New ASP Version of the Rating System

[Guest brokenwing]

I have created a new ASP version of the GCRS rating system. It is my hope that Jeremy will use this on the geocaching web site.

 

Jeremy, contact me if you'd like the source sent to you.

 

Please don't link to this site, as I won't keep it up very long. I'm "borrowing" the site just for testing purposes.

 

Here is the link: http://www.oncinfo.com/rate/

 

Everyone, please let my know what you think.

 

Thanks,

brokenwing

 

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

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[Guest Markwell]

Very cool - and thanks for the credits!

 

Nice green background to match Jeremy's. Hmmm. Let's get it incorporated if he prefers ASP.

[Guest Markwell]

Very cool - and thanks for the credits!

 

Nice green background to match Jeremy's. Hmmm. Let's get it incorporated if he prefers ASP.

[Guest brokenwing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

Very cool - and thanks for the credits!

---

 

Your welcome. Thanks for your work on developing the ratings!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markwell:

Nice green background to match Jeremy's. Hmmm. Let's get it incorporated if he prefers ASP.

---

 

I wanted it to use the same scheme so Jeremy would not have to change anything. It should run on Geocaching.com as is. Of course, if he wants to change colors or something, (and how can any programmer resist?) it's should be easy, since I used style sheets.

 

Thanks for the feedback!

brokenwing

[Guest jeremy]

Sounds cool! Make sure you send me the credits for all the folks who have been involved with the GCRS along with the source code. I do like server side best since you can never quite tell what the next browser will break (*cough* IE6 *cough*)

 

Jeremy

[Guest jeremy]

Sounds cool! Make sure you send me the credits for all the folks who have been involved with the GCRS along with the source code. I do like server side best since you can never quite tell what the next browser will break (*cough* IE6 *cough*)

 

Jeremy

[Guest brokenwing]

It's on the way. The credits are on the page itself.

 

Thanks!

brokenwing

 

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

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[Guest Cape Cod Cache]

Not sure what to say BW, the concept is great, but difficulty is rather subjective. It's similar to what that Clay Jar fella came up with. I do remember some of the comments in the original threads; 1,1 would allow for a wheelchair-bound Downs Syndrome child to find a cache. 5,5 would take a Delta Force team to find. Too radical. These are good guidelines, but remember how ski trails are marked, by the mountain/area, not some whole skiing universe.

It looks good BW, and 10 points for the effort

BTW, my first placed cache was done with my MOM (1636) she's 78 and walks a mile to get a gallon milk for the exorcise, but she stopped short of mud ! LMAO

[Guest brokenwing]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cape Cod Cache:

Not sure what to say BW, the concept is great, but difficulty is rather subjective. It's similar to what that Clay Jar fella came up with. I do remember some of the comments in the original threads; 1,1 would allow for a wheelchair-bound Downs Syndrome child to find a cache. 5,5 would take a Delta Force team to find. Too radical. These are good guidelines, but remember how ski trails are marked, by the mountain/area, not some whole skiing universe.

It looks good BW, and 10 points for the effort

BTW, my first placed cache was done with my MOM (1636) she's 78 and walks a mile to get a gallon milk for the exorcise, but she stopped short of mud ! LMAO

---

 

Just for clarification, this is identical to ClayJar's version. That's because his was based on my original GCRS. That program was based on the rating guidelines I proposed on the forums.

 

I'm a bit surprised you find the ratings system too radical. How would you change it? Remember, the point of this is to help those of differing abilities have a consistent standard to use.

 

Thanks,

brokenwing

 

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

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

 

[This message has been edited by brokenwing (edited 07 September 2001).]

[Guest martinp13]

your shows while geocaching? Get a TiVo !

[Guest arffer]

The primary focus of the GCRS was standardizing TERRAIN difficulty, so that's where the major emphasis was. The desire was a commonality in how tough it was to get to the area of cache placement, so folks would know what they were getting into. Safety is/was a major element, to know if we are physically able to accomplish a hunt.

