a D1 rating - because I would not have been there. So the higher rating was a prove for the classical sense of events: come together, meet new friends, share your hobby with others, and so one. With the new rules this will get lost for many people. And those who refuse a higher event-D-rating, just use your ignore list and stay at home. Nobody is raping you to attend, so please don't judge the others they like to do so. Just think about it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 minutes ago, ballbreaker67 said:

I just found this thread and I like to share my opinion with you. First of all, I agree that 95% of events should be D1 because there is no reason for a higher D-rating. But then there are the 5% which are special. 

For example an event at christmas should have a higher D-rating because it is hard enough to leave the family to attend.

Or a clock-change-event  (summer/winter) at 02:00 AM in the morning, to give only two examples. Personally I drove sometimes 100 or even more kilometers to an event if the subject (and the rating) was interesting. Now - when all events are D1 - they are no longer attractive and I will focus my activities on other cache types. I know lots and lots of cachers they think the same way, and in my environment some guys already talk about the "dead of events". 

I have filled my DT-grid with all possible 81 event ratings before the new rules were installed. For me it was a pleasure to drive a long way to an interesting event and I met some real cool guys there and we are still in contact. I would never have met them if the event had a D1 rating - because I would not have been there. So the higher rating was a prove for the classical sense of events: come together, meet new friends, share your hobby with others, and so one. 

I snipped out the parts of your post to highlight some of the things I wanted to comment on.

I wouldn't object to having some flexibility in creating an even with a higher D rating, as long it didn't create an additional burden for reviewers having to arbitrate all the requests for giving an event a rating higher than D1.

It's hard to take your post seriously about justifying a higher D-rating around Christmas (keep in mind that not everyone celebrates Christmas).  There's always going to be some reason why attending a specific event would be difficult (for example, I wish I could have attended a WWFM event several years ago in Ethiopia but I was enroute on an airplane at the time) but that is no reason to increase the difficulty.

I am curious why geocachers in your area talk about "dead of events".  The point of an event is to bring together geocachers to socialize, meet new geocachers and old, and talk about geocaching.   I fail to see how the difficulty should make any difference.  Filling up a D/T grid is just a side game and I, personally don't want to see guideline changes just to cater to some challenge cache or other side game.  

The only reason that I could envision an event with a rating higher than D1 would be if it was in a location that was from some reason difficult to find (e.g. behind an unmarked door in Manhattan), which, to me kind of defeats the whole point around events.  Creating an event with a rating higher than D1 just so attendees can fill in a square on a D/T grid is not, to me,  a legitimate reason.

[+on4bam]

I hope that an event on Mount Everest (even at one of the camps) will not be D1. While an extreme example I would go against rating rating all events D1 if not only for where it's not "wheelchair accessible".

If guidelines state that caches should be rated as accurate as possible then why not events? If the problem is D5/T5 rated events that are not D5/T5 then reviewers can step in or maybe events should not be taken into account for statistics.

[Moun10Bike]

11 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I hope that an event on Mount Everest (even at one of the camps) will not be D1. While an extreme example I would go against rating rating all events D1 if not only for where it's not "wheelchair accessible".

Of course it would be. How hard would it be to find a gathering of people once you got to the top? It's the T that would be rated high in that case.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Preparation for Mt. Everest is quite Difficult.

No?

Aah, whatever. Choose your battles. How are the maps coming?

[+on4bam]

Yes, it would be the T rating

I think that I should have rated 2 of my 3 holiday events with a higher D as no-one showed up. However, I thought it would not be difficult to attend

 

[+Touchstone]

12 hours ago, ballbreaker67 said:

Just think about it.

OK, I thought about it, and I think we have different definitions for Difficulty as it pertains to Events.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Preparation for Mt. Everest is quite Difficult.

No?

That still goes towards the terrain rating.   The fact that the terrain, or preparing for the terrain is "difficult" doesn't mean that the D rating should be changed.  

I've seen lots of T5 events that involved a paddle out to an island, but once one reached the island it was easy to find the location of the event.  Even if you're the first to arrive, finding the location of the event is as simple as going to the published coordinates.  

