Ratings for terrain

[+Goldenwattle]

As I read the ratings, these now appear to be based purely on terrain, at least short of 5 stars. Taking that literally, as a number of beginners and less experienced cachers are frustrating doing, that can make difficult tree climbs and other places where the cache can't be reached with the feet on the ground, 1.5 stars, if the walk there is short, flat and easy. There needs to be mention of attributes more than only terrain, such as a tree climb, needing something to stand on, etc. Needing a stool to stand on makes terrain higher than 1.5 stars, but does not make it five stars, " Requires specialised equipment such as scuba gear, a boat, rock climbing gear, or similar. " I have come upon several caches marked 1.5 stars and when questioned (one that involved a short tree climb - I would have rated the terrain 2.5 stars, as it wasn't a big tree), the fairly new geocacher quoted the ratings at me and wouldn't budge from their 1.5 stars terrain, as the walk to the tree is flat. Terrain should be more than only the walk, or it's very misleading and can disappoint, when reaching GZ a cacher realises they can't physically make the find. "Elevation changes" is being seen by some as involving the terrain (walk) section, not a tree climb, etc.

[+Touchstone]

4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

There needs to be mention of attributes more than only terrain, such as a tree climb, needing something to stand on, etc.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

7 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

 

Useless. They don't show on many GPSs. But terrain does, and that's all there is to show what the geocacher will face. I dislike turning up to find a 1.5 star terrain (always rated by inexperienced cachers) and the cache is up a tree. Phones don't work in many places. This year I drove over 5,000 kms in one trip, and there was no mobile coverage for most of that.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Goldenwattle

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

As I read the ratings, these now appear to be based purely on terrain, at least short of 5 stars.

 

I get what you're saying, and thought I remembered Terrain was worded to reflect accessing the cache earlier. 

Not sure when it became just the walk to it.

 - But even clayjar says, "How is the most difficult part of the cache? If the cache is within a few feet of a trail, don't worry about the last few feet".

I can see that confusing people.

Along with attributes and written on the cache page, if a person isn't willing to change it, they could at least allow your log (with your found it) stating that you feel it's off.

We see that a lot.   Logs from folks walking only a mile thinking it should be raised to 3.5 or 4.  

[+Goldenwattle]

19 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Logs from folks walking only a mile thinking it should be raised to 3.5 or 4.

I am not talking about that 'mile' distance being rated 1.5 stars terrain, as long as it's a good track and fairly flat, as that is not hard, but the huge tree at the end of the walk, with the cache at the top being rated 1.5 star terrain, just because the walk was easy. Fortunately so far, the only tree climbs I have seen rated 1.5 star terrain have been small climbs, and the big trees have remained 4 star terrain, but that's only because so far, I have not come across a relatively new geocacher placing a cache up a big tree, only small ones. The longer the rating definitions  stay as they are now, sooner or later huge tree climbs or cliff climbs not needing ropes,  will begin to have 1.5 star terrain ratings, as unlike well established cachers who knew the old descriptions, the newer geocachers only know the new description and readily tell you how they know better (not their exact words).

Or as a fairly inexperienced cacher said to me just today, (their comments were the reason on posted on here), that if a person on a wheelchair could get to GZ (being able to reach the cache didn't matter), that's 1 star terrain.

I'm sure the terrain rating had better descriptions in the past. (As the difficulty rating used to have better descriptions.) The new version is causing ratings to be misleading. They are ambiguous.

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I am not talking about that 'mile' distance being rated 1.5 stars terrain, as long as it's a good track and fairly flat, as that is not hard, but the huge tree at the end of the walk, with the cache at the top being rated 1.5 star terrain, just because the walk was easy. Fortunately so far, the only tree climbs I have seen rated 1.5 star terrain have been small climbs, and the big trees have remained 4 star terrain, but that's only because so far, I have not come across a relatively new geocacher placing a cache up a big tree, only small ones. The longer the rating definitions  stay as they are now, sooner or later huge tree climbs or cliff climbs not needing ropes,  will begin to have 1.5 star terrain ratings, as unlike well established cachers who knew the old descriptions, the newer geocachers only know the new description and readily tell you how they know better (not their exact words).

