Is it okay to change your cache difficulty rating later?

[+Korichnovui]

Hey all,

So I got into geocaching by working on the geocaching merit badge with my scout troop. As one of the requirements, we set up our own geocache. At the time we rated it 2.5 star difficulty. Now, looking back, it's more like 1.5 difficulty, it's not tough at all. This got me thinking --

I noticed that the cache details are editable. Is it appropriate to change the rating later on? It's been in use for about a year and has been logged many times. Does that somehow mess people up? Are there ramifications? "Unspoken rules of the game" to be considered? Or just no big deal at all?

 

[+Max and 99]

Yes you can change it. It's a no-win situation in my mind. If you do change the rating/size, etc, invariably people will complain that you messed up their stats. And if you don't change the rating someone will complain that your cache rating isn't accurate.

I don't play the stats games but others take it seriously.

[+Korichnovui]

That's what I was worried about. I mean, probably not a big deal in this case, but good to know in other situations.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

From the two options above pick the first one. The cache attributes including D/T rating should always be up-to-date as they're here for those who have NOT yet found the cache and deserve to be provided with the most accurate information.

[+Max and 99]

4 minutes ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

From the two options above pick the first one. The cache attributes including D/T rating should always be up-to-date as they're here for those who have NOT yet found the cache and deserve to be provided with the most accurate information.

Yep!

[+on4bam]

While changing D/T ratings should always reflect the TRUE difficulty keep in mind that changing them afterwards can mean trouble. Some challenges require to have found certain D/T ratings which may mean people who qualified before may no longer qualify.

I had this happen twice. First one was a tree climbing cache (NOT T5 but still..) that was vandalized  and replaced by a cache at ground level. Gone was my filled D/T rating. Second one was a D4.5 mystery that took a long time to solve. A few years later the solution was published on one of the cheating sites and the CO changed the rating to D1.5 before archiving the cache. It was one of the rare D4.5/T1 caches that took a long time to find a replacement for.

Changing 2.5 to 1.5 will probably have little or no effect but changing a rare D/T combination probably will.

 

[+lee737]

You can pretty much make whatever changes you like in the D/T grid under 3x3, and its likely nobody will notice. If you start making changes outside of this you'll possibly upset someone.... For rarer combos, you would be better archiving and relisting....

[+justintim1999]

7 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

That's what I was worried about. I mean, probably not a big deal in this case, but good to know in other situations.

Having the D/T accurate is the most important thing.   Although it could mess up someone else's stats I would hope they would understand. 

[+J Grouchy]

I'm sorry...all this worrying about other peoples' stats...it's nonsense.  Why not let THEM worry about their stats and you worry about your own cache pages being accurate and up-to-date.  

[+coachstahly]

8 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

Hey all,

So I got into geocaching by working on the geocaching merit badge with my scout troop. As one of the requirements, we set up our own geocache. At the time we rated it 2.5 star difficulty. Now, looking back, it's more like 1.5 difficulty, it's not tough at all. This got me thinking --

I noticed that the cache details are editable. Is it appropriate to change the rating later on? It's been in use for about a year and has been logged many times. Does that somehow mess people up? Are there ramifications? "Unspoken rules of the game" to be considered? Or just no big deal at all?

 

I may be in a slightly different situation than the one you're describing, but I had few enough finders that I was able to send an email to see if they wanted me to keep it the same or update it.  That being said, it was a higher D/T rated cache and I was looking at a .5 star bump up in terrain due to growth in the area.  Seeing as how you have it at 2.5 (D?), there should be enough similar caches in the area that it wouldn't overly affect the stats of most of the cachers who have found it and they should be able to find a replacement cache, if need be, to fill that spot.

That being said, it IS your cache and you want it to be accurately rated, so I'd change it if it warranted it, regardless of the thoughts of cachers.  You might ruffle some feathers but you could always provide a list of caches with the same D/T as the old rating you had on this cache.

