Yet Another Ratings Question: Are ratings cumulative?

[+parkrrrr]

Are ratings cumulative? Does a bonus cache inherit some of the ratings of the cache that you need to find to start on it?

 

As an example, let's say there's a 3/3 cache near me. I want to place a new cache, say one that would only score a 2/2 by itself, but put the only copy of its coordinates in the 3/3 cache. How would I rate the new cache? Is it 2/2? 2/3? 3/3? Could it ever be 4/4?

 

I'm sure there's no single answer, but the underlying question is: should I consider the difficulty of the first leg of the search when determining the overall difficulty of the new cache?

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on March 15, 2002 at 08:50 AM.]

[+CacheCows]

I can't use your poll, because the answer depends:

 

If the only place the coordinates for the new cache are found is in an existing cache, then you are creating one of two things:

1. A multi-cache
2. A bonus cache

Depending on which it is will controll the rating.

 

If its a multi-cache, then both caches must be found and logged, and it only counts as a single find to be logged on the first cache's page. In this case the ratings are for the total hunt, its a single experiance.

 

However, if the new cache is simply a bonus (optional), then it will count as two finds (assuming the optional is found) and both finds will be logged on the first cache's page. In this case, since the second is optional, the ratings should only be for the mandatory part, the first cache.

 

Member:

[+CacheCows]

I can't use your poll, because the answer depends:

 

If the only place the coordinates for the new cache are found is in an existing cache, then you are creating one of two things:

1. A multi-cache
2. A bonus cache

Depending on which it is will controll the rating.

 

If its a multi-cache, then both caches must be found and logged, and it only counts as a single find to be logged on the first cache's page. In this case the ratings are for the total hunt, its a single experiance.

 

However, if the new cache is simply a bonus (optional), then it will count as two finds (assuming the optional is found) and both finds will be logged on the first cache's page. In this case, since the second is optional, the ratings should only be for the mandatory part, the first cache.

 

Member:

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team CacheCows of Wisconsin:

I can't use your poll, because the answer depends:

---

Yeah, I considered putting "Maybe." in the options, but I just forgot to do it.

quote:

---

If its a multi-cache, then both caches _must_ be found and logged, and it only counts as a single find to be logged on the first cache's page. In this case the ratings are for the _total_ hunt, its a single experiance.

---

But is it just a single find? Consider this cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=11409

You shouldn't be able to find this cache without first finding another cache placed by the same person (let's ignore the fact that Warm Fuzzies did, in fact, find that cache without yet finding Clue Two.) But if you find Clue Two, and then the Cash Cache, shouldn't you log that as two finds? If not, how should Warm Fuzzies log it, since we'll be finding them in the "wrong" order?

 

What if the first cache in the chain, the equivalent of Clue Two, was actually placed by someone else?

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team CacheCows of Wisconsin:

I can't use your poll, because the answer depends:

---

 

Okay, now you can use the poll. I found a place for "Maybe."

[+CacheCows]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:...

Consider this cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=11409

You shouldn't be able to find this cache without first finding another cache placed by the same person.

---

Agreed, you can't find that cache without finding another cache 24 miles away. But that is different than the posed questions. The posed question is what to do with a new cache who's coordinates are found in another cache. That's different than your example, where only part of the co-ordinates are found in another cache, they are part of the clues. Your example is neither a multi-cache nor a bonus cache, its a multi-stage, with one of the stages being located coincidentally in a seperate cache.

quote:

---

But if you find Clue Two, and then the Cash Cache, shouldn't you log that as two finds?

---

Yep, they should be logged as two finds. The differnce here is that the cache you gave as an example is a stand-alone cache, it has its own cache page. If you find it, you get to log it on that page. In the hunting of that cache, you also had to find another cache 24 miles away, so assuming you had not already logged that other cache that contained a clue before, go ahead and log it as a side benefit.

 

Let me summarize:

• Single cache page that leads you to a cache, and from that cache you are lead to a second cache that the owner claims as being mandatory, then its a single find and the ratings should reflect the total hunt.
• Single cache page that leads you to a cache, and from that cache there is listed a second optional cache, then it can be logged as two finds, but as the second is optional, the ratings should reflect only the mandatory part. I would suggest that the ratings of the optional part be listed on the paper in the first cache that tell you where the second cache is.
• A single multi-stage cache that as part of the hunt requires you to visit another existing cache would result in two logs (again assuming the other cache had not already been logged by the cacher), and the rating of the new cache would take into consideration the total hunt.

 

Member:

 

[This message was edited by Team CacheCows of Wisconsin on March 15, 2002 at 09:31 AM.]

[Gustaf]

Can I have fries with that, please?

[Gustaf]

Can I have fries with that, please?

[+yrium]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

Are ratings cumulative? Does a bonus cache inherit some of the ratings of the cache that you need to find to start on it?

 

As an example, let's say there's a 3/3 cache near me. I want to place a new cache, say one that would only score a 2/2 by itself, but put the only copy of its coordinates in the 3/3 cache. How would I rate the new cache? Is it 2/2? 2/3? 3/3? Could it ever be 4/4?

---

 

If I was hiding a bonus cache that I would rate as a standalone 2/1 and I was only leaving the coordinates in cache-A whose rating is a 1/3 I'd take the higher number from both cache ratings and use them coming up with a 2/3.

 

I can see no reason to ever **accumulate** the second terrain number. It should be as high a number as either cache independently would have received.

 

--- yrium ---

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by yrium:

I can see no reason to ever **accumulate** the second terrain number. It should be as high a number as either cache independently would have received.

---

Originally, I was only going to ask about the "difficulty" side of the rating, but while I was writing the question, it occurred to me that the combined terrain could be cumulative, too, although not really so much so. The reason is that one of the big factors on the GCRS for terrain seems to be the distance you have to hike.

 

Say you have two 1/3 caches: dead simple to find once you get there, but 5 miles from the nearest parking and not on the same trail. The first 1/3 contains all or part of the coordinates of the second 1/3. That means that to get the second 1/3, you'll have to first get the first 1/3 (a 10-mile hike) and then get the second (another 10-mile hike.) If that 20 miles were all one hike, it would qualify as a 1/4.

 

Thinking about it, though, it makes sense that it wouldn't still be a 1/4 if you split it into two parts, because you get to go home and rest for a week before doing the second leg, so I have to agree that the terrain rating should be the maximum of the two individual terrain ratings.

 

I'm still not sold on the difficulty part, though, especially in the cases where the difficulty is mainly due to the need to solve some sort of puzzle or find some obscure information. What if you could only get the

first bit of information for Contact from the last stage of Hard as Pi? Wouldn't you wish you could give it a difficulty of 6?

[+glenn95630]

quote:

---

What if you could only get the first bit of information for Contact from the last stage of Hard as Pi?

---

 

Then you should plan on hunting your next cache in a room with padded walls.

 

quote:

---

Wouldn't you wish you could give it a difficulty of 6?

---

 

Why does this make me think of Spinal Tap...?