Setting appropriate difficulty levels

[+SmileyPanda]

I am a relatively new hides, and somewhat inexperienced geocacher - I don't think I have as much experience as my find count indicates as lots of them are P & G. 

 

I have received feedback about the difficulty of my hides with people telling me that my difficulty is underrated.  Previously, I had intentionally been setting it a half-point below what I thought it should be, but through constructive criticism, I stopped doing that. 

 

I know that there is a description of criteria to use in setting 'd' level, and I try to adhere to this where I can, but I want to know if there are other resources I should use in addition to what I see on the website.

 

To restate the question more clearly - how do you decide which 'd' level to use?

[+ecanderson]

To start, D ratings do tend to be a bit regional.  As I have traveled, I've noticed easily a full point difference in how D is viewed from one region to another.  Since most of your finds are in the same area as your hides, you should by now have a good feel for what the locals think is a 1.5 vs. a 2.5, etc.

Many people will point to the Clayjar (http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/) method for evaluating their D/T ratings.  There, you see 1.0 through 5.0 (you have to interpolate the .5's based up those). 

 

But there are SO many factors involved since each of the Clayjar levels is also subjective.  "Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."  What is "very well hidden"?

 

We used to see a CO here who couldn't sort out hide difficulty from overall context.  Yes, if you knew where to look, it was easy, but with loose coordinates in a 'haystack' of a forest ...

The context of the hide MUST be taken into account to provide a fair estimate of the difficulty to find a cache.  That could be part of the issue you're facing.

 

What hints are being provided in the description, or as specific hints?  The time to make the find, especially in a haystack, can be changed GREATLY by either of those.

 

 

[+SmileyPanda]

4 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

To start, D ratings do tend to be a bit regional.  As I have traveled, I've noticed easily a full point difference in how D is viewed from one region to another.  Since most of your finds are in the same area as your hides, you should by now have a good feel for what the locals think is a 1.5 vs. a 2.5, etc.

Many people will point to the Clayjar (http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/) method for evaluating their D/T ratings.  There, you see 1.0 through 5.0 (you have to interpolate the .5's based up those). 

 

But there are SO many factors involved since each of the Clayjar levels is also subjective.  "Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location."  What is "very well hidden"?

 

We used to see a CO here who couldn't sort out hide difficulty from overall context.  Yes, if you knew where to look, it was easy, but with loose coordinates in a 'haystack' of a forest ...

The context of the hide MUST be taken into account to provide a fair estimate of the difficulty to find a cache.  That could be part of the issue you're facing.

 

What hints are being provided in the description, or as specific hints?  The time to make the find, especially in a haystack, can be changed GREATLY by either of those.

 

 

 

You raise some good points - I do know where to look when I hide, and for my 'evil' ones, I am not fond of giving hints. 

 

Maybe that is where I am falling short, I am failing to consider the context of the hide.

 

That must be my blind spot.  I will consider this on future hides.  Thanks for the response.

[+barefootjeff]

I don't have that much experience with high-D hides and that experience has mostly been painstaking and often resulted in at least one DNF from me, but here's a few things that come to mind.

 

Searchers will get to the spot their GPSr is directing them to, but that's never going to be exactly where the cache is hidden, rather it'll be a combination of the setter's and seeker's coordinate accuracies. Even in a location with good GPS reception, you should expect searchers to be looking within at least a five metre circle of where you placed it. So the first question to consider is how many potential hiding places are there within that circle? That in turn will depend on the size of the container as there are a lot more places you can put a nano compared to an ammo can.

 

The second consideration is the degree of camouflage the container has. Is it in plain sight, is it just camouflaged enough to deter muggles while still being fairly obvious to experienced cachers (say a suspicious pile of rocks) or does it blend in completely with its surroundings? Another factor is height, as something at eye level will be much easier to spot than something overhead or underfoot. A couple of days ago I spent ages trying to find a plaque at the first stage of a multi only to eventually realise I was standing on it.

 

Thirdly is whether there are any nearby distractors, places seekers will be sure it must be there when in fact it isn't. Often these are overlooked by the CO since they're focused on the actual hiding place when setting it, so it might be a good idea to take a step back, look around and ponder where a seeker might start searching when they first arrive. I've been caught out on a couple of my hides where there's an "obvious" hiding place close to where I've put it and people thoroughly search that, shake their head when they come up empty-handed and then broaden their search radius without seeing the not-so-obvious hiding place right next to that obvious spot.

 

A final factor in the D-rating, which is only relevant to some caches, is, after having spotted the hide, how easy is it to get to the logbook? Sometimes there are special tricks to releasing a cache from its hiding place or to open the container, and I've seen a few where inside the outer container is a multitude of smaller containers that have to be then searched.

Edited November 28, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+ecanderson]

An excellent description of "context", Jeff.

[Darwin473]

And the environment will affect the rating.

 

If the cache is a small lock-n-lock inside a fake rock on an open field, and there are about a dozen or so rocks within 30' of GZ, then this could be a 1 (the fake rock is a different color and stands out from the others), a 2 (the fake rock is very similar to the real ones and finders just need to turn over rocks until they find the right one) or a 3 (rocks are irrelevant, the biting insects in the area mean nobody will hang around for more than a few minutes). 

 

So it can be very subjective, and one person's 2.5 is another person's 3.5.

[+lee737]

And also - rate the D/T for the 'average' finder, not your 'average' 20,000 find FTF monster..... and if in doubt, go a nudge higher.