Or as a fairly inexperienced cacher said to me just today, (their comments were the reason on posted on here), that if a person on a wheelchair could get to GZ (being able to reach the cache didn't matter), that's 1 star terrain.

I'm sure the terrain rating had better descriptions in the past. (As the difficulty rating used to have better descriptions.) The new version is causing ratings to be misleading. They are ambiguous.

 

I agree, it really should say physical effort needed to arrive at the cache, not just the coordinates. There's a T4 near here that's at the end of a fairly level 4km fire trail - the CO even suggests riding a bike out there - so maybe a 2.5 just for distance. It gets its T4 rating from the very last metre, where you have to climb down onto a narrow ledge above a 3 metre high cliff. I DNFed it on my first attempt, then came back a year or two later with a telescopic ladder and got to it from below.

[+Touchstone]

55 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I agree, it really should say physical effort needed to arrive at the cache, not just the coordinates.

This is one aspect of the Terrain Rating that I've given some thought to recently, which has always seemed a somewhat blunt instrument to reflect the true effort involved.  We have one park near me that covers a prominent ridge line, with upwards of 100 cache of various Terrain levels.   The ones at the start of the hikes, tend to be predictably  1-2 Star Terrain, while the ones at the top of the ridge that might require 3 miles of hiking and 1,500 feet of elevation gain, are in the 3 Star Terrain category, with a smattering of 4 Star Terrain, for no particular reason.  The other aspect that I considered kind of odd, is that once I gain the ridgecrest, it's a relatively insignificant effort to go between all these 3 Star Terrain caches along the top of the ridge, while picking up some of the 1-2 Star Terrain caches at the end of my hike when I'm exhausted and dehydrated, might end up taking more effort than the ones at the top of the ridge.  My thought was that one way to equal out this process is to include heart rate monitor data, so that the Terrain reflects the true effort, rather than some fictional metric that really doesn't have much bearing on reality. 

[+pingurus]

2 hours ago, Touchstone said:

This is one aspect of the Terrain Rating that I've given some thought to recently, which has always seemed a somewhat blunt instrument to reflect the true effort involved.  We have one park near me that covers a prominent ridge line, with upwards of 100 cache of various Terrain levels.   The ones at the start of the hikes, tend to be predictably  1-2 Star Terrain, while the ones at the top of the ridge that might require 3 miles of hiking and 1,500 feet of elevation gain, are in the 3 Star Terrain category, with a smattering of 4 Star Terrain, for no particular reason.  The other aspect that I considered kind of odd, is that once I gain the ridgecrest, it's a relatively insignificant effort to go between all these 3 Star Terrain caches along the top of the ridge, while picking up some of the 1-2 Star Terrain caches at the end of my hike when I'm exhausted and dehydrated, might end up taking more effort than the ones at the top of the ridge.  My thought was that one way to equal out this process is to include heart rate monitor data, so that the Terrain reflects the true effort, rather than some fictional metric that really doesn't have much bearing on reality. 

 

I think including heartrate data is a bit of an overkill. Also, if I do 10 100m sprints and then look for a park and grab, from the heartrate it would be T4.5, but that has nothing to do with how hard it was to get to the Cache.

I think the current system works pretty well. (I only had Geocaches yet, on which I would have put a lower T rating) However, if it isn't in the description anymore, I think it should be put back, that terrain rating includes how you reach the Cache once at the coordinates.

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, Touchstone said:

My thought was that one way to equal out this process is to include heart rate monitor data, so that the Terrain reflects the true effort, rather than some fictional metric that really doesn't have much bearing on reality. 

Hmm... I would think that the heart rate would depend a lot on how quickly you hiked the trail. If I hike a couple miles (with a few hundred feet of elevation gain) in half an hour, my heart rate is going to be very different from what it would be if I made the same hike in two hours.

[+redsox_mark]

I agree the definitions are confusing:

 

Difficulty:   Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ.    

Terrain:  Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates.

 

In the case of a tree climb, where the tree is easy to walk to (say 1.5 to walk to the tree), but the tree is 50 feet up.   I think most people rate the tree climb as part of the Terrain, but you can read these definitions to say the effort needed to "arrive at coordinates" is T1.5.   But once you get to the coordinates, some difficult effort is needed to access the cache and logbook (which is part of the "find").    So you can read this as the tree climb should be reflected in Difficulty, not Terrain.  

