Jump to content

Changing D/T rating of your Geocache after publication and finders logging it...


Mordenpool

Recommended Posts

I am placing my first D5/T3.5 cache. It started as an attempt to help an older cacher who completed their Fizzy Grid, did not record or save the finds, and then noticed that 5/3.5 went "Open" after he knew he has logged one.

My initial thought is DONT CHANGE THE D/T RATING! AFTER YOUR CACHE IS FOUND.

Your thoughts as to why you would change this?

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 4
Link to comment

On the small scale, DTs should adjust to remain accurate the cache hide. On the larger scale - a threshold that is very subjective - the changes that could adjust the DT could make it effectively a "new" experience, and the recommendation is to archive and republish.  To the extreme example, a 1/5 large on a small island becomes wheelchair accessible because a walking bridge has been built, so it also opened the floodgates to muggles. CO decides it should now be a tough micro in the same location, a 5/1 micro. That should be a new cache, not a change to the existing one.  But to the other end, a 2/2.5 small up a dirt hill gets a little tougher because the ground keeps sliding and eventually people need to climb much harder or take a longer route around; the CO may decide it's worthy of a 3 terrain now. But everything else is still accurate. *shrug*  The whole idea of updating listing details is a very subjective one, and I've seen SO many geocaches that are clearly not what they are imply.

HQ has recommended as well that after a certain amount of time, it's better not to update details (rather re-list) so as to avoid arguments such as the issue of statistical changes and appeals they may need to arbitrate :P

 

If you think about it, from the historical standpoint, if you find a cache, the stats show what you found as it was when you found it. But if the listing changes to be current to new finders, your stats no longer show what you found.

 

So, somewhere between keeping current and historical record lies the answer ;) All depends how much ire you want to raise, heh

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

HQ has recommended as well that after a certain amount of time, it's better not to update details (rather re-list) so as to avoid arguments such as the issue of statistical changes and appeals they may need to arbitrate :P

In the Help Center article Edit a cache page after publication, I don't see any references to "after a certain amount of time" or anything like that. The only distinction seems to be between "small edits that will improve the experience" and edits that will "change the experience of your geocache fundamentally". And that is very subjective, and depends entirely on what the CO thinks the experience of the geocache should be.

 

If the point of the geocache is the clever container, then replacing the container is a fundamental change, but the new trailhead that turns a 2-hour hike into a 10-minute stroll is not.

 

If the point of the geocache is the 2-hour hike, then the new trailhead that turns that hike into a 10-minute stroll is a fundamental change, but replacing the container is not.

 

If the point of the geocache is the historic location, or solving the puzzle, or the scenic view, then neither replacing the container nor the new trailhead is a fundamental change.

 

And that decision is up to the CO, not up to the statistics hounds.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, niraD said:

In the Help Center article

 

I did say "has recommended", not "the guidelines state" -- I have seen such recommendations, and note: this is not to keep the listing inaccurate, but to avoid conflict and just list it as new. They recognize the value in older caches that have been around say 10 years, and changing its details can raise a big ruckus. I said it was about the threshold, the point at which the recommendations change, not that there's any fundamental change in what "should" be. Listings should be accurate. At the same time, if it changes by some arbitrary amount, relist it as new. Where's the line? Up to the CO.  And as you said, which I also thought was clear in what I said, "that decision is up to the CO, not up to the statistics hounds." 
(also why is there no thumbs up Signal? :ninja:)

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

HQ has recommended as well that after a certain amount of time, it's better not to update details (rather re-list) so as to avoid arguments such as the issue of statistical changes and appeals they may need to arbitrate :P

I take the liberty to ignore this recommendation of HQ, and change the ratings of my caches as I see fit.