[+SeattleWayne]

23 hours ago, on4bam said:

I hope that an event on Mount Everest (even at one of the camps) will not be D1. While an extreme example I would go against rating rating all events D1 if not only for where it's not "wheelchair accessible".

If guidelines state that caches should be rated as accurate as possible then why not events? If the problem is D5/T5 rated events that are not D5/T5 then reviewers can step in or maybe events should not be taken into account for statistics.

You're thinking about the T-rating.

[+SeattleWayne]

23 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Preparation for Mt. Everest is quite Difficult.

No?

Aah, whatever. Choose your battles. How are the maps coming?

Yeah, I suppose it's quite difficult to pack mountaineering equipment, make travel reservations and get a hold of a travel guide along with rounding up a bunch of Sherpas to carry all your stuff.

[+jellis]

I have seen events that kayaking, hiking trails and ones on 4x4 trails. So are these exceptions?

[+barefootjeff]

31 minutes ago, jellis said:

I have seen events that kayaking, hiking trails and ones on 4x4 trails. So are these exceptions?

Kayaking, hiking trails and 4x4 trails are part of the terrain, not difficulty. For caches where the final coordinates are given, difficulty is how hard it is to find once you get there.

[+baer2006]

I think the root cause for the different viewpoints here is the trivial fact that a difficult(!) terrain makes it more difficult to reach the cache (or the event). Therefore one might think that this terrain difficulty can (or even should) also, in addition to the T-rating, be reflected in a cache's/event's Difficulty=D rating. On the other hand, one can put all terrain-related difficulties only into the T-rating, and all other difficulties into the D-rating.

I very much prefer the second approach. Otherwise, two different "star-ratings" don't really make sense IMHO. If all potential obstacles, including terrain, go into the D-rating, why do we have an additional rating only for terrain? Why not also additional ratings for "riddle" (solving the puzzle(s) to get the final coordinates) or "hide" (finding the container on location)? A cacher may encounter lots of "difficulties" before they can log a cache. When I rate my own caches, I distribute the various difficulties to D or T as follows:

• Get coordinates (e.g. solving the puzzle of a mystery at home, or solving a field puzzle at a multi stage) -> D
• Go to the coordinates (could be a long way and/or difficult terrain) -> T
• Find the box (or info for the stage of a multi) at the coordinates -> D
• If necessary, get to the spot where you can access the box or read stage info (e.g. climb a tree) -> T
• Get box in hand (e.g. use a tool to get it down from a non-climbable tree) -> D
• Open box (e.g. lock-picking, or "tricky" containers) -> D

With this scheme, I can completely understand why events can only be D1. The first two D items on the list are trivial for events, and the last two simply don't apply at all (because signing a logbook is not a requirement).

[+jellis]

Thanks then I won't talk about the ones you have to solve a puzzle to get to the event.

[+baer2006]

16 minutes ago, jellis said:

Thanks then I won't talk about the ones you have to solve a puzzle to get to the event.

I have never seen such an event. In fact, many years ago someone in my community played with such an idea, and asked a reviewer. The answer was a clear "No". An event must always take place at the listed coordinates.

[+hzoi]

I suppose this means that future Cache Across Maryland events will have to be re-engineered.

Quote

Cache Across Maryland is an annual geocaching tour of the state of Maryland. Ten new geocaches have been placed in various locations throughout the ‘Old Line State’. To attend this event, you must find all ten caches.

 

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

I suppose this means that future Cache Across Maryland events will have to be re-engineered.

 

Or they have permission from HQ for the design of the Event.  Looks like it's an annual thing that has been going for several years.  If I remember correctly, there used to be an on going Event that Attendees would log over and over again on the same Listing page.  That was eventually Archived.  Exceptions are sometimes granted, sometimes not.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

I suppose this means that future Cache Across Maryland events will have to be re-engineered.

Probably not. This listing violates the guidelines for event caches ("An event cache takes place at the posted coordinates") in a clear and unambiguous way. So the owners must have gotten special permission from GS, and I assume they can get the same permission for future events.

[+jellis]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 8:05 AM, baer2006 said:

I have never seen such an event. In fact, many years ago someone in my community played with such an idea, and asked a reviewer. The answer was a clear "No". An event must always take place at the listed coordinates.

Yes, and as I said I won't mention them.