 

 

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Along with attributes and written on the cache page, if a person isn't willing to change it, they could at least allow your log (with your found it) stating that you feel it's off.

We see that a lot.   Logs from folks walking only a mile thinking it should be raised to 3.5 or 4.  

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I am not talking about that 'mile' distance being rated 1.5 stars terrain, as long as it's a good track and fairly flat, as that is not hard, but the huge tree at the end of the walk, with the cache at the top being rated 1.5 star terrain, just because the walk was easy.

 

Thought it was clear, I'm merely saying that we've seen people leaving remarks on what they feel ratings should be on cache pages.

 - So I'd think you could too if the CO is unwilling to change it.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Thought it was clear, I'm merely saying that we've seen people leaving remarks on what they feel ratings should be on cache pages.

 - So I'd think you could too if the CO is unwilling to change it.

 

I wish finders, with a minimum of finds to eliminate beginners who don't yet have the experience, could rate difficulty and terrain and the scores be averaged out and displayed.

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Hmm... I would think that the heart rate would depend a lot on how quickly you hiked the trail. If I hike a couple miles (with a few hundred feet of elevation gain) in half an hour, my heart rate is going to be very different from what it would be if I made the same hike in two hours.

There's a couple of different tools available to somewhat normalize that data that takes into account age and fitness level. Garmin has a score based on maximum heart rate adjusted for age and Strava has a similar metric based on how long you sustain the effort (at one time called the Suffer Score, but I see they've renamed it recently). 

 

I like the fact that such a metric objectively quantifies MY effort and not some arbitrary metric based on the CO's impression/guess. 

[+Touchstone]

4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I wish finders, with a minimum of finds to eliminate beginners who don't yet have the experience, could rate difficulty and terrain and the scores be averaged out and displayed.

The problem with such a system is still the inherent subjective nature of the metric. High Terrain caches are generally going to attract more fit individuals, plus there's the obvious gaming of the system merely to fill a grid point if a number of Finders get together and vote the same. 

[+cerberus1]

41 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

So you can read this as the tree climb should be reflected in Difficulty, not Terrain.  

 

This is how I see it (now) as well.

In a tree climb for example, folks around a while always knew the Terrain rating had accessing the cache (at GZ) included.

It now seems to be Difficulty.  In a tree climb, most thought Difficulty was something as simple as can you see it. 

My cache 35' up a tree needing rope (or a ladder) to access is 1.5/5 because the easy trail leads directly underneath it.

It's only a 1.5 in "Difficulty", and may even be incorrect now. 

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

The problem with such a system is still the inherent subjective nature of the metric. High Terrain caches are generally going to attract more fit individuals, plus there's the obvious gaming of the system merely to fill a grid point if a number of Finders get together and vote the same. 

I believe it would still be more accurate than many scores given by COs, esp. those who always rate caches at 1.5. Plus I didn't advocate removing the COs rating, only giving the finders' average score as an extra, so no-one could 'game' this more than now.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

I think most people rate the tree climb as part of the Terrain, but you can read these definitions to say the effort needed to "arrive at coordinates" is T1.5.

It's been a while since I've found an elevated cache, but the ones I've seen in the past have generally increased the Terrain rating when seekers were expected to climb to the cache location, and have generally increased the Difficulty rating when seekers were expected to use some sort of tool to retrieve the cache without climbing. That makes sense to me.

 

I also remember the definitions of the higher Terrain ratings including descriptions of elevation changes that required using one's hands to climb, which includes rock climbing as well as tree climbing. But at some point, those phrases were removed.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 minutes ago, niraD said:

But at some point, those phrases were removed.

That's why this is a problem now. The definitions are now inferior, and confusing people; mostly beginners. We need the old, clearer ones back.

[+Touchstone]

23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I believe it would still be more accurate than many scores given by COs, esp. those who always rate caches at 1.5. Plus I didn't advocate removing the COs rating, only giving the finders' average score as an extra, so no-one could 'game' this more than now.

