Guest Jerrold21 Posted July 8, 2001 Share Posted July 8, 2001 I like it brokenwing, I also will start using it to rate my caches, now how do we get geocaching.com to use it also? Quote Link to comment
Guest WJJagfan Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 I really like BrokenWing's proposal. I see that we are getting an 'ALL IN FAVOR' thumbs up here, and I hope that Jeremy Irish will take a look at this thread and make some changes. I appreciate everyone's input in this thread, I actually think the discussion lead to thoughtful input and a great result! If this gets implimented I think it will greatly reduce the risk of someone getting hurt. WJJagFan Quote Link to comment
Guest Markwell Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 Of course, the one thing I would add is to NOT dispense with the ±.5 (1.5, 2.5, etc.) Example: I might have a cache that is not in plain site, and might take about 15 minutes of searching. Not a level 1 difficulty (it's not in plain sight), but not quite a level 2 (won't take the average cacher close to 30 minutes). Adding the .5's to the mix gives a little more chance for description in the ratings. It actually comes out to nine levels of rating for each, but we're only clearly defining the five major categories. I think that is how it should be. Quote Link to comment
Guest rusty Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 DITTO ! Sounds like a very good workable system. Everything we use now as far as the star system can stay but this goes a needed step further by qualifying the ratings. It also is generic enough to be applied anywhere in the world. I know Jeremy must be staying out of this fray but perhaps it's time for his input. Here is a nice idea that requires no code changes. I would think this is a win/win. Even if some people think it needs to go farther (not me) they have to agree that this would be a good step to take. Rusty... edited becuz I can't spell. [This message has been edited by rusty (edited 09 July 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest brokenwing Posted July 9, 2001 Share Posted July 9, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Markwell:Of course, the one thing I would add is to NOT dispense with the ±.5 (1.5, 2.5, etc.) Agreed! I think the basic 1-5 rating system would give folks a baseline. If you feel the need to tweak your rating with decimal points, more power to you. brokenwing Quote Link to comment
Guest tslack2000 Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 I am now officially using the "Ratings Guide" on my website that brokenwing suggested. I even had to change the difficulty level on one of my caches by using this rating system. That just goes to show how much variation there is out there! Thank you to the informal "committee" that made this possible! Quote Link to comment
Guest guerroloco Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 As someone without experience of small children and what they are capable of doing, I might find it difficult to rate my caches on the basis of whether small children can get to them. What counts as a "small child" anyway? Is there an age cut-off? How far can the average small child walk (or be carried) without trouble? Quote Link to comment
Guest Scout Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by guerroloco:What counts as a "small child" anyway? Is there an age cut-off? No age cut-off. I've known some fully grown adults that act like small children. quote:Originally posted by guerroloco:How far can the average small child walk (or be carried) without trouble? Zero feet. Or forever. The definition of "trouble" depends on the parent as much as the child. Seriously, I would say under five years old and a quarter mile. But, just as seriously, "your mileage may differ." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Geodashing Quote Link to comment
Guest Peter Scholtz Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 I also approve of the new standard and agree that .5's will help (though I would prefer a 1-10 scale rather than decimals). NOTE: Jeremy will have to send out bulk email to all cache owners requesting everyone to update to the new standard or else this won't work ... ------------------ Peter Scholtz www.biometrics.co.za Quote Link to comment
Guest Markwell Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 I think a bulk e-mail is worth it to try to get a more objective system of ratings. Backward updating database info is always difficult, but if done with completeness and uniformity, it makes the end prodcut more useful. Quote Link to comment
Guest brokenwing Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by guerroloco:As someone without experience of small children and what they are capable of doing, I might find it difficult to rate my caches on the basis of whether small children can get to them. What counts as a "small child" anyway? Is there an age cut-off? How far can the average small child walk (or be carried) without trouble? It varies alot. That's exactly why I added the stuff in the parenthesis. What we had before was an arbitrary age cutoff, but children vary in their physical and mental abilities. Your 5 year old may be able to make a hike that mine can't. By understanding more about the terrain and the expected hazards that the rating system provides, it's up to the parents to decide if the cache is appropriate for THEIR child. All you, or any other cache placer has to do is look at the criteria and find where your cache fits. I hope that explains what was intended here. If not, or you wish to discuss this further, I'd be happy to see if we can work out something that works better. Thanks, Brokenwing Quote Link to comment