[+on4bam]

10 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I'm sorry...all this worrying about other peoples' stats...it's nonsense.  Why not let THEM worry about their stats and you worry about your own cache pages being accurate and up-to-date.  

As said, it's OK to make sure DT rating is accurate but changing a high D to 1.5 because coordinates are on a cheatsite or high T because the cache is now at ground level is not being accurate. A new listing would at least make it fair to those who found it at the high T value. Changing the high D to 1.5 just before archiving also has nothing to do with accuracy.

 

[+Touchstone]

Pretty much what everyone else has said.  It's the one reason I don't believe that the editable portions of a Listing page should be part of any Challenge.  Sounds like the OP is trying to do the right thing, but there are a small number of people that enjoy messing with people, and this is just one example.

[+on4bam]

5 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

It's the one reason I don't believe that the editable portions of a Listing page should be part of any Challenge.

Maybe all attributes of a cache should be locked like they are at the time it's found for the one finding it. Finders after something is changed should then have the new data awarded.

[+J Grouchy]

46 minutes ago, on4bam said:

As said, it's OK to make sure DT rating is accurate but changing a high D to 1.5 because coordinates are on a cheatsite or high T because the cache is now at ground level is not being accurate. A new listing would at least make it fair to those who found it at the high T value. Changing the high D to 1.5 just before archiving also has nothing to do with accuracy.

 

Well, going from a 5 to a 1.5 is one thing and perhaps WOULD be justification for making a new cache listing, though there are probably exceptions where maybe the hide did not change but the accessibility or surrounding landscape did?...I'm sure it happens every now and then.  Maybe someone placed a cache under a bridge that spans a rushing river with steep banks and treacherous footing, earning it a 4 star terrain rating...but years later a paved trail along the river bank is put in, making the cache much more easily accessible, maybe now a 1.5 or 2 star terrain rating.  Same cache, same hide, different conditions...I would change the rating and not worry at all about peoples' stats.  Not my job to keep their stats current for whatever challenge they are trying to fulfill.  My only job is to keep my listing current and accurate. Period.

But the OP is talking about changing the listing from a 2.5 to a 1.5.  Archiving and relisting is not really justified in such a case.  Minor (maybe as much as 2 points) adjustments to the difficulty or terrain rating are common and not something to get concerned about as a CO.  

[+coachstahly]

4 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

But the OP is talking about changing the listing from a 2.5 to a 1.5.  Archiving and relisting is not really justified in such a case.  Minor (maybe as much as 2 points) adjustments to the difficulty or terrain rating are common and not something to get concerned about as a CO.  

This, although I think there's enough wiggle room for each cacher to determine their own definition of "minor adjustments".  2.5 T to 4.5 T (or the opposite) isn't minor in my book, but that's me.  Personally, I consider anything at a +/- 1 worth at least a look at archiving and relisting on a case by case basis.  Terrain rating, for me, is usually the mitigating factor, rather than difficulty.

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

But the OP is talking about changing the listing from a 2.5 to a 1.5.  Archiving and relisting is not really justified in such a case.  Minor (maybe as much as 2 points) adjustments to the difficulty or terrain rating are common and not something to get concerned about as a CO.  

I agree (didn't I say so already?). Both my examples were case where I think ratings should not have changed. First one, the cache was no longer in the tree but on the ground, so I would argue the new one is a different one. Second one was probably meant to deny the D4.5 to the last "finders" who got the solution from a website instead of solving it not caring about the majority who did solve it (I know it took me a lot of time to finally see the "light" and I was happy to get green from the checker on a 4.5 from a CO who's caches often have a "twist").

 

[+J Grouchy]

Just now, coachstahly said:

This, although I think there's enough wiggle room for each cacher to determine their own definition of "minor adjustments".  2.5 T to 4.5 T (or the opposite) isn't minor in my book, but that's me.  Personally, I consider anything at a +/- 1 worth at least a look at archiving and relisting on a case by case basis.  Terrain rating, for me, is usually the mitigating factor, rather than difficulty.