I doubt you'd gain much in terms of accuracy with any system involving subjective human input. I think we can both agree that the current system is outdated and has been in need of a wholesale overhaul. While your approach nibbles around the edges a bit, I'm pretty confident we'd all be back here in a few months to a year complaining about any feature that incorporates the current rating system, whether it's CO controlled or based on some voting mechanism. 

 

I would prefer to wait a bit if there were some other rating system based on objective data. In my pie in the sky thinking, such a system would be able to look at my Find history and take into account my fitness level (linking to Garmin/Strava to pull such data) make recommendations for similar caches, build a PQ from those recommendations, and even suggest nearby hikes/trails to explore. Imagine such a system when you're traveling. No more useless searches through countless number of Listings based on Favorite Points or whatnot. Just a relevant number of Listings based on your preferences and your ability. 

[+hzoi]

While I agree that the definitions may not have been changed for the better, at the end of the day, this seems to be more of an issue of educating new cache owners  than a need to redefine things yet again.

 

I have never been afraid to point out to someone that I disagree with their cache ratings, but I have certainly changed my approach.  I used to point it out in my cache log, until at least one cacher got their feelings hurt because they felt criticized.  OK, fine.  Now if I remember, I put it in a message to protect the faint at heart. 

 

Either way, once I've brought it to the CO's attention, I move on, because I've found the cache and done what I can to help out the owner and future finders.  If they feel like ignoring me, such is life, and perhaps their other hides I've yet to hunt go on my ignore list so I don't have to repeat the experience.

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, Touchstone said:

I doubt you'd gain much in terms of accuracy with any system involving subjective human input. I think we can both agree that the current system is outdated and has been in need of a wholesale overhaul. While your approach nibbles around the edges a bit, I'm pretty confident we'd all be back here in a few months to a year complaining about any feature that incorporates the current rating system, whether it's CO controlled or based on some voting mechanism. 

 

I would prefer to wait a bit if there were some other rating system based on objective data. In my pie in the sky thinking, such a system would be able to look at my Find history and take into account my fitness level (linking to Garmin/Strava to pull such data) make recommendations for similar caches, build a PQ from those recommendations, and even suggest nearby hikes/trails to explore. Imagine such a system when you're traveling. No more useless searches through countless number of Listings based on Favorite Points or whatnot. Just a relevant number of Listings based on your preferences and your ability. 

Being able to rate the cache's terrain and difficulty would be more accurate than those people's caches (and there are more than there should be, esp. in some areas, as it appears contagious), which are all rated 1.5. The COs annoy me for doing this, and I would love to be able to show what the rating really is.

When travelling I tend not to pick and choose my caches based on favourites (no searching through lists, which I don't know about anyway) and the like. Besides, in many areas there could be so few caches, that I will find whatever the cache is like. I am travelling soon, for instance, to three countries, and in the areas of those I will visit, in one country there  is only one cache, another three, and the other only a few more than that, so no luxury of picking and choosing if I want to find caches. I took a 5,000km road trip a few months ago and although in some towns there were plenty of caches (at least more than I could find in one short visit), in other areas there might have been only one cache every hundred kms. I tend to pick the caches closest to my accommodation, ones convenient to park at, and ones that happen to be on a walking trail. Rarely chosen for themselves, but rather for being where I happen to be. As for terrain, I study a map before undertaking any walks. I can usually judge by looking at a map what caches will remain unfound, because the terrain is beyond me. Locally where I live, I just try to find them all; all thousands

Edited September 12, 2018 by Goldenwattle

[+DerDiedler]

I handle it the way alpine climbs or hikes are rated: After the most dificult single section to get to the top (cache).

So if you walk 5 Kilometers on a flat paved road and then GZ you have to climb only one move up from the ground, requireing your hands to pull your self up a branch or so, this ist the since hardest single "section" of the terrain. So, in that case T4 would apply according to Ratings for difficulty and terrain (D/T) since a Very strenuous movement is involved.

Edited September 13, 2018 by DerDiedler

[+redsox_mark]

15 hours ago, hzoi said:

While I agree that the definitions may not have been changed for the better, at the end of the day, this seems to be more of an issue of educating new cache owners  than a need to redefine things yet again.