I have caches out in the woods since 8+ years, and the terrain can change significantly - from easy going (T1,5) to an overgrown jungle (T2,5) or vice versa. Or a difficult free-climbing tree (T4.5) becomes unsafe, and I relocate the cache to a different tree which may be much easier to climb (T4) or may now require special equipment (T5). If some stats-oriented cacher complains, so what? I have to endure the shenanigans of the stats crowd (e.g. incorrect D/T ratings just to fill grids), so they can just as well endure mine :P.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, baer2006 said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

HQ has recommended as well that after a certain amount of time, it's better not to update details (rather re-list) so as to avoid arguments such as the issue of statistical changes and appeals they may need to arbitrate :P

I take the liberty to ignore this recommendation of HQ, and change the ratings of my caches as I see fit.

Just need to make sure the context is there for the quote snippet -- not to intentionally leave blatantly inaccurate listing details for the sake of others' stats, but to make the judgment call as to whether the change is insignificant enough to just leave as is, or to change the listing for sufficient accuracy, or to relist it as a new one.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Mordenpool said:

I am placing my first D5/T3.5 cache. It started as an attempt to help an older cacher who completed their Fizzy Grid, did not record or save the finds, and then noticed that 5/3.5 went "Open" after he knew he has logged one.

My initial thought is DONT CHANGE THE D/T RATING! AFTER YOUR CACHE IS FOUND.

Your thoughts as to why you would change this?

 

If you intended a D5/T3.5, make it so permanently...    

We used to see many caches "rigged" to satisfy odd D/T grids for others, and it was obvious why they were there.

We've seen a number of caches (and had one ourselves) that, over time, the surrounding area changed enough to change terrain.

One, tough terrain off old logging roads, became a park with those muddy logging roads now blacktop.

Link to comment

I suggest you find a D5 before hiding one. 

 

The 2 D5 finds you have are clearly mis-rated.

The earthcache is just silly in its ratings, and the old trad, the original CO seems to have over-rated the terrain, and then grossly over rated the difficulty.  Boy, a long history of throwdown finds on that one. Me, i fail to find a D5, I log a DNF.

 

Don't conflate hard to get to with hard to find. Thanks

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Mordenpool said:

I am placing my first D5/T3.5 cache. It started as an attempt to help an older cacher who completed their Fizzy Grid, did not record or save the finds, and then noticed that 5/3.5 went "Open" after he knew he has logged one.

My initial thought is DONT CHANGE THE D/T RATING! AFTER YOUR CACHE IS FOUND.

Your thoughts as to why you would change this?

You would change the D/T rating on a cache because the current rating isn't correct. Other responses have given examples, but the bottom line is that if it isn't correct for whatever reason, it makes sense to correct it.

 

One question COs should ask themselves is whether the D/T has changed because that the cache is not the same cache as when it was originally posted. For example, a cache with a high terrain rating because the only way to get there is a long hike isn't really the same cache if a new road and a parking lot mean seekers can now park next to the cache. That isn't really the same cache even if the container and hide haven't changed, so I'd be very tempted to archive the old listing and publish a new one with the lower terrain rating. Similarly, a high difficulty cache isn't really the same cache after the original sophisticated container is lost and replaced with a pill bottle.

 

But I'm definitely against a CO keeping an invalid rating in place for no reason other than someone might have used the cache for a challenge. Accurate ratings are important. It's just an unfortunate side effect when adjusting an inaccurate rating sometimes screws up someone using the previous rating for a challenge. And it's particularly unfortunate when the person using the cache for the challenge really did find the cache when that rating was correct, i.e., before something changed that meant the cache rating needed to be adjusted. So while I don't really want CO to consider challenges specifically, I do concede that that's a really good reason to ask yourself my "is this cache different?" question. In that case, challenge seekers aren't being screwed because the rating changed: they're being screwed because the old cache identity is being used for a new and different cache.

