Feature Suggestion - User D/T Rating

[+TheMarbler]

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?

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[+TheMarbler]

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!

[+cerberus1]

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...

[+TheMarbler]

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!

 

 

[Blue Square Thing]

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...

[+L0ne.R]

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). 

[+L0ne.R]

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. 

[+Goldenwattle]

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.

[Blue Square Thing]

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?

[+tumbleweed42]

I have always liked the idea of a crowd sourced D/T alongside the CO’s official D/T and suggested this at a User Insight Forum at Going Caching years ago. However, I would not encourage COs to constantly change their official D/T based on the crowd sourced rating as this will affect the stats of previous finders. A one-time change, maybe, but mostly it should be a way for the CO to learn form their misjudgment and for the general caching population to be aware of the possibility of a discrepancy. I cache with my kids and I especially dislike when COs call everything a 1.5/1.5, as this is a potential safety issue for my kids. 

[+thebruce0]

Resurrection thread!

 

Interesting idea... I think I could be in favour of something like a Thumbs up/down for the DT rating. One step further would be a scale rating for accuracy. I don't think having a catalogue of user-provided alternative DTs would be fruitful. But it would be nice to see a kind of average "user accuracy rating".  It would still be heavily regional, but a low rating would indicate there's most likely something off with the DT, and a high rating implies it's pretty consistent towards that region's "norm".

 

Doubt it'll happen though.

[+cerberus1]

I like caching in the cold.  Obviously my access would be rated much higher than one who headed there in June.

A couple "5T" caches done though were simply walking over ice, or across a bog,  rather than spend most of a morning paddling to the hide.

That's explained in my log (after asking the CO if it's okay...) and doesn't change the D/T at a time when most would go there.

 

By the  Help Center,     "Ratings vary from one community to the next. A 3-star terrain in Banff, Canada, is a different experience than a 3-star terrain in Amsterdam, Holland. Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area and guidance in the table below."

 - We've seen this a state over, where many here would find a cache a 3,  but there it's a 2 or 2.5.

We're all so different that a 4T for a cache in another state,  we both thought was an easy walk and said so in the log.

I'd rather someone only put their 2cents in the log...

[+thebruce0]

Yep I wouldn't expect to see any cache with 100% accuracy rating, or even 0%.   It'd be more about the relative approximate accuracy to the region. But again because it's not really a "reliable" piece of information for anything and more a vague guide, it's unlikely it would get much traction for implementation.

 

It'd be as informative as favourite %age

[+cerberus1]

27 minutes ago, tumbleweed42 said:

I cache with my kids and I especially dislike when COs call everything a 1.5/1.5, as this is a potential safety issue for my kids. 

 

if people would simply read a couple logs, "issues" are often stated.  Some will really let the CO know it's "off" too.   

-  Curious how a "crowd-sourced" D/T would help you ?

Common sense that if I'm alone and find it an "easy 1.5" (I rarely do lower than 2 anymore...), it's not going to be the same for you with children.

I've done 4T caches and said in my logs that, "this trail is level and wide enough that families should be fine walking here with kids "...