 

I have never been afraid to point out to someone that I disagree with their cache ratings, but I have certainly changed my approach.  I used to point it out in my cache log, until at least one cacher got their feelings hurt because they felt criticized.  OK, fine.  Now if I remember, I put it in a message to protect the faint at heart. 

 

Either way, once I've brought it to the CO's attention, I move on, because I've found the cache and done what I can to help out the owner and future finders.  If they feel like ignoring me, such is life, and perhaps their other hides I've yet to hunt go on my ignore list so I don't have to repeat the experience.

 

I do that, but it is harder if the guidelines are unclear.  

 

I've had one case where I was surprised by a tree climb with a low terrain rating.    I messaged the CO with my opinion; the CO just replied that I was wrong, read the guidelines.

[+DerDiedler]

2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

....if the guidelines are unclear

if my memorry works well, they where more specific about climbing ivolved some time ago.

Don´t know hwy they changed it. But back then it was christal clear. Climbing required = at least T4.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

 

I do that, but it is harder if the guidelines are unclear.  

 

I've had one case where I was surprised by a tree climb with a low terrain rating.    I messaged the CO with my opinion; the CO just replied that I was wrong, read the guidelines.

I've had that, and that is the problem. Inexperienced cachers who know it all and quote the changed, inferior, rating definitions. So frustrating.

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

if my memorry works well, they where more specific about climbing ivolved some time ago.

They were more specific, referring to changes of elevation that required two hands, and things like that.

[+DerDiedler]

On 13.9.2018 at 5:39 PM, niraD said:

They were more specific, referring to changes of elevation that required two hands, and things like that.

Yes, I want it back!

The new raiting is so wobbely.

Climbing a few meters into a tree is not a " Very strenuous movement" (new rating for T4) for me. But it might be for others.

But for sure it requres "both hands" (old rating), for me and for others. (old rating for T4)

[+frostengel]

The clayjar system has been in action for some years now but it is in many cases absolutely unsufficient to find the correct rating; probably it was better in the old days when almost every cache was traditional. E. g. any multi cache should be listed at least D3 in this system what is nonsense. For a difficulty 4 cache "overnight stay" is likely which is a little bit too extreme, too, isn't it?

 

The problem is that you can't fetch any possibility of terrain (walking, climbing, swimming, wading, little hills, stones, bushes, ...) and that difficulty is very subjective. So perhaps I would prefer if Groundspeak just

1) told (new?!) cache owners that difficulty means both, solving riddles and stages (if there are) and searching for the container and reaching the logbook (e. g. when there is a trick box). (I often see simple mysteries listed D1 but finding the nano cache is at least D2.)

2) told them that terrain rating means both, reaching ground zero and reaching the cache box which might be the same but isn't considering tree climbing and else. They should give some examples and claim that those are only examples.

3) encouraged owners to ask for the opinion of the community about the rating if they are unsure. GS should ask them to be open for suggestions and ask the finders at the same time to give those suggestions. (If you have a terrain 1.5 in a tree some will notice it. Others will just say "TFTC" which might give the sign to the owner that everything is fine.)

4) would force anyone to chose an own rating and not put 1.5/1.5 as standard. (It is just easy to leave it.)

 

You do not need any more rules (okay... see PS) or inconsistent rating systems. Everything should be clear and you make the rating by your own feeling and if it is totally off - just change it after the first few finders have told you so. It could be so easy... :-)

 

Jochen

 

PS: And by the way: Owners should be more precise using terrain 1 for caches as this is often used for caches that are not accessible by wheelchair. How can a cache 15 metres deep in the woods be terrain 1?! That's a quite simple rule and I think this one is an important one as there might be enough handicapped cachers outside...

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 9/12/2018 at 11:31 AM, hzoi said:

I have never been afraid to point out to someone that I disagree with their cache ratings, but I have certainly changed my approach.  I used to point it out in my cache log, until at least one cacher got their feelings hurt because they felt criticized.  OK, fine.  Now if I remember, I put it in a message to protect the faint at heart.

 

But if the CO ignores your concerns the explanation of inaccurate D/T should be there to alert other cachers. 