Edited by dprovan
wrong word
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

HQ has recommended as well that after a certain amount of time, it's better not to update details (rather re-list) so as to avoid arguments such as the issue of statistical changes and appeals they may need to arbitrate :P

 

One of my multis, hidden in 2016, I initially rated 2/3.5. The terrain, particularly between the second and third waypoints, was a tough 3.5 but at the time I didn't think it quite warranted a 4 as it was easier than most of the other T4s around here. But then came the la Ninas in 2020 and 2021, with persistent high rainfall after years of drought resulting in a big increase in vegetation which made access to that final waypoint a lot tougher, so in January this year I bumped its terrain rating up to 4. Before doing that, though, I did check the grids of the 15 finders it'd had (or at least those whose statistics were visible) just to make sure I wasn't going to punch a hole in any of them.

 

But getting back to the OP, if you're intending to place a cache with a particular D/T rating, make sure it's a true instantiation of that rating by design and not just a fudge. I remember a few years back lamenting the lack of any recent T4 hides in my region so decided I should make amends by creating one, but I then spent days scouring the maps to find somewhere that really was a T4. One of the fittest cachers I know around here said the climb left him exhausted so I think I got that one right.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Mordenpool said:

I am placing my first D5/T3.5 cache. It started as an attempt to help an older cacher who completed their Fizzy Grid, did not record or save the finds, and then noticed that 5/3.5 went "Open" after he knew he has logged one.

 

When you change your fudged numbers to accurate numbers your friend will once again have a gap in their fizzy grid.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I  had a nano  on a footbridge that was rated a D1.T1. It was literally a 1 terrain as it was about a foot off the pavement and could be reached by anyone in  wheelchair. People were DNFing it. People were not reading the page as I had people saying they had to go in the gully under the bridge (itself a 1.5T) and some hiding there own replacement under the bridge when they couldn't find the nano even though it was there. Had to put a large font notice on the page that it was a T1and a nano. Finally archived it in February when someone said that the footbridge had been removed.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Wacka said:

People were not reading the page

 

With the new search map allowing people to do pretty much everything from downloading a GPX file to logging the find without ever looking at the cache page, and the app telling people not to look at the description unless they get stuck, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that anything I put on the cache page is a waste of typing. Even on one of my multis, one of the early finders said they didn't look at the description and had to use a PAF to figure out how to do it.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

With the new search map allowing people to do pretty much everything from downloading a GPX file to logging the find without ever looking at the cache page..

 

This might account for 0.1% of all users, and even then it is likely mostly users who already know the value of the description and are viewing it elsewhere (e.g. on their GPS device).

 

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

the app telling people not to look at the description unless they get stuck

 

Can you tell me exactly where it is that the app is giving this directive?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

To clarify, it says read the details if you get stuck. 

Screenshot_20221104-184625.thumb.png.4e3a3b85c3bb62fa7a734fe9fc0c3507.png

 

The "details" are the cache description, right?  That's the way I would likely interpret that...  As a new user with the new App, the idea is to just go now, don't read about it.

Or does it mean "Read about the basics of Geocaching if you get stuck".  Because that's not a better plan.  What "details" do you read after getting stuck?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I have changed ratings on my caches as conditions change. One cache of mine started out as 1.5D 1T. Good concrete path on flat ground from where the car could be parked to cache which was easy to reach seated in a chair. Then there were problems with that spot; mainly that my magnetic cache kept falling down, so I moved it down under the bridge and changed the style of cache. Micro went to small as well.  Now it was a steep, slippery slope, so I upped the T to 3. I had problems with that hide, as something kept kicking the cache out. I found a new magnetic cache, much better than than the previous magnetic cache, and moved it back to the original place. It's a 1T again. Haven't had problems since.

I have also adjusted ratings based on feedback from finders. I wish more geocachers would take finders' comments aboard.

However, none of these have been a more rare 5 rating. I would be very careful and sure of the rating before rating a cache that, as those are often used in challenges, and it would be annoying to have that changed. It matters little at lower ratings (such as mine) how often the rating is changed, but it does with high ratings, as changing those more rare ratings can muck up people's challengers.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

If it said "Read the hint if you get stuck" it would not only mean to not read it until stuck, but unless you are stuck.