 

The second element of the rating is the difficulty in finding the hiding spot, once the terrain has been overcome. Yes, this is very subjective. Almost no development has been done to standardize this. Heck, its only one question in the GCRS.

 

Perhaps we should start a discussion on this element now, and see what we can come up with. However, the difficulty in finding a hidden cache is much more qualitative than measuring the quantitative difficulty of the terrain to get there. It all comes down to the mental creativity and deviousness of the hidder, as measured by the equal mental scope of the hunter. Its not a muscle/shape/endurance/climbing/biking type of thing. Its a stop and think about it thing.

 

In practical terms, the first rating element covers the use of the GPSR. Its when we get to the point where the GPSR has done its job and its time to stick it back in the pack that the second rating element comes into play. We're here, now lets find it.

 

Martinp13 makes the point, for example, that not all multileg caches are a three. Exactly correct. So, if yours should be a four in your estimation, then make it a four. Someone may use clues that require a PHD in quantum physics to find (hard as PI ), its the cache's description that bears the brunt of letting us know what we are up against in finding the cache's hiding place. This difficulty rating element should reflect the cache description.

 

My 11yr old daughter recently made her own cache, and rated the finding difficulty at an average 3, it was creativly hidden, but felt of average difficulty. Just to prove how subjective the hiding is, after enough hunters commented on how it was won of the hardest (and therefore best) hunts they had been on, she upped the rating a bit. She modified it based on the subjectivity of others inputs.

 

In summary, the GCRS is fine for what it was intended to do, help start an effort to standardize the terrain rating, lets PLEASE get it onto the site (Thanks Brokenwind for the ASP version that matches Jeremy's needs, and thanks Jeremy for incorporating it). Now, we should feel free to see if a meeting of minds can take place to add to it for the find difficulty rating.

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 10 September 2001).]

[Guest arffer]

The primary focus of the GCRS was standardizing TERRAIN difficulty, so that's where the major emphasis was. The desire was a commonality in how tough it was to get to the area of cache placement, so folks would know what they were getting into. Safety is/was a major element, to know if we are physically able to accomplish a hunt.

 

The second element of the rating is the difficulty in finding the hiding spot, once the terrain has been overcome. Yes, this is very subjective. Almost no development has been done to standardize this. Heck, its only one question in the GCRS.

 

Perhaps we should start a discussion on this element now, and see what we can come up with. However, the difficulty in finding a hidden cache is much more qualitative than measuring the quantitative difficulty of the terrain to get there. It all comes down to the mental creativity and deviousness of the hidder, as measured by the equal mental scope of the hunter. Its not a muscle/shape/endurance/climbing/biking type of thing. Its a stop and think about it thing.

 

In practical terms, the first rating element covers the use of the GPSR. Its when we get to the point where the GPSR has done its job and its time to stick it back in the pack that the second rating element comes into play. We're here, now lets find it.

 

Martinp13 makes the point, for example, that not all multileg caches are a three. Exactly correct. So, if yours should be a four in your estimation, then make it a four. Someone may use clues that require a PHD in quantum physics to find (hard as PI ), its the cache's description that bears the brunt of letting us know what we are up against in finding the cache's hiding place. This difficulty rating element should reflect the cache description.

 

My 11yr old daughter recently made her own cache, and rated the finding difficulty at an average 3, it was creativly hidden, but felt of average difficulty. Just to prove how subjective the hiding is, after enough hunters commented on how it was won of the hardest (and therefore best) hunts they had been on, she upped the rating a bit. She modified it based on the subjectivity of others inputs.

 

In summary, the GCRS is fine for what it was intended to do, help start an effort to standardize the terrain rating, lets PLEASE get it onto the site (Thanks Brokenwind for the ASP version that matches Jeremy's needs, and thanks Jeremy for incorporating it). Now, we should feel free to see if a meeting of minds can take place to add to it for the find difficulty rating.

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 10 September 2001).]