 

If CO gets feedback in the logs that D/T is too low then CO can change it and include a log that they revised it based on feedback from Finders. It's transparent and shows the CO is responsive.

 

I hate it when COs try to pretend their caches are flawless gems as they go around deleting NM logs and being offended at any log that isn't glowing with praise. I admire perfection as much as anyone, but fake perfection is uglier than real flaws.

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

On 9/12/2018 at 5:31 PM, hzoi said:

I have never been afraid to point out to someone that I disagree with their cache ratings, but I have certainly changed my approach.  I used to point it out in my cache log, until at least one cacher got their feelings hurt because they felt criticized.  OK, fine.  Now if I remember, I put it in a message to protect the faint at heart.

 

But if the CO ignores your concerns the explanation of inaccurate D/T should be there to alert other cachers. 

 

True.

 

For the next couple of years, I'll be caching primarily in Germany, where the logs can be pretty blunt.  That'll be my excuse when I come back to the states - oh, sorry, this wouldn't have hurt your feelings if this was Germany.  

[+baer2006]

12 minutes ago, hzoi said:

For the next couple of years, I'll be caching primarily in Germany, where the logs can be pretty blunt.  That'll be my excuse when I come back to the states - oh, sorry, this wouldn't have hurt your feelings if this was Germany.  

Really? I'm caching in Germany, and I'm an advocate of honest logs. This includes criticism if I think there is something wrong with the cache which other cachers should know - like a D/T rating, which is way off the mark. That said, my style of logging has earned me quite some flak as response from owners, whose feelings I had apparently hurt seriously . So I'm a bit surprised to hear that you got the impression that the feelings of German COs are harder to hurt. Should I ever go caching in the USA, I'll have to be much more careful in my logs ...

[+hzoi]

6 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

28 minutes ago, hzoi said:

For the next couple of years, I'll be caching primarily in Germany, where the logs can be pretty blunt.  That'll be my excuse when I come back to the states - oh, sorry, this wouldn't have hurt your feelings if this was Germany.  

Really? I'm caching in Germany, and I'm an advocate of honest logs. This includes criticism if I think there is something wrong with the cache which other cachers should know - like a D/T rating, which is way off the mark. That said, my style of logging has earned me quite some flak as response from owners, whose feelings I had apparently hurt seriously . So I'm a bit surprised to hear that you got the impression that the feelings of German COs are harder to hurt. Should I ever go caching in the USA, I'll have to be much more careful in my logs ...

 

Curses!  You mean Germans have developed feelings in the last nine years?  I knew I never should have left.  

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by hzoi

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, hzoi said:

For the next couple of years, I'll be caching primarily in Germany, where the logs can be pretty blunt.  That'll be my excuse when I come back to the states - oh, sorry, this wouldn't have hurt your feelings if this was Germany.

Well, just to be clear: in my area of the US, people comment on ratings when they think they're out of whack and no one takes offense. And I haven't noticed much difference in other areas. I don't think we should conclude that this is a huge problem everywhere in the US based on one post saying one CO was offended.

 

Of course, perhaps this is because if I ran into a CO objecting to me commenting on a rating, my reaction wouldn't be "oh, no, I'll never comment on a rating again." My reaction would be to discuss it with him and then leave him to make his own decision.

[+DerDiedler]

I even log NM some times when the raiting is totally absurd or the cache can not be solved in the expacted way, due to underrating.

But usually the CO´s are completely resistant to advise 

[+frostengel]

19 hours ago, baer2006 said:

So I'm a bit surprised to hear that you got the impression that the feelings of German COs are harder to hurt.

 

Fully agree. Not few cache owners are the opposite here - quite easy to offend by an honest log. But I do not think it is too different in other places in the world... Aren't we all weak egomaniacs!?

 

By the way: we usually talk about too LOW ratings. Did anyone of you ever complain about a rating that was too high?

Finding the terrain 3 cache high in the tree or the terrain 4 cache which needs a ladder makes me usually complain about the rating. But what about the terrain 5 cache that can easily be climbed to so that terrain 4 would suit better? Or the difficulty 4 mystery cache that anyone solves in 3 minutes. Do you complain that the rating is too high?