And then it would mean to read the other stuff besides the hint.

 

It's not pessimistic to notice that the instructions are worded poorly.  It's just language.

 

 

You're taking a very basic sentence intended to give pointers to a new user and layering WAY too much meaning onto it. It means that if you are stuck, consider these steps that you might not have yet. It's way below the level of "instructions." How one ascribes so much meaning and influence to a simple phrase escapes me.

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have also adjusted ratings based on feedback from finders. I wish more geocachers would take finders' comments aboard.

 

+1

 

When I started placing caches, I thought they'd be too tough to ever be found.  So at least the D rating was higher than necessary.  I took other locals' advice when they logged what the real rating is.  And when I said I might un-PMO a cache, I listened when they suggested I don't do that.

 

 

 

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
1 hour ago, kunarion said:

When I started placing caches, I thought they'd be too tough to ever be found.  So at least the D rating was higher than necessary.  I took other locals' advice when they logged what the real rating is.

I went the other direction with my first cache. It was very well camouflaged, but since I knew where and how I'd hidden it, it was obvious to me. Early finders suggested increasing the difficulty rating, so I did (twice).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

I went the other direction with my first cache. It was very well camouflaged, but since I knew where and how I'd hidden it, it was obvious to me. Early finders suggested increasing the difficulty rating, so I did (twice).

 

+1

 

I have a cache that has such scary great camo, I have a ton of trouble locating it.  So I often embarass myself when I arrive to help somecachers find it, and I can't find it.  Usually this causes them to get more serious and they find it anyway.  Um, like, the 9-year-old in the family finds it.  OK, I'm very bad at Geocaching, sue me. :bad:

 

But I've been told that its D-Rating is suitable. :D

 

Specific to the OP, I try very hard to NOT fiddle with my cache ratings, because changing it does annoy and confuse cachers.  Set It And Forget It.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

I can't help it if you want to take the most pessimistic view of this.

 

Sorry, but my pessimistic view is based on what I'm seeing as the CO of higher terrain caches where reading the description would be a really good idea, but people are getting themselves stuck by not reading the description before they set out. The prevailing attitude, for traditionals at least, is to just tap Navigate and follow the arrow, which might be fine for urban P&Gs but it doesn't work too well when there are gullies, ravines, cliffs and watercourses to avoid.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Wacka said:

I  had a nano  on a footbridge that was rated a D1.T1. It was literally a 1 terrain as it was about a foot off the pavement and could be reached by anyone in  wheelchair. People were DNFing it.

 

Something a foot off the ground might be reached from a wheelchair but it seems rather difficult being that low to the ground.

 

More importantly, I would argue a nano should never be less than D2.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

I can't help it if you want to take the most pessimistic view of this.

 

Not taking the pessimistic view is naive.

 

When dealing with any large number of people, one should nearly always assume their average intelligence is "moron", even for a hobby like geocaching. 

 

Groundspeak's own data shows the majority of geocachers are inexperienced, and they're going through the app, not the website. So your target audience using the app is largely ignorant, even if intelligent. They're not being trained before geocaching, but instead just wandering out there with a smartphone app, unaware of what they don't know.

 

If a cache description isn't worth reading the cache probably isn't worth finding. If the CO doesn't make an effort with the description why should I expect they made an effort with the hide?

 

Edited by JL_HSTRE
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

You're taking a very basic sentence intended to give pointers to a new user and layering WAY too much meaning onto it. It means that if you are stuck, consider these steps that you might not have yet. It's way below the level of "instructions." How one ascribes so much meaning and influence to a simple phrase escapes me.

@Moun10Bike:  You might take note of the number of upvotes to your comments vs. the number of upvotes to the other opinion and stop being so defensive.  Instead--be proactive and get the wording changed.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

To clarify, it says read the details if you get stuck. 