I did say "maybe as much as 2 points"...so I agree that bumping the T from 2.5 to 4.5 is worth considering a new listing. Like I described, though, conditions in the area may undergo changes that affect terrain ratings while the cache hide does not change.  Maybe an isolated area that required wading through a shallow creek was given a 3.5T, but the addition of a small footbridge and gravel trail by the cache made it much more easily accessible (maybe 1.5T).  I wouldn't even consider archiving it and relisting it because of that.  Now, if it used  to be up a tree, but at some point the tree fell and now it's hidden in the stump of that fallen tree...then it's a judgement call.  Personally, I'd probably still just change the ratings, but I can see why some would make a new listing instead.

[+coachstahly]

1 minute ago, J Grouchy said:

I did say "maybe as much as 2 points"...so I agree that bumping the T from 2.5 to 4.5 is worth considering a new listing. Like I described, though, conditions in the area may undergo changes that affect terrain ratings while the cache hide does not change.  Maybe an isolated area that required wading through a shallow creek was given a 3.5T, but the addition of a small footbridge and gravel trail by the cache made it much more easily accessible (maybe 1.5T).  I wouldn't even consider archiving it and relisting it because of that.  Now, if it used  to be up a tree, but at some point the tree fell and now it's hidden in the stump of that fallen tree...then it's a judgement call.  Personally, I'd probably still just change the ratings, but I can see why some would make a new listing instead.

I would because the experience has markedly changed from a creek stomping cache (with the expectation that one might get wet) to a quick bridge crossing and a crushed gravel walk.  I'm not disagreeing with your judgment call, just letting you know that my judgment and yours differ.  I wouldn't be personally offended if I had found the cache you describe and then you changed the D/T rating; it's your cache.  It all boils down to individual calls when it comes to a CO's owned caches.

It's always interesting to get others' opinions on things like this to see the varied responses and reasons for why things differ.

 

[+K13]

9 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

Hey all,

So I got into geocaching by working on the geocaching merit badge with my scout troop. As one of the requirements, we set up our own geocache. At the time we rated it 2.5 star difficulty. Now, looking back, it's more like 1.5 difficulty, it's not tough at all. This got me thinking --

I noticed that the cache details are editable. Is it appropriate to change the rating later on? It's been in use for about a year and has been logged many times. Does that somehow mess people up? Are there ramifications? "Unspoken rules of the game" to be considered? Or just no big deal at all?

 

"A Scout is Trustworthy, ..., Helpful, ..."    Adjust your cache ratings to be accurate. That way finders will know what they are getting, and you may get some finders who would otherwise have skipped the cache due to the higher rating.  As to those who have already found the cache, they will likely never know that you have changed your rating.

[+on4bam]

1 minute ago, K13 said:

  As to those who have already found the cache, they will likely never know that you have changed your rating.

I noticed within a week (after generating my stats). It shows when the D/T grid goes -1 and since both times it was a combination I only had one of, it was quickly found in my database.

 

[+Max and 99]

11 minutes ago, K13 said:

"A Scout is Trustworthy, ..., Helpful, ..."    Adjust your cache ratings to be accurate. That way finders will know what they are getting, and you may get some finders who would otherwise have skipped the cache due to the higher rating.  As to those who have already found the cache, they will likely never know that you have changed your rating.

Oh they'll know! 

[+cerberus1]

We believe the cache page D/T  should be as accurate as possible. We've seen similar to J Grouchy (primitive trail, now packed and wide). If realizing later that a cache you placed as a newbie isn't really accurate, change it.    Those hitting your cache for challenges/stats understand that...  

The site does say, "Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area", so maybe a look at similar near you may in order as well.  There may be a point or better difference to the "norm".  We see that just 30 miles away in a state next door. 