 

Perhaps I do not do this as often as other way round but I think it is important to do so, too. If you do in both directions it shows that you want the rating to suit the cache. If you only complain about low ratings it might show that you want to have a big statistics. Both may be true (for all of us)...

 

Recently I solved a D3 mystery in one minute. Now the cache is rated 2.5 after my log - any maybe D2 may be even better as the riddle was really easy. The owner listened to me and no one else complained about the decreased rating as it was just too high... May be something different if the D5 cache would become a D3?! ;-)

[+JL_HSTRE]

Better to overrate a cache than underrate it. Going for a cache that you're overprepared for might be a little disappointing, but going for a cache that you're underprepared for can be very frustrating and sometimes even a little dangerous.

 

Seriously underrated caches also seem much more common than seriously overrated.

[+MNTA]

When your GPS is bouncing around all over the place the terrain rating can help you determine is it reachable from the path, just off the path, or down the ravine. I use it all the time to correct my search area when I get a little lost so to speak. 

[+frostengel]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Better to overrate a cache than underrate it.

 

When the cache is near a cliff and it is listed terrain 4 although you might reach it via terrain of difficulty 2 that might get dangerous. See MNTA's post.

So it is not always better to do so.

 

Again: I complain about low ratings more often but it is possible to do it wrong in both sides. And probably most of us (me, too ;-)) also worry about our statistics, don't we?!

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, frostengel said:

By the way: we usually talk about too LOW ratings. Did anyone of you ever complain about a rating that was too high?

Finding the terrain 3 cache high in the tree or the terrain 4 cache which needs a ladder makes me usually complain about the rating. But what about the terrain 5 cache that can easily be climbed to so that terrain 4 would suit better? Or the difficulty 4 mystery cache that anyone solves in 3 minutes. Do you complain that the rating is too high?

Well, first of all, I never complain about ratings, I only provide input. Could people complaining be why COs are so often upset?

 

But, anyway, I've suggested lower ratings from time to time, but not as often. If I think a cache is easier than rated, I'm more likely to attribute that to me lucking out or having an uncommon insight instead of thinking the rating is wrong.

[+JL_HSTRE]

17 hours ago, dprovan said:

Well, first of all, I never complain about ratings, I only provide input. Could people complaining be why COs are so often upset?

 

While some loggers could improve their delivery, in my experience a not insignificant minority of COs are hostile toward anything except positive comments about their cache. They don't consider any criticism of their cache constructive.

Edited October 3, 2018 by JL_HSTRE

[+IceColdUK]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

While some loggers could improve their delivery, in my experience a not insignificant minority of COs are hostile toward anything except positive comments about their cache. They don't consider any criticism of their cache constructive.

 

It’s a bit like telling someone they’ve got an ugly baby! ;-)

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

 

It’s a bit like telling someone they’ve got an ugly baby! ;-)

 

Parents know their kid ain't cute they just don't talk about it. 

 

 

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

While some loggers could improve their delivery, in my experience a not insignificant minority of COs are hostile toward anything except positive comments about their cache. They don't consider any criticism of their cache constructive.

Must be variations in geocaching culture. I'm sure some COs in my area get their feathers ruffled, but I haven't notice it, and everyone seems to feel free to make comments. I wonder how many CO's I've angered without knowing it when I'm away from home and say something like, "I would have rated this a point higher in difficulty because..." or "Back home, this would be called a micro, not a small."

 

1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

It’s a bit like telling someone they’ve got an ugly baby! ;-)

"Ugly" is not input, it's judgement. Do you really think that's the kind of "constructive" criticism we're talking about?

[+IceColdUK]

4 hours ago, dprovan said:

6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

It’s a bit like telling someone they’ve got an ugly baby! ;-)

"Ugly" is not input, it's judgement. Do you really think that's the kind of "constructive" criticism we're talking about?

 

Maybe I should have added some <joke> tags (or <bad joke> tags) as well as the smiley face?

[+dprovan]

25 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Maybe I should have added some <joke> tags (or <bad joke> tags) as well as the smiley face?