Screenshot_20221104-184625.thumb.png.4e3a3b85c3bb62fa7a734fe9fc0c3507.png

 

@Moun10Bike I have to agree with others that the wording of this text needs improvement.  I read it as

  1. Navigate to the geocache location
  2. Look for the hidden container
  3. If stuck, read the details

Via the website, the cache description comes up when you open the cache page, but with the app, the description is one more click away.

 

Please just take this as feedback from the user community that the wording needs some rework.  I would say 

  1. Read the cache description
  2. Navigate to the geocache location
  3. Look for the hidden container
  4. If stuck, read the hint (if provided by the cache owner)
Edited by GeoElmo6000
  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

My 2 cents' worth:

Your responsibility is to keep the cache details current & accurate. The T and D ratings are subjective (with guidelines) & not policed by reviewers, but if your cache description becomes grossly inaccurate, a cacher might decide to throw a "needs maintenance" or "needs archived" posting on your cache, and then you'll be forced to go fix / re-assess it anyway.

 

So really, just worry about the accuracy of your listing, not the effect on someone else's stats grid. Change the T and D ratings as needed to reflect the current conditions - and don't forget to edit the description, and any coordinate checkers and so on that are associated with it. 

 

As others have said, caches do change over time. There's many reasons why terrain (or access to it) can change, or why difficulty might be forced to change due to underlying clues, container type & location. Keeping your description accurate is just part of cache maintenance; future finders take priority over past ones.  If you make changes, it may be a good idea to add something in the description (not just the maintenance log) that changes were made, and on what date, so that cachers do not rely on outdated information.

 

There's of course a point at which small changes might turn into something that radically changes the cache, to the degree that it throws the cache's existence into doubt. Adaptation is necessary, but only you can decide if your cache is still worth keeping under new conditions & new ratings, or whether it would be better to archive it and maybe make a whole new cache. That's probably going to depend on its concept, more than its stats.

 

 

Edited by mysterion604
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
23 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Something a foot off the ground might be reached from a wheelchair but it seems rather difficult being that low to the ground.

 

More importantly, I would argue a nano should never be less than D2.

Someone I knew in a wheelchair would have been unlikely to have been able to reach it. Likely to lose balance reaching down.

 

I agree about the rating. Almost NO nano should be a 1D. In years of caching I don't think I have ever come upon a 1D nano. The owner might have rated it 1D, but it wasn't. It's the nature of nanos, as unless they are mounted on a wall with big arrows pointing at it, they are never are 1D, and few are even 1.5D. COs have insider information; they know where it is. Other people don't have that insider information. Unless you have 'arrows', call it 2D at minimum.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
23 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

Yep, after all of these years I should know better to respond when in a bad mood; I got defensive and apologize for that. What "triggered" me was yet another over-the-top take about how a tiny element in the app is assuredly to blame for the downfall of civilization as we know it. To better explain my position, as a member of the Data Team at HQ, I know very well the numbers behind these sorts of things. The quantity of people who read those messages and take them to heart is vanishingly small. I can virtually guarantee you that a revamp of the wording on that dialog will have next-to-zero impact in real-world behavior among new players. That said, I agree that the wording could be improved, and will suggest that change our design team.

 

Great, thank you.

 

With the same logic and in reaction to the same attitudes from many people here that sparked this kerfuffle, please consider the workflow built into the app.

 

"Description" is only one of many expandable sections on the app cache window; seemingly no more important than any others. PERHAPS GS could find a way to emphasize the importance of the description. For "WHY", see above.

 

Also, throw us a darned bone! Although it increasingly seems to be the norm (for all sorts of reasons), not all of us COs write descriptions like "I put one here because it needed it" or "..a hole in the map" or "There - find it."   Many of us put a LOT of work into our cache descriptions because we create a WHOLE experience. We recognize the relationship between CO & Seeker as a partnership and not doing everything you can as the 'delivery service' to get people to dig the ENTIRE experience is dismissive and disrespectful to ONE party in that 'ship.