We see hides from new folks  rated higher in the beginning because it's a new idea to them  (like "Float the film can up the tube" one most have seen). Later they change the D after logs.  If you change the D/T because (we'll use this latest tree hide example...) the cache placement is now many points off, we'd archive and start over ( A 4 or 5T "up-a-tree hide" now a 1.5 just sitting at it's base no where near the same hide). 

[+coachstahly]

It appears the cache in question was rated a 2.5/2.  That's common enough that people will have multiple finds at that level, unless they're newer cachers.  A quick pocket query search within 50 miles of the cache in question finds 61 other 2.5/2 caches to fill that particular spot.  Most will not know that this one has left this particular grid spot.  Yes, there will always be some who notice, but I bet most wouldn't in this particular case.

[+thebruce0]

First priority is always to ensure the DT and properties of a listing are as accurate as you judge them to be for the provided cache-finding experience.

As to whether to archive and list new, it's a judgement call but generally I'd say if the cache-finding experience itself has changed more than negligibly, then it could be a "different experience", effectively, and so consider theoretically: if you change the DT, people who had the previous experience won't have the new one; if you list it new, everyone will be prompted for the new experience. So the question is - is the reason for the change in properties enough to warrant describing it as a 'new experience'.

If not, then when it comes to changing DTs/attributes, your listing accuracy is most important. However I wouldn't be of the mindset to just ignore people who care about stats. It is part of the game now, and so I'd ask myself, how important is the update I'm making? Is there any way I assuage the angst from other people who might be bothered by an edit, by doing something a little differently?  Are we obligated to consider cachers who care about stats? Nope. But I think it's anti-community to stick it to'em just because.  Think of other cachers first. (well, 2nd =P)

Here's my recommended priority of considerations when editing an active listing:

1. Accurate listing properties?
2. Sufficiently different cache-finding experience to warrant a new listing?
3. Can alterations be made in such a way to minimize impact on other challenge-related statistics people may care deeply about?
4. Alter DT?

[+dprovan]

Yes, you can and should correct mistakes on your listing. (Ratings are a good example, but don't forget to correct spelling mistakes and such, too!)

I'm a big fan of challenge caches, but you shouldn't worry about them. A challenge that calls for particular ratings is talking about the actual rating of the cache, not the specific number currently assigned to it. The dependence on the actual number is just an accounting fluke. It's unfortunate if someone working on a challenge is depending on your misrated cache to satisfy a requirement, but you changing the rating corrects a mistake in that cacher's statistics. That might mean he no longer meets the challenge when he thought he did. But it was just a fact that he didn't meet the challenge before you corrected your ratings, he just didn't know it.

Or did he know it? Someone that found your cache should have a good idea it was misrated, don't you think? He shouldn't be too surprised when the rating is corrected.

[+PlantAKiss]

The cache ratings should accurately reflect the difficulty/terrain of the cache. If something about the cache changes and they need to be adjusted, then adjust them. It’s about the actual cache, not other people’s statistics. 

[+on4bam]

4 minutes ago, PlantAKiss said:

The cache ratings should accurately reflect the difficulty/terrain of the cache. If something about the cache changes and they need to be adjusted, then adjust them. It’s about the actual cache, not other people’s statistics. 

Interesting.. You climb a tree and a year later the cache is vandalized and on the ground. Now is this >T3.5 or T1.5. It was found as a >T3.5 and it will always be that in my found database no matter what is changes after I found it.

What if between finding it (at >T3.5) you log a challenge where that cache was needed to qualify and later it's rated T1.5 and the Challenge CO deletes your log?

Not a problem in the TS' case but anyway.

 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

If you change the D/T because (we'll use this latest tree hide example...) the cache placement is now many points off, we'd archive and start over ( A 4 or 5T "up-a-tree hide" now a 1.5 just sitting at it's base no where near the same hide). 

I don't think there's a number of D/T points (up or down) that should trigger archiving the old listing and publishing a new one. I think it's a more subjective decision based on the CO's purpose and intent for creating the cache. If the point of the cache is the tree climb, then a cache at the base of the tree is a different cache. If the point of the cache is the experience of crossing the bridge, then a the same container at the same location is a different cache when the bridge is closed and the alternate route is an all-day hike from the trailhead.