[Guest Markwell]

quote:

---

Originally posted by arffer:

In practical terms, the first rating element covers the use of the GPSR. Its when we get to the point where the GPSR has done its job and its time to stick it back in the pack that the second rating element comes into play. We're here, now lets find it.

---

 

You make the case from my Hard as Pi for being a difficult one (it is), but the difficulty lies in finding and figuring out clues, two very distinct characteristics that both play into difficulty. One leg of Hard as Pi appears to be incredibly difficult to find physically - although that was not my intention. It was just a side effect, and a pleasant one at that.

 

But in my opinion, that isn't the hardest leg of the cache. The last one is because it involves actually solving trig questions to find the coordinates for the final destination. While finding leg 3 makes the cache difficult once you get to the coordinates and have to hunt for the cache, the last leg is difficult because you have to do so much figuring BEFORE you turn on the GPS.

 

I don't know how you could quatify these in terms of a form to fill out other than how we have done it so far.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by arffer:

Just to prove how subjective the hiding is, after enough hunters commented on how it was won of the hardest (and therefore best) hunts they had been on, she upped the rating a bit. She modified it based on the subjectivity of others inputs.

---

 

And I think therein lies the intention. Terrain, as you point out, can be quatified. Difficulty is much more subjective. I think we ended up with a good solution to give people more GUIDELINES on how to rate their caches. In the end, people still don't necessarily HAVE to fill out the form to get their ratings.

 

So why go to all the trouble to further quantify something that is inherently difficult to quantify, just to give people suggestions on how to rate their caches? I think we'd be spending our time spinning our wheels on the subject and never come to a consensus.

 

Geocaching needed something to adequately describe the terrain involved so as not to have people fall into harm's way. The difficulty portion of the calculator was indeed an afterthought, but only because it isn't life-threatening to go after a difficult cache with a 1.5 terrain.

 

I'm ranting. Basically, I think we have a good tool here to help people come up with suggested levels of rating their caches - which is all the GCRS ever intended to be.

[Guest brokenwing]

that are so long as to be unusable, I'm all for it. Let us see what you have!

 

Thanks,

Brokenwing

 

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

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[Guest exConn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brokenwing:

I have created a new ASP version of the GCRS rating system. It is my hope that Jeremy will use this on the geocaching web site.

---

 

I think it would be great to have this on the site. Thanks for your initiative brokenwing, Markwell, ClayJar, etc...

 

What I think would be great and would make it even clearer is if the *text* (of your system) and answers of how a person rated their cache was somehow available on that persons cache page (encrypted or a linked page perhaps?).

 

Although this would take a little more work, it would be great to *optionally* see the approximate length of trail, bushy or overgrown, terrain elevations, and your other GCRS questions answered by the originator as an alternative to the number rankings.

 

-exConn

[Guest Bob_and_Genny]

Just looked at the ASP version, GOOD JOB Brokenwing! Getting more people to use it will help.

 

For the difficulty rating, I agree that it is very subjective. But maybe we can do the same thing where it is broken down by some of the attributes and rate them individually.

 

Some of the attributes may be:

 

location:

1 obvious location

2-10 locations

10 + locations

 

visability:

in plain sight

out in the open but camo'd

partially visable

fully hidden

fully hidden and camo'd

 

Accuracy:

good satellite lock, +/- 20ft

poor satellite lock, +/- 50ft

lower resolution gps, +/- 100ft

 

Challenge:

multi-leg

multi-day

special skills

additional research required

 

Most of this was taken right from the current descripions, I'm just trying to apply the same logic that went into the terrain rating.

 

Bob

[Guest brokenwing]

Good idea Bob! This has potential. My biggest concern though, is that if we make the form longer, people won't use it. What does everyone think? Is this a valid concern?

 

If not, we need to see if we can actually come up with something that makes the rating more accurate. If not, it's just a bunch of questions that get us to the same result. How would you all handle the questions mathematically?

 

Also, one of these criteria is of concern to me. Since we all use different GPSRs, I'm wondering how useful or valid the Accuracy thing would be?