 

Look at any of mine. Not a lot of them, but all 'crafted'. It's demoralizing to get a "." log or even just a "TFTC" when you create something. Some people really don't get that caches are created by people, other players. They trash caches or post spoilers ALL THE TIME "to help out the next guy" because they treat caches the way they treat any other infrastructure or object provided by the government or some company. There probably isn't any idea that by 'helping the next guy', they're screwing the guy that put that blasted thing out there for them to enjoy, and not some faceless corporate cache-machine!

 

Every once in a while, we get a question here that goes something like "I put a cache out; when will someone come by to review it?" We always laugh at the new guy's naïve belief, but it's an indication of how many people see GS as being some huge enterprise!

 

I get that you have to be careful to make the hobby really, really easy for new people to try, but in my opinion you still should be, through the workflow and minimal in-app messaging educating newbies and building classic attitudes that'll serve the hobby in the long run and not just generate the next wave of mindless cachers.

 

You have to work to keep entropy from any system, especially one like ours which has been thoughtfully set up and modified over twenty years to make a wide-spread, encompassing entertainment 'system'. The alternative is a constant march toward LPCs and guardrail key-hiders edging out EVERTHING else and a user community that'll increasingly trend toward ONLY searching for those because anything else is just too much trouble. "Oh, I have to walk away from my car?"  "Oh, I have to walk INTO the woods?"  "Oh, I have to solve a puzzle"?  "Oh, I have to find TWO to get a 'point'?"

 

So, at the very least make the 'description' section stand out, even if you don't feel that it should be displayed on first-look.

 

You get that the people here are generally not self-serving and the suggestions we offer are *frequently* meant to be in the best interest of the hobby in general and are, in fact, occasionally well thought-out.  With that in mind, balancing the financial requirements of the company's attempts to attract and keep newbies, well...comments/suggestions, anybody?

 

As usual,

</rant>

 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 11/5/2022 at 10:35 AM, Moun10Bike said:

 

Yep, after all of these years I should know better to respond when in a bad mood; I got defensive and apologize for that. What "triggered" me was yet another over-the-top take about how a tiny element in the app is assuredly to blame for the downfall of civilization as we know it. To better explain my position, as a member of the Data Team at HQ, I know very well the numbers behind these sorts of things. The quantity of people who read those messages and take them to heart is vanishingly small. I can virtually guarantee you that a revamp of the wording on that dialog will have next-to-zero impact in real-world behavior among new players. That said, I agree that the wording could be improved, and will suggest that change our design team.

:smile: Thank you.  

Link to comment

Here in Florida I did some geoart caches and completed the whole series.  Some time later the series was adopted out to another cacher because the CO had moved out of the area.

 

I happened to look at my D/T grid one day and found that it was completely filled out.  The new CO had changed the. D/T ratings on this series of roadside caches to false numbers.  I contacted the  new CO and he defended the changes by saying that some people thanked him for the changes.  

 

I have a complete D/T grid that I did not earn and I don't like that.  

 

Not everyone plays by the same rules.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Smitherington said:

I have a complete D/T grid that I did not earn and I don't like that.  

 

Yeah, I'd be a bit peeved if that happened to me. I currently have five holes in my grid, one on the D4 row and the others D4.5 and D5, and while I'm not particularly fussed about statistics, I'd prefer to have those remaining squares filled by appropriately rated finds. If it was me in your situation, I'd probably delete my finds on that series.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I am in concensus with what was said. I had a full fizzy until someone changed a rating slightly. A little irritating, but I'm sure it matched the new situation at GZ.
I have an early cache I made where the D and T were accidentally flipped. So a rare High terrain Multi attracted a handful of out of towners. Instead of fixing the rating and ruining their journey out to Pocatello I'm archiving and making it anew with the correct rating.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment

I occasionally change the d/t rating on my caches to reflect changes on the ground and finders' feedback.  For example, if I place a puzzle cache expecting it to be of moderate difficulty and the logs reflect an easier or more difficult experience, I will adjust the rating to reflect that.  If I think the cache is a d2 find yet there are a number of dnfs (and the cache is present and at the original location) I will adjust it to reflect that.  For a few caches I will set a d/t and invite folks to give feedback on how accurate that seems and adjust it based on people's response.

