Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
TheMarbler

Feature Suggestion - User D/T Rating

Recommended Posts

Hello, everyone! I would like to make a feature suggestion for the Geocaching app.

 

It would be nice if there was a feature to allow cachers to submit their own rating of a cache’s published D/T number. Meaning, if I hide a geocache, and I rate it a 3/1, do those who find it agree with its rating. They would not be able to change the published rating, but rather, enter what they felt the ratings should be (voluntarily, of course). The benefit would come over time, and would help cachers and cache owners alike. Cachers would be able to ‘see’ if it’s a hard 3/1, or an easier 3/1, etc. A cache owner would be able to gauge how well he/she rated the cache initially based on the greater population (maybe I’m great at clever hides, and feel that the one I place is fairly easy, when for most, it’s rather difficult – and vice versa).

 

Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have actually suggested this to HQ years ago to do this for the cache page. I had a reply from the person who read my email and they said they particularly liked that suggestion. But years later nothing has been done.

It would be good to counter those COs who mark all D & T as 1.5, no matter how hard the difficulty or terrain is. They are annoying. They have this weird idea that it is some sort of principle.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed! Although I am much, much newer to geocaching than you are, I have still come across my fair share of inaccurate D/T ratings, and would like the opportunity to learn how to rate them better as I begin to place more hides myself.

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TheMarbler said:

It would be nice if there was a feature to allow cachers to submit their own rating of a cache’s published D/T number. Meaning, if I hide a geocache, and I rate it a 3/1, do those who find it agree with its rating. They would not be able to change the published rating, but rather, enter what they felt the ratings should be (voluntarily, of course). The benefit would come over time, and would help cachers and cache owners alike. Cachers would be able to ‘see’ if it’s a hard 3/1, or an easier 3/1, etc. A cache owner would be able to gauge how well he/she rated the cache initially based on the greater population (maybe I’m great at clever hides, and feel that the one I place is fairly easy, when for most, it’s rather difficult – and vice versa).

Thoughts?

 

What's a hard or soft 3/1 ?   It's rated 3 for difficuly and wheelchair accessible.  

Cachers should be able to glean info on whether others agree with a CO's difficuly simply by scanning  Found It logs.

 If terrain's a issue with many, then maybe a NM is in order in addition to the mention in their logs, since it is rated for access in a wheelchair.

I'd prefer people explain what issues they feel they had with the ratings in their log

A CO is able to gauge their ratings on caches simply by reading finder's logs.  Simple...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the feedback! As for the hard vs soft, I've seen some 3's that were incredibly easy, and some that were much harder than some 4's. As for the rating chart on Geocaching.com to help interpret D/T levels, I feel this suggestion would be a good way to further align the chart with the understanding of the masses, as many folks have never seen that chart, and many others don't have it memorized. Also, I think this method, allowing cachers to 'rate' it themselves would benefit CO's in that, so many cachers (guilty as sometimes charged) only leave 'TFTC' in the log, and nothing else of relevance to the time it took, how easy it was to get to the location, etc.

 

That said, I would very much appreciate your feedback regarding one of my hides in particular, where I've questioned whether or not the difficulty matches what I rated it as the CO. The GC Code is: GC7Z1TN. It's in Fenton, Michigan. Not sure where you are located, but if you getting out to this one is unlikely, I'd be happy to share photos with you privately to get your thoughts.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, TheMarbler said:

As for the hard vs soft, I've seen some 3's that were incredibly easy, and some that were much harder than some 4's. As for the rating chart on Geocaching.com to help interpret D/T levels, I feel this suggestion would be a good way to further align the chart with the understanding of the masses, as many folks have never seen that chart, and many others don't have it memorized. Also, I think this method, allowing cachers to 'rate' it themselves would benefit CO's in that, so many cachers (guilty as sometimes charged) only leave 'TFTC' in the log, and nothing else of relevance to the time it took, how easy it was to get to the location, etc.

 

There are a bunch of problems with D and T ratings for sure. In some cases it's the time of year or the way the previous person hid the cache that will make a difference. I have a cache which is much harder to find in summer when the whole area is covered with head high bracken for example. I've noted this on the cache page and rated using an average, but it's not perfect by any means.

