Cache rating by cache seekers

[Guest Giorgio]

What is everyone thinking about introducing a difficulty rating and/or a fun rating by the cache seekers?

 

Sometimes the person hiding a cache may think that it's perfectly easy to find the cache, but the seekers have different opinion. Same about the fun factor or the location. It would also be interesting to see if the finders agree or disagree about the difficulty.

 

What do you think, Jeremy? Would it be a problem to include a similar 1-5 rating in the standard cache report tab?

[Guest Scout]

The topic has been discussed. One thread can be found in the topic "Record for Planting Geocaches?"

 

Bottom line, there is a difference of opinion on the value of having the seekers rate caches. jeremy is not hot on the idea, but hasn't ruled it out.

 

[This message has been edited by Scout (edited 17 May 2001).]

[Guest gstrong1]

I placed a cache in a spot that was ideal for a family cache.It is just off a paved canal path,allowing easy access by bicycle,by boat or on foot.I published co-ordinates for a parking lot right along the path which make it an easy 15 minute walk to the cache with no climbing,vegetation etc.Just a nice,easy family cache.A fellow cacher decided to take another route to the cache.In his log on the cache page,he stated that he got to the area,had to go back home to don protective clothing,went back & fought the hills & thorn bushes and found the cache but came away with injuries in his fight to get to the cache spot.If I was going to pick a cache to take children on,I would have read that log and passed that cache up for sure.I was going to e-mail the person & request that he edit his log,but two other groups that logged the cache after the "injured" individual,stated that it was a delightful family hunt & they really enjoyed it & had no problem.I try to place a percentage of my caches in a way that the sport can be an enjoyable family activity.The kids love it.I think that if a seekers cache rating system is considered,it should be stated that before you rate a cache that you have found,consider that other seekers will be reading your log & the possibility exists that there is another route to the cache that may be easier or more difficult than the one you took.Just my opinion."Gimpy"

 

------------------

Gary "Gimpy" Strong

Rochester,NY

[Guest Excession]

This is something that I've given quite a bit of thought, and I don't think that there's an easy answer. I am especially interested in the difficulty rating as we are a family team with two small children, but we also like the hike to be a "hike." Recently we went on a 2 star/2 star hike that seemed, to us, to be a bit harder than that (the reason was that we were on an easier 3/3 the day before). I wasn't upset, but I did email the cache owner and gave a detailed log entry -- I also realized, as I read through the material, that this was the first cache in the area placed last November, so perhaps the ratings have adjusted somewhat. This leads me to my main point: the stars are a general indication, but I like it when the cache owner points out some of the pitfalls that may be encountered (sticker bushes, cliffs, steep upgrade, etc.), but to keep it fair to those who don't want this kind of warning, I think it could be placed in the encrypted hints -- perhaps this will keep everyone happy. Those of us taking the kids along may have to forgo the challenge so that we can be sure it's appropriate for the geocachers on our team.

[Guest Scout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Excession:

This is something that I've given quite a bit of thought, and I don't think that there's an easy answer.

---

 

I think you've got it right there. You'll never get consistent ratings by cache owners so long as they are hidden in different environments by hundreds of different people with different levels of experience.

 

As someone else said, ratings are also subject to the direction you approach a cache. I remember one on a stream bank that was an easy walk in the park to get to. Reading the log, we realized another hunter must have approached from the other side of the stream. His comment, "I didn't realize the stream was that deep!" gave my son a big laugh for the day.

 

And there's still the unanswered question of just how much information to give out about the path to the cache and obstacles encountered along the way. If you don't want to risk wasting your time on an inappropriate cache, wait until there are enough log entries. Soon enough, you'll know everything you need to about the cache. If you want more of an adventure, don't read the logs or the encrypted cheat. To each his own. The system supports both types nicely.

[Guest Quinnow]

f theres a boulder in my way to a cache I just go around it, and maybe someone else would say well sheesh I had to go over this boulder. Thus I found an easy way and he took the rough route. As more and more people have been out caching and get a few under their belts, I think they will start lowering the way they would rate a cache.

 

------------------

Quinn Stone

Rochester, NY.14616

www.Navicache.com

[Guest chipper]

One of the first caches I went to I didn't use a map of any kind. Just punched in the coordinates and followed the arrow. This ended up taking me all over the hillside, down a lot of dirt roads and through old farm pastures. When I got to the site there was a road that ran within 50 yards of the cache! Depending on how you get there changes the rating dramatically. The way I went would have rated it a 1/3. The terrain was insane but the cache was easy to find. When I got home I used Mapblast. I got "paved-road" directions all the way to the site. This would have rated it a 1/1.

The way I took without the map was much more interesting. The mapped way would have been very boring.