Guest Lou C Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Peter Scholtz:I also approve of the new standard and agree that .5's will help (though I would prefer a 1-10 scale rather than decimals). ... [snip] I too am in favor of a 1-10 scale. I think there will be a lot of x.5 ratings, especially in the difficulty category. Quote Link to comment
Guest c.mathis Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Lou C: I too am in favor of a 1-10 scale. I think there will be a lot of x.5 ratings, especially in the difficulty category. I vote for 1-10. Quote Link to comment
Guest guerroloco Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by brokenwing:I hope that explains what was intended here. If not, or you wish to discuss this further, I'd be happy to see if we can work out something that works better. That works. I should have read your parenthetical comments more closely. Quote Link to comment
Guest PharoaH Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 Drop Elevation Change Steep Terrain Handicapped Accessible Paved Trail Gravel Trail Dirt or Sand Trail Boat Climbing Gear 4x4 Metal Detector < .5 Mile .5 to 1 mile (Choose your favorite units, etc) Suitable for children This is just a start, but I think after reading through this thread Jeremy could come up with a cacher and cachee friendly rating system. Quote Link to comment
Guest Lou C Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by PharoaH:I think the group has made a lot of progress here. ... I highly favor a rating system that is somewhat imposed. For example, I would like cache placers to answer a set of questions about the difficulty and terrain ... Yes we have! I think a mandatory form full of questions could be used to compute suggested numbers for difficulty and terrain. The suggested numbers could be used or trimmed based on conditions possibly not addressed by the questionnaire. I am not sure how mandatory you were referring to, but I think most would go with the grain and use the computed value. Quote Link to comment
Guest jeremy Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 I like brokenwing's ratings. I'll try and get them up on the site shortly. 1-10 would be difficult to change for all the previous caches. .5 seems reasonable. Jeremy Quote Link to comment
Guest PharoaH Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Lou C: The suggested numbers could be used or trimmed based on conditions possibly not addressed by the questionnaire. I am not sure how mandatory you were referring to, but I think most would go with the grain and use the computed value. You're right on the money! The chance for a little human intervention to tweak the rating should be included. Quote Link to comment
Guest Markwell Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 I going to sound very much like a person with a multiple personality when I post this. Personality One: I think we're all intelligent enough to be able to figure out the rating system without having to fill out an online questionnaire and have the computer suggest a rating for us. I think that creating this form would be a lot of energy expended by Jeremy, and in the end, people would still put whatever they want for the ratings. I really like Brokenwings concise descriptions and examples. I also think that once the rating system is up and running for a while, after the initial knee-jerk "I don't understand it because it's different" dies down, 99% of the cachers will use it just fine without filling out a form. Personality Two: Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if someone (Jeremy) could program an ad-hoc terrain calculator and an ad-hoc difficulty calculator, much like the online banks have for payment calculators for mortgage rates. Middle Ground: I'm not in favor of a mandatory form to fill out that is somehow linked to the cache, but if there were a tool to help the uninitiated calculate proper terrains and difficulties, it would be a good addition to the site. Quote Link to comment
Guest BigDoggie Posted July 10, 2001 Share Posted July 10, 2001 The difficulty ratings suggested by WJJagfan Scout and brokenwing all have merit. I think the important thing is that there should be SOME standards... asking people to pick a number with only the most vague guidelines is asking for trouble. Quote Link to comment
Guest Markwell Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 Not that I like the limelight - but hey! - I originally worked on those difficulty ratings with Scout! Of course, I say that with a smile, we've all contributed well here for a fabulous collaborative effort in helping further this sport/activity/hobby (ooooo there's another topic I don't want to approach). Quote Link to comment
Guest mtnsteve Posted July 11, 2001 Share Posted July 11, 2001 No system is going to be perfect...climbers are finding different systems used all over the world, what is a 5.10 or A2 in Yosemite is 5.12b or A4 in France of Thailand...it's just human nature. I had a friend ask me for a easy hike to take his girlfriend on for her first backpacking trip, when they got back he was furious that I sent him on such a "death march"....she said the hike was easy. Why not have those that don't agree with the posted rating add their own rating to the posted cache log, and perhaps their reasons for it....as in all things, what one person finds difficult, the next will find easy. Personally I like the ratings like Scout, brokenwing and WJJagfan have proposed...you gotta start with some kind of baseline. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.