But if the point of the cache hasn't changed, then keep the old listing and edit the D/T ratings so they're accurate.

[+niraD]

5 minutes ago, on4bam said:

What if between finding it (at >T3.5) you log a challenge where that cache was needed to qualify and later it's rated T1.5 and the Challenge CO deletes your log?

The primary purpose of the D/T ratings is to communicate basic information about the general nature of the geocaching experience to potential seekers. The D/T ratings should be kept accurate.

If people want to play a side game based on D/T ratings (including challenge caches based on D/T ratings), then it's up to them to sort out the details of their side game.

[+on4bam]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

If people want to play a side game based on D/T ratings (including challenge caches based on D/T ratings), then it's up to them to sort out the details of their side game.

Looking at the fuzz about challenges and rulemaking by GS it's hardly a "sidegame".

 

[+L0ne.R]

10 hours ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

should always be up-to-date as they're here for those who have NOT yet found the cache and deserve to be provided with the most accurate information.

Yes.

And some cachers rely heavily on correct T ratings based on the GC D/T rating when they have health/mobility issues or cache with someone who does. 

[+thebruce0]

40 minutes ago, on4bam said:

42 minutes ago, niraD said:

If people want to play a side game based on D/T ratings (including challenge caches based on D/T ratings), then it's up to them to sort out the details of their side game.

Looking at the fuzz about challenges and rulemaking by GS it's hardly a "sidegame".

Yep. It becomes a side game when people doing the challenges care more about the number to the exclusion of cache listing accuracy. That's where the problem lies. First priority is accurate listings (to the various COs' judgements). Or as dprovan well articulated above, if a cache listing is already inaccurate, then the challenge stats results are also inaccurate, so if a DT for a qualifying cache is changed to be more accurate, but causes someone to "unqualify", then really, were they qualified in the first place?  If the complaint is merely that the numbers changed, then they've made the challenge into a side game. Otherwise, they'd care that they didn't really qualify before, even though the numbers said they did.

Challenge Caches are a very real part of the geocaching hobby now. But whatever the cache type, cache listing accuracy is always the top priority.

[+on4bam]

Well, the high T rating was correct at the time of finding it, so lowering it BECAUSE THE CACHE CHANGED makes the lower rating inaccurate for the time most found that cache so that's why locking these attributes as to what they were at the time of finding makes sense. If that's not possible it's time for a new listing. It's not like the original cache was mislabeled.

 

[+thebruce0]

9 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Well, the high T rating was correct at the time of finding it, so lowering it BECAUSE THE CACHE CHANGED makes the lower rating inaccurate for the time most found that cache so that's why locking these attributes as to what they were at the time of finding makes sense. If that's not possible it's time for a new listing. It's not like the original cache was mislabeled.

Right. And I've argued for the highly complex feature of having cache properties stored with a Find log as at the find log date so that those stats remain as a historic record what the user found as on that date in case anything changes. Or, keeping a change-log of listing properties so a cache state can be reconstructed as at any Find log date. But it's a very BIG change to the system to implement that sort of statistical complexity. Just for challenge caches.

So that's why, as mentioned a few times above, if it comes to the point that the cache is no longer the same experience (eg, a T change because of a significant physical alteration at gz, as opposed to say a 1/2 point adjustment for accuracy even though nothing has changed in which case the listing was not "correct at the time of finding it") then re-listing as a new cache-finding experience (with the more greatly altered DT or other properties) would be recommended.

Edited April 9, 2018 by thebruce0

[+on4bam]

exactly.. you see, we agree

 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

Looking at the fuzz about challenges and rulemaking by GS it's hardly a "sidegame".

It may be an officially promoted side game, but it's still a side game.

The game is that cache owners publish information about their caches and others use that information to find the caches.

