Jump to content

OPTIMUM NUMBER OF RATING STARS


M&Ms

Recommended Posts

We have been having an interesting debate that we would like to open to a wider audience. The question revolves around whether there is an optimum maximum number of stars when setting a cache. We are not fans of the 5*/5* cache believing that if you have to bust a gut to get to a cache then you should reasonably expect to find it. Similarly if a cache is really hard to find then repeat visits must be viable. This leads to optimum maximum of about 7* i.e. 5* terrain leads to a 1* or 2* concealment for 4* terrain a 3* difficulty to find and so on. Clearly there will be speciality caches that need to breach this guidance. Now for those nations that are flush in caches this debate is nugatory but for the likes of us, getting geocaching off the ground, there is a tendency for setters to try and outdo each other setting caches for the dedicated few at the cost of encouraging newbies and 2WD owners.

Link to comment

If ANYONE has any idea what that was all about, can they explain it???

 

All I can get is that you think if a cache is hard to get to, it should be an easy find, and vise-versa? That makes no sense to me if that is the case. They are two different, unrelated categories.

 

I just use ClayJar's Geocache Rating System, and if I need any further help I ask the guys hanging out in the geocaching chat room.

 

Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.

Link to comment

I understand.

 

Given there's not many caches in your area, I'd tend to agree. A 5/5 when you're trying to promote geocaching isn't likely to attract/retain too many, eh? I think the highest combined we've done is a 6 (3/3). We started, of course, with weekends filled with combined 2s or 3s, and that is what hooks so many folks (especially families).

 

If you hide it, they will come.

Grandmaster Cache

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by brdad:

If ANYONE has any idea what that was all about, can they explain it???

 

All I can get is that you think if a cache is hard to get to, it should be an easy find, and vise-versa? That makes no sense to me if that is the case. They are two different, unrelated categories.


 

brdad- I think they're asking if theres a 'best all around' number. (1+1=2 the lowest/easy as you can get 5+5=10 the highest/hardest, 1+4 and 4+1 both 5s)

 

FWIW- I dont think there is one. You might be able to go around and figure out which number each person like to find, I would guess its related to the amount of time someone personally feels they should/could spend on one cache. If you only want to spend one hour on a cache, your number is going to be low, but if someone could care less if they spend all day (or even weekend) hiking to find one cache, their number will probly be higher.

And I cant see everyone agreeing (insert number here), are the best. 1) ratings are based on perception(even if you use the Clayjar system,one person might think its got heavy overgrowth, while others consider it only moderate...). 2)People like different things and cache for different reasons.

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

 

[This message was edited by welch on January 25, 2003 at 11:28 AM.]

Link to comment

It depends on who your focus crowd is.

 

If you are attempting to draw families to geocaching, then 2/2's and below.

 

If you're attempting to draw seasoned hikers/outdoorspeople, choose terrain difficulty around the 3.5 level, and keep the difficulty rating at 2.5 or below.

 

It's rare to find a cache that deserves a difficulty rating above 2.5 anyway, regardless of how it was rated.

 

Just don't join ranks with the clowns who give their caches totally inappropriate ratings.

Link to comment

I think that ratings should reflect the local terrain. Like a 2/X in the Rockies would slay a Everlades resident and vice-versa. I've never thought 5 star ratings systems were very good for anything (food, lodging, movies, caches, ad nauseum). I know Clay put thought and effort into the system, but 1* terrain = handicaped accesable isn't too realistic. Some people think a mile is a long distance, others are used to 5. It's all fairly relative in my mind.

 

Like Riyadh is 6350 mi from my house....

 

forgot the word 'systems' icon_rolleyes.gif

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...