Well, I thought about pointing out that you were, of course, joking, but I decided it wasn't really relevant. I think it's too easy for someone that likes to criticize -- not you, of course -- to think "your baby's ugly" is valid input, and, consequently, not understand how to point out that a cache's coordinates are off in a way that doesn't also suggest that the CO's an idiot.

 

I often want to ask contributors that posts outrage at a CO's negative response to tell us what their input was just so we can judge for ourselves. Once in a while, someone comes here to complain about a CO's reaction and starts by posting their "perfectly reasonable" input, and it's often immediately clear why the CO was offended.

[+Harry Dolphin]

There's a bizarre series of caches on an abandoned railway.  It looks as though the D/T ratings were derived using darts.  4/3, 4/4, 2.5/1.5, 1.5/5, 5/2.5, 1/4.5, 4/3.5, 1.4/4.5, 4.5/4.5, 4.5/4.  Maybe I should go for a few of them for the D/T Challenge.

[+MNTA]

On 9/12/2018 at 7:35 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I wish finders, with a minimum of finds to eliminate beginners who don't yet have the experience, could rate difficulty and terrain and the scores be averaged out and displayed.

 

I'll second this.

 

I found a D/T 5/1 today. It was a new cache placed by an inexperienced cacher with 7 finds and 2 hides now. Of those 7 the highest was a 3/2. I found this cache within 30 seconds and other finders have noted the ratings were off. So from their perspective they thought this was a tough hide which it was not.

 

As it turned out I also found a 1.5/5 cache today. Does not happen very often two 5s in one day. Going to assume the justification for the 5 was because they assumed a ladder was needed. I lucked out recent tree trimming across the street left a lot of very sturdy long branches. Was able to remove it and place it back with ease. So the subjective nature is always going to be a factor and because I got lucky and solved the problem an easier way does that diminish anything? Nope the very experienced cacher expected a harder retrieval.

 

In both cases I got a smiley thats all the reward I get plus a very nice country drive on a sunny fall day. Oh and pizza at my favorite lunch spot along the way.

[+colleda]

29 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

I'll second this.

 

I found a D/T 5/1 today. It was a new cache placed by an inexperienced cacher with 7 finds and 2 hides now. Of those 7 the highest was a 3/2. I found this cache within 30 seconds and other finders have noted the ratings were off. So from their perspective they thought this was a tough hide which it was not.

 

As it turned out I also found a 1.5/5 cache today. Does not happen very often two 5s in one day. Going to assume the justification for the 5 was because they assumed a ladder was needed. I lucked out recent tree trimming across the street left a lot of very sturdy long branches. Was able to remove it and place it back with ease. So the subjective nature is always going to be a factor and because I got lucky and solved the problem an easier way does that diminish anything? Nope the very experienced cacher expected a harder retrieval.

 

In both cases I got a smiley thats all the reward I get plus a very nice country drive on a sunny fall day. Oh and pizza at my favorite lunch spot along the way.

Which raises the question, did you, or any of the other finders, post an NM for the D5/1? I would have if it was so easy otherwise, how would the newbie CO learn from it?

[+dprovan]

40 minutes ago, MNTA said:

On 9/12/2018 at 7:35 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I wish finders, with a minimum of finds to eliminate beginners who don't yet have the experience, could rate difficulty and terrain and the scores be averaged out and displayed.

 

I'll second this.

 

I found a D/T 5/1 today. It was a new cache placed by an inexperienced cacher with 7 finds and 2 hides now. Of those 7 the highest was a 3/2. I found this cache within 30 seconds and other finders have noted the ratings were off. So from their perspective they thought this was a tough hide which it was not.

I don't get it. You present an example that simply calls for a single cacher of moderate knowledge to explain to the inexperienced CO why the difficulty of this cache should be lower. To avoid this terrible burden on you, the seeker, you're supporting a solution that requires a *bunch* of seekers to give opinions based on who knows what conflicting criteria, and the cache gets the average? Just tell him he made a mistake for heaven's sake.

[+JL_HSTRE]

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

I wonder how many CO's I've angered without knowing it when I'm away from home and say something like, "I would have rated this a point higher in difficulty because..." or "Back home, this would be called a micro, not a small."

 

D/T may vary a little by region, but cache size should not. A film can should be a micro in 100% of the world.