Taking that information and using it for some other purpose is a side game.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Right. And I've argued for the highly complex feature of having cache properties stored with a Find log as at the find log date so that those stats remain as a historic record what the user found as on that date in case anything changes.

But let's keep in mind that in the example given in the OP, the rating is wrong. It makes perfect sense for a correction to be reflected retroactively to all finds for this cache. I'm actually not sure I want to support the case that's supported by storing the properties with the find log. When the actual properties of a cache changes, that's when I start saying it's a different cache that should have its own listing.

[+frinklabs]

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

Edited April 9, 2018 by frinklabs
fixing whack font size

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

But let's keep in mind that in the example given in the OP, the rating is wrong. It makes perfect sense for a correction to be reflected retroactively to all finds for this cache.

Yep, covered that. Interestingly that's in the case of corrections for accuracy, rather than corrections for changes to the finding experience. Which makes your followup that much more relevant:

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm actually not sure I want to support the case that's supported by storing the properties with the find log. When the actual properties of a cache changes, that's when I start saying it's a different cache that should have its own listing.

The only way around that is to let the CO (or the finder) decide whether a change is for "correction" and accuracy, or for some other more significant reason (and the CO has chosen not to archive/republish). And we know how well that'd go over =P

On properties locked to the Find, I did say I have (past tense) argued for...   Conceptually, I argued for the idea of allowing a cacher's find log stats to be kept/retrievable (forcefully or by choice) as of the find date; but the stance is literally on the line because IMO there's a case to made both directions, for properties to change for accuracy and requiring retroactive updates to historic find stats, and for properties to remain static for historic finds despite recent edits when things might have changed... So, today, I likely wouldn't favour either way and choose to abstain my vote lol.  Unless someone comes up with a non-complex, non-subjective, non-arbitrary, simple to understand, widely acceptable method of somehow accomplishing this.

[+on4bam]

8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 Unless someone comes up with a non-complex, non-subjective, non-arbitrary, simple to understand, widely acceptable method of somehow accomplishing this.

You mean, like on a forum?

[+PlantAKiss]

10 hours ago, on4bam said:

Interesting.. You climb a tree and a year later the cache is vandalized and on the ground.

In that case, I would hope one of a few things: 1) the cache finder would understand something is wrong if they found a T3.5 just laying on the ground and notify CO that something is off  2) CO does cache maintenance and puts the cache back in place or 3) readjusts the placement and then edits his/her listing to reflect any D/T differences.

I personally don’t feel a CO owes anything to another cacher’s stats or grid.  You owe only to reasonably accurately reflect what a cacher will encounter when hunting for your cache. Hunt. Find. Log. Have fun. :-)

[+thebruce0]

45 minutes ago, PlantAKiss said:

In that case, I would hope one of a few things: 1) the cache finder would understand something is wrong if they found a T3.5 just laying on the ground and notify CO that something is off  2) CO does cache maintenance and puts the cache back in place or 3) readjusts the placement and then edits his/her listing to reflect any D/T differences.

1 and 2, agreed. But for 3, if the new placement is a different style of hide, to me that justifies a new listing. Not just because of stats people, but to give people who found the previous (now defunct) hide a nudge to come and find this new hide, rather than hiding it in a listing that's flagged to them as already found.

If it's put back in place - maintain and re-enabled (maybe adjust a rating slightly).
If it's put back in a completely different way, especially with significant changes to listing properties, it's basically a new hide, so new listing, imo.

[+Korichnovui]

I downgraded the difficulty to 2

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I'm still learning a lot about this game!

Edited April 10, 2018 by Korichnovui

[+bflentje]

On 4/9/2018 at 1:09 AM, Pontiac_CZ said:

From the two options above pick the first one. The cache attributes including D/T rating should always be up-to-date as they're here for those who have NOT yet found the cache and deserve to be provided with the most accurate information.

THIS, a 1000 times over. Don't listen to the fizzy stat whiners.