I sometimes post in the description that the DT ratings may be changed (a little) in the initial few weeks of finds based on feedback - I wouldn't start changing D4.5's to D2's though - then you'll really get some feedback!

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

And also - rate the D/T for the 'average' finder, not your 'average' 20,000 find FTF monster..... and if in doubt, go a nudge higher.

I sometimes post in the description that the DT ratings may be changed (a little) in the initial few weeks of finds based on feedback - I wouldn't start changing D4.5's to D2's though - then you'll really get some feedback!

Yes, if unsure, it's always better to rate a bit higher.

 

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

wouldn't start changing D4.5's to D2's though

Some D/T2 though could do with being rated D/T4.5 though .

[+arisoft]

15 hours ago, SmileyPanda said:

Previously, I had intentionally been setting it a half-point below what I thought it should be, but through constructive criticism, I stopped doing that.

 

Intentionally underrated difficulty tends to create feedback but overrated won't do that

 

14 hours ago, SmileyPanda said:

I am not fond of giving hints.

 

It can be part of your problem because difficulty is definitely a hint. Underrated difficulty is a misleading hint.

[+Harry Dolphin]

13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Intentionally underrated difficulty tends to create feedback but overrated won't do that

 

Quote

Found it

09/16/2020

FTF! TFTC... I don't think this is a 5 difficulty cache... 1.5 would be generous. Very quick grab.

 

Lots of comments on this one.

[+ecanderson]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

Intentionally underrated difficulty tends to create feedback but overrated won't do that

Some finders look at a cache rated too highly, and call it 'caching karma' (making up for others that were rated low and hard to find).

Others of us will comment either way if we feel the rating is 'off'.  I've written quite a few logs where I said something along the order of "Felt guilty taking the 3.5 for this one".  An example:

[+Goldenwattle]

3 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

Some finders look at a cache rated too highly, and call it 'caching karma' (making up for others that were rated low and hard to find).

Others of us will comment either way if we feel the rating is 'off'.  I've written quite a few logs where I said something along the order of "Felt guilty taking the 3.5 for this one".  An example:

I would rarely comment on a cache rated too high, unless it was an extreme case, but I might comment on an underrated cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, Unit473L said:

And the environment will affect the rating.

 

Though that would usually affect the terrain, not the difficulty rating.  

[+ecanderson]

1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would rarely comment on a cache rated too high, unless it was an extreme case, but I might comment on an underrated cache.

And a new CO learns nothing from that.

[+ecanderson]

1 minute ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Though that would usually affect the terrain, not the difficulty rating.  

I don't think that's what was meant by 'environment'.  I believe it's referring to what I originally called 'context'.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, ecanderson said:

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would rarely comment on a cache rated too high, unless it was an extreme case, but I might comment on an underrated cache.

And a new CO learns nothing from that.

 

But a new CO might interpret that the site D/T ratings are scores, not tools. D/T ratings started off as tools to help finders.

 

But then again, since the site added the Statistics tab (about 10 years ago), the D/T ratings have become a score,  rather than a tool. So maybe you are correct about teaching new COs that D/T ratings are earned. 

[+cerberus1]

23 hours ago, ecanderson said:

To start, D ratings do tend to be a bit regional.  As I have traveled, I've noticed easily a full point difference in how D is viewed from one region to another. 

Since most of your finds are in the same area as your hides, you should by now have a good feel for what the locals think is a 1.5 vs. a 2.5, etc.

Many people will point to the Clayjar (http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/) method for evaluating their D/T ratings. 

There, you see 1.0 through 5.0 (you have to interpolate the .5's based up those). 

 

Agreed.  Just minutes from home, a region a state over rates caches .5 to a full point under the same terrain in our area.   

And even the Help Center says, "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..."

[Darwin473]

5 hours ago, ecanderson said:

I believe it's referring to what I originally called 'context'.

 

Yes, that. Poor wording on my part.

 

48 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Please rate your cache accurately based on standards in your area...

 

Which is one of the reasons the guidelines recommend finding a bunch of caches prior to placing any. Though I suppose this would also be true for an experienced cacher moving to a new area, I hadn't thought about that.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

But a new CO might interpret that the site D/T ratings are scores, not tools. D/T ratings started off as tools to help finders.

 

But then again, since the site added the Statistics tab (about 10 years ago), the D/T ratings have become a score,  rather than a tool. So maybe you are correct about teaching new COs that D/T ratings are earned. 

 

I mostly use the D/T ratings as a tool to help me decide what caches are likely to be appealing to me. A couple of weeks ago I drove some 200km each way to do a 1.5/4.5 on the south coast, not because I wanted to fill that hole in my D/T grid (although that was a bonus, for what it's worth) but because I relished the challenging climb up the pass to the scenic vantage point at the top. It would have been pretty disappointing if that vantage point had turned out to be a short easy walk from the road.

 

But even when I have been using the D/T rating as a score, like when I was working towards fulfilling a challenge cache that required 24 finds with a 2/4 rating, the enjoyment I got was from overcoming those terrain-4 ratings. Most of them lived up to expectations although there was one that turned out just to be a short walk up a 5 metre high hill which did leave me feeling both cheated out of a T4 experience and a little guilty about including it in my 24 qualifying finds. I would have gotten little satisfaction from completing the challenge if all the 2/4s had been like that one.

 

So for me, caches that are rated too high detract just as much from my enjoyment as those that are rated too low.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 11/28/2020 at 2:54 PM, SmileyPanda said:

Previously, I had intentionally been setting it a half-point below what I thought it should be

 

Why were you doing that?