 

Sometimes it's experience - those fake rocks stand out a mile sometimes (I found one from the other side of the road recently), but if you've never seen one before they can be hard to find. But there are also caches that are obviously rated wrongly - I found a 4.5 terrain cache hidden behind a fence post last year - 1.5 or maybe 2 T at worst.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to rate D/T though - from memory that was possible on another listing service at some point. I guess it would need to be optional though. The ability to suggest an appropriate size for a cache would be very welcome as well...

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have actually suggested this to HQ years ago to do this for the cache page. I had a reply from the person who read my email and they said they particularly liked that suggestion. But years later nothing has been done.

It would be good to counter those COs who mark all D & T as 1.5, no matter how hard the difficulty or terrain is. They are annoying. They have this weird idea that it is some sort of principle.

 

I had a berating from a CO for questioning the cache's T-rating and suggesting if a ladder is needed it should be at least a 4.  He considers the D/T rating a score and since his cache only required a short ladder (if you are about 5"10"), then the finder doesn't "earn" more then a T2. The cache was 10 feet up a tree, in a deep hole (no branches to climb). 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TheMarbler said:

 

It would be nice if there was a feature to allow cachers to submit their own rating of a cache’s published D/T number. Meaning, if I hide a geocache, and I rate it a 3/1, do those who find it agree with its rating. They would not be able to change the published rating, but rather, enter what they felt the ratings should be (voluntarily, of course). The benefit would come over time, and would help cachers and cache owners alike. Cachers would be able to ‘see’ if it’s a hard 3/1, or an easier 3/1, etc. A cache owner would be able to gauge how well he/she rated the cache initially based on the greater population (maybe I’m great at clever hides, and feel that the one I place is fairly easy, when for most, it’s rather difficult – and vice versa).

 

Thoughts?

 

Yes. I agree. For years people have been suggesting the feature.

I think our only recourse is to note what we think the D/T rating should be in our log. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I had a berating from a CO for questioning the cache's T-rating and suggesting if a ladder is needed it should be at least a 4.  He considers the D/T rating a score and since his cache only required a short ladder (if you are about 5"10"), then the finder doesn't "earn" more then a T2. The cache was 10 feet up a tree, in a deep hole (no branches to climb). 

I have too. One with terrain marked 1.5, I had needed to place a stool on a picnic table and teeter at a dangerous angle with a mirror at my far reach to see the cache. Then again stand on the stool in another place to reach the cache. The CO said it shouldn't be hard to reach it and his (?) rating was fine. Maybe if you are way above average height, but for the rest of us mere mortals (most of the population) it was difficult. Terrain not changed, but this CO is one of those very annoying COs who mark all T & D 1.5 or lower, no matter what the reality.

 

Some COs will take notice though and fix the rating, although from my experience a minority. Recently another increased the rating after I suggested it was too lowly rated, for I quote "the shorties". This cache was up just under the roof line way beyond reach for most people. I suspect this CO is tall, for many of their caches were up high, but most I could reach on tippy toes and stretching, but reading the logs there were many cachers who had difficulty and needed someone else to reach the cache for them. The whole world is not 'tall'.

 

COs should take into account the average height of the population of where they live (this varies naturally around the world), and remember that half the population is female. I get the idea that some male COs appear not to consider that females are half the population when setting their cache that people of 'normal' height should be able to reach. Hello, waving (waving frog icon needed), we cache too and don't want to depend on having a man with us to reach a 1.5 star terrain cache. So many times I read logs like, 'Luckily I had my tall husband with me.' COs, if you read that either lower the cache or up the T rating. It's not 1.5.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Some COs will take notice though and fix the rating, although from my experience a minority. Recently another increased the rating after I suggested it was too lowly rated, for I quote "the shorties". This cache was up just under the roof line way beyond reach for most people. I suspect this CO is tall, for many of their caches were up high, but most I could reach on tippy toes and stretching, but reading the logs there were many cachers who had difficulty and needed someone else to reach the cache for them. The whole world is not 'tall'.

My least favourite hint is "Head high" and its variants.

 

Sure, for you perhaps. But how about me?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×