 

Thanks for the input.

brokenwing

 

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

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

 

[This message has been edited by brokenwing (edited 10 September 2001).]

[Guest Markwell]

I like the initial idea. As far as the accuracy, I think most of us could determine what the reported accuracy of the unit was during the hide (most of us know where to find that number, but Neocachers may not), and I presume the last figure was meant to determine if the GPSR shows three decimals or two.

 

My vote is for having the mathematics approximate the standards we have so far. But how would that be accomplished?

[Guest arffer]

Yeah, I know that I was one to say lets go ahead and feel free to toss out ideas to discuss on how to better incorporate difficulty rating into the GCRS, as long as it doesn't delay its being put onto Jeremy's site.

 

I'm still willing to 'spin my wheels' for the discussion to see what we can come up with, but... personally, I fall in line with Markwell's sentiments in that I see no way to impliment something that is so subjective and as such, unquantifiable.

 

Brokenwing does a good job of listing some of the things that go into a find, each with a tremendous amount of variance between individual cache hunters.

 

My personal recommendation: drop even the single question on the GCRS, and make it purely a terrain rating system.

 

Then lets provide a nice text paragraph explaining what the cache owner should take into consideration in rating the difficulty of their cache. Then leave it up to the cache owner's brain. My gosh, how hard can it be to pick a number from 1 to 5?

 

And in the long run, how important is that aspect of rating anyway? My life and limb certainly aren't at risk like they might be for a screwed up terrain rating.

[Guest Markwell]

I dunno - I kinda like having a difficulty calculator, even if it is cursory. One could make the argument "How difficult is it to pick a terrain number from 1-5," but as evidenced with the forum that started this whole discussion, it's obviously harder than we thought.

 

At least the quick-one-question answer gives people a little guideline into what makes a difficult cache (can you tell I'm a little attached to that section? without it, I can't take any credit for the rating system ).

 

I say - leave the whole thing as is.

[Guest Markwell]

I dunno - I kinda like having a difficulty calculator, even if it is cursory. One could make the argument "How difficult is it to pick a terrain number from 1-5," but as evidenced with the forum that started this whole discussion, it's obviously harder than we thought.

 

At least the quick-one-question answer gives people a little guideline into what makes a difficult cache (can you tell I'm a little attached to that section? without it, I can't take any credit for the rating system ).

 

I say - leave the whole thing as is.

[Guest ClayJar]

ad-on if I had been a crow).

 

I had someone follow a few days behind me and easily find a very hard cache, even though I had left as little trace as possible through the use of trekking poles and a least-damage route. I had re-concealed the exact location enough that they had some searching to do, but the difficulty was at least two stars less for them than it was for me.

 

If we try to start distilling and quantifying the difficulty, we'll end up having to guess at finder's luck, "the force", the number of visitors as it relates to the growth rate of the brush, and perhaps even the particular species of swallows that frequent the area.

 

I can't help but believe that some things are better left somewhat ethereal. I think the one question should stay there, as it provides a quick summary basis for neocachers (I like the term, Markwell), who will likely read the form but almost certainly not read a guideline. (Anyone who writes software will tell you that most people will refuse to read even a 1/4 page insert.)

 

Anyway, feel free to disagree, but I feel better having chimed in.

 

(Edited for spelling and to correct a split infinitive. Shame on my grammar.)

 

[This message has been edited by ClayJar (edited 10 September 2001).]

[Guest ClayJar]

ad-on if I had been a crow).

 

I had someone follow a few days behind me and easily find a very hard cache, even though I had left as little trace as possible through the use of trekking poles and a least-damage route. I had re-concealed the exact location enough that they had some searching to do, but the difficulty was at least two stars less for them than it was for me.

 

If we try to start distilling and quantifying the difficulty, we'll end up having to guess at finder's luck, "the force", the number of visitors as it relates to the growth rate of the brush, and perhaps even the particular species of swallows that frequent the area.