My "typical placement" is a five stage multi-cache with a 1.5-2 mile hike and is actively maintained for many years so some changes are inevitable.  It might get easier or harder.

What I've found in general is that the d/t rating system depends on the cache creator more than anything else and it is more or less irrelevant for the great majority of caches since they are rated 1.5/1.5 and involve a two hundred foot or less "hike".  Roadside power trails with identical caches identically placed and spaced .1m apart and d/t rated 1.5/2.5 "because sometimes there is standing water" convinced me of the subjective nature of cache ratings.  I often "spell out" the reason for the d/t rating in an attempt to match up my view of reality with expectations.  For instance:  "This cache is rated as a 2.5/3 because there are five stages to find and it is a mile and a half walk in the woods over a variety of trails.  Will play harder when water level is up and in winter"  

edexter

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

Filling the DT grid (and then going back and doing it again) is a popular side-game, so I'd never change and Ds or Ts above 3.0 for fear of messing up people's stats. Just try and get it right first time. If terrain changes that much, archive and put out a new cache.

I've only give D5 to one of my 100+ caches, as I don't think my puzzles are THAT difficult. I've also never put out a 1.5/1.5 - that dullest of ratings...

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
On 11/4/2022 at 8:21 AM, Mordenpool said:

I am placing my first D5/T3.5 cache. It started as an attempt to help an older cacher who completed their Fizzy Grid, did not record or save the finds, and then noticed that 5/3.5 went "Open" after he knew he has logged one.

My initial thought is DONT CHANGE THE D/T RATING! AFTER YOUR CACHE IS FOUND.

Your thoughts as to why you would change this?

 

This happened to me all the time 15 years ago, before challenge caches were really a thing. It probably still happens now and then, though less common.

 

Sometimes it was because a cache just was not rated as well as it could be. If a cache rating is not accurate, then it should change to one that is accurate, regardless of how it could affect finders' statistics.

 

As others have pointed out, conditions can actually change as well. Thorns can grow in to make it tougher (or removed to make it easier), or a road or bridge could be built to make it easier (or closed/removed, to make it harder). Again, if this happened, I'd rather the cache be rated accurately than some statistic be preserved for the sake of posterity.

 

Another reason is for caches that are replaced or moved due to some issue, such that the rating needs to be adjusted. For these, if the owner changed the character of the hide so much that a new rating was required, I'd argue that the better solution should be archiving the old cache and publishing a new listing. But there's no rule forcing a cache owner to do so, and I don't think there needs to be one.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, hzoi said:

Again, if this happened, I'd rather the cache be rated accurately than some statistic be preserved for the sake of posterity.

All of the above. And per the quote, this is why I truly feel that statistics should record certain properties as of the find. It's a record of your past finds so if it really is that, then changes to something you already found shouldn't affect you current stats. But, that opens a whole can of worms about what stats should be recorded as-of rather than looked up live. :lol:

 

FWIW, Project-GC has a page to see changes in DTs for all the caches you've found (for premium members), which means if you find a hole in your grid where there wasn't one before, you can provide the GC that changed as evidence that you did (or should) qualify at least as of that date.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
On 11/22/2022 at 10:31 AM, thebruce0 said:

FWIW, Project-GC has a page to see changes in DTs for all the caches you've found (for premium members), which means if you find a hole in your grid where there wasn't one before, you can provide the GC that changed as evidence that you did (or should) qualify at least as of that date.

 

Either I didn't know about that feature, or I forgot about it. Either way, thanks!

 

(Is there anything project-GC can't do?)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...