Do Ratings Matter To You?

[targetdrone]

I have found I appreciate a good hike/climb and a tough hide. Therefore, these seem to be the types of caches I am placing. But I want people to go hunting them, too.

 

Q. Do you avoid a cache if it has a 3 or higher rating???

 

Don't blame me, I voted for Jeremy.

[+Criminal]

The only rating I worry about would be a X/5. Anything lower than a terrain 5 I figure I can handle. I mostly use the rating to help me find the cache, ie: a 3/4 will not be under the bush twenty yards from the parking lot, regardless of what the GPSr says. It gives some insight to the hider's thinking.

[+Markwell]

The only reason it would alter my going after a cache is if I plan on having my kids with me. I usually plan on them being able to tackle a level 3 terrain, but I won't balk at 4 or 4.5. 5: I'll read the cache description more carefully just to see what is required. We've got a terrain 5 cache out here only accessible by canoeing down a river. I had a GREAT time doing that one.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+sbell111]

I agree with Criminal and Markwell. Ratings do not affect my decision to look for a cache.

 

I use them to help me plan which caches to go after. For instance, last Sunday I went to the Titans/Texans game. I wanted to squeeze a cache or two in prior to the game. Obviously, a 5/5 is not the way to go.

 

I also use the ratings to give me some clues as to how the cache is hidden. If I am looking for a cache with a 3+ terrain rating and my GPSr zeros out after a very short walk on a paved trail, I know that it was either mis-rated or I need to 'think outside the box'.

 

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

[+briansnat]

I don't pay a lot of attention to ratings, cheifly because they are very subjective.

 

For example, I recently found a 1/1, which should mean (under the Clayjar system) the cache is plain sight or in an obvious location and the trail is a paved, wheelchair accessable path. It was instead a rocky, boulder and glass strewn area not far from a cliff and it took me almost an hour to find the cache because of all the possible hiding places.

 

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I was looking for a cache that had a 3.5 terrain rating. To me this means I'm in for a pretty rugged hike. Instead, it was an easy 5 minute walk along a well defined trail. The cache itself was on a hillside, but it wasn't all that steep, rocky, or otherwise

difficult.

 

Maybe if I see 5 stars, it will grab my attention but other than that, I find the ratings pretty useless in too many cases. Instead, I tend to go by the logs.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

[+Marky]

The only caches we tend to avoid are ones that require special equipment. The ratings help us plan appropriately. Terrain rated 2 or above, I will usually do additional investigation (look at topo maps, determine a good trailhead, figure out how much mileage is involved, possibly pack food and water, etc.) On the hide difficult of 3 or above, I won't attempt them unless I have an hour or more to spare.

 

--Marky

"Everyone spends time in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

[+FFC]

I look at the ratings as a starting point, then look at the topo map etc. to get a feel for what's around.

[mortonfox]

It's quite situational. In some regions with little variation in elevation like South Jersey, coastal Virginia, Delaware, it seems that the terrain difficulty goes up mainly according to the length of the walk so I would not avoid a terrain of 3 there even if I was cache dashing. (You could always jog or run to the cache.) Even in hilly areas, the terrain is sometimes overrated and I rely on topo maps and some knowledge of the area to pick the best way in.

[+Team Tecmage]

Sometimes we hestitate at a higher rated cache. We usually decide after reading the description and previous logs. We have a 4.5/4.5 very near us that deserves that rating for creativity and hide location.

[+bigredmed]

I have hidden 4 caches. The rating system that the site uses seems to have some errors in it. I have several that are not that hard, but if the ratings system is used accurately, come out 3/3. I have one that I was intentionally trying to keep easy to test the concept, it came out 1.5's.

 

I wonder if we should look at the definitions of the variables and how the variables are weighted?

 

By appointment to the Court of HRM Queen Mikki I.

[+Web-ling]

Generally, if I'm binge-caching on an out-of-town trip, I don't do much over a 3/3.

 

For caches I'm doing from home, the rating doesn't influence IF I'm going to do a cache, but they might influence WHEN I do it, or whether I'm dragging one of the kids along with me or not.

 

[Cape Cod Cacher]

no

[+Nurse Dave]

I read the logs people have posted. I find I get a better idea of what to expect if it's a harder cache.

 

---Real men cache in shorts.

[+georgeandmary]

Let give me an idea of what to expect but they don't stop me from going for a cache. If anthing a 5 star cache might catch my attention.

 

I have a habit of not looking at ratings or descriptions but I'm usually prepared for anything.

 

george

 

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

[targetdrone]

I will continue to make my hides challenging but fair. I will still place some where kids can get to them and try to put adequate descriptions of conditions on the cache pages.

 

Don't blame me, I voted for Jeremy.

[+benjamin921]

Not really.

I just need to know if I need my climbing gear or not.