 

I can't help but believe that some things are better left somewhat ethereal. I think the one question should stay there, as it provides a quick summary basis for neocachers (I like the term, Markwell), who will likely read the form but almost certainly not read a guideline. (Anyone who writes software will tell you that most people will refuse to read even a 1/4 page insert.)

 

Anyway, feel free to disagree, but I feel better having chimed in.

 

(Edited for spelling and to correct a split infinitive. Shame on my grammar.)

 

[This message has been edited by ClayJar (edited 10 September 2001).]

[Guest arffer]

Mrs. arffer here. I heartedly agree with a standardized terrain rating. I recently went after several caches while on a business trip (no arffer around to help but I did call him on the cell phone when I got stumped at one point - turns out a cache had been destroyed).

 

Anyway, one cache I went after was in Golden Gate Park with a terrain rating of 1.5. The next one I went after was also a rating of 1.5, so off I went in search of it between conference sessions. As it turned out, this cache was on a very high and steep hill. No problem, I planned on a lot of hiking up hills in San Fransisco. I got to the top (huffing and puffing) but my GPS was pointing out along a narrow path on the edge of the steep hill and the path was covered with rocks and loose dirt. I tried to approach from different angles but none seemed safe, especially when I came prepared (or unprepared) for a 1.5 rated hike (no walking stick or repelling ropes)

 

I know I was/am grousing more than I should. But it was our first 'not found' and I was bummed. If I knew it was going to be difficult (the next person to log it said it was very steep and tricky, so it wasn't just me)I would have skipped this one since I was by myself and looking for 'easy' caches while exploring the city. I knew Mr. arffer wouldn't approve me risking tumbling down a several hundred foot steep hill of a perfect caching record.

 

As a side note, I celebrated my birthday while on the trip and when I got back Mr. arffer had a super cool walking stick and new compass waiting me.

 

[This message has been edited by arffer (edited 10 September 2001).]

[Guest exConn]

These arguments are why I believe the text descriptions of the caches are way more important than the numbers.

 

We can talk about this until we are blue in the face but there is no way to get the numerical values perfect. I think we should use the form brokenwing proposed above to get the numbers because it's a great starting point and probably as close as you can get to a universal, usable numerical value.

 

However, when someone hides a new cache let's prompt them to enter *quality* descriptions (perhaps using text from the GCRS system questions).

 

When I see 1's and 2's they are the same to me anyway because I realize people view ability differently (as well as 4's and 5's being similar at the other end). I give much more credence to the *description* entered by the originator than the numbers.

 

-exConn

 

[This message has been edited by exConn (edited 10 September 2001).]

[Guest brokenwing]

Agreed, exConn. Text descriptions would be ideal. I wish more people would give them, especially on the harder caches. One of my pet peeves is not listing the length of the hike. This is critical information, not only for good planning, but also from a safety standpoint. After all, how do I know how much water to pack, etc without such info? While I'd like it on all caches, I think anything over a 3 terrain rating should automatically have this in the description.

 

Case in point, T-Storm and I are planning to make a weekend trip to a state park about an hour south of us. We normally Geocache with our two year old, but this time we are going alone while little GeoFerret stays with grandma. This will give us an opportunity to hit some caches we could not otherwise attempt. The problem is, most of the cache listings don't give us any idea if these caches are a two-mile stroll, or a 15-mile hike. It makes a big difference in our planning, and because a weekend trip sans GeoFerret is so rare for us, we want to maximize our time.

 

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

http://www.cordianet.com/geocaching

[Guest exConn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brokenwing:

One of my pet peeves is not listing the length of the hike. This is critical information, not only for good planning, but also from a safety standpoint.

---

 

Yes, absolutely agreed! Whenever I look at a cache, the hike distance is always the very *first* piece of information that I am concerned with because we 'cache as a family and I almost always have my kids with me.

 

As soon as I get to the trailhead or parking area I immediately look to see what the distance is to the cache and determine if my kids are up for it or if I'll have to return later. Wish this information was standard fare in the listing...

 

-exConn