Intentionally Bad Ratings

[+fizzymagic]

OK, first I need to eat some crow. I have long complained that geocaching.com treats cache hiders like they are irresponsible children. Well, given a couple of recent events in my area, I have to take that back. Cache hiders often are like irresponsible children and need to be treated as such.

 

Here's one of the issues: recently, a newbie in my area placed 35 (that's right, 35) caches at one time. They were all microcaches. I am sure you can imagine the quality of the hides and coordinates. Anyway, the hider rated every single one of the caches a 1/1. After a certain amount of, um, feedback, he relented and rated the terrains appropriately, but left all the difficulties as 1 as "an extra challange. [sic]"

 

For reasons that I cannot entirely explain, I find this behavior intensely annoying. So I have two questions: first, in your opinion, does this violate the guidelines? And second, what can (or should) be done about it?

[+Planet]

It's cheap tactics and bad form! I would simply boycott his caches and not look for them. Rating the terrain correctly is so important for so many cachers, he has no idea! For the approver to not catch on that one guys submits 35 at a time is unusual, I woud think they would question it. Someone actually gave advice in one of the threads to someone else to fudge the coords to make a find harder. That is so ridiculous. We have a cacher around here that I have heard does that to make it harder. Why? why why why? Don't look for them.

[WH]

OK, first I need to eat some crow. I have long complained that geocaching.com treats cache hiders like they are irresponsible children. Well, given a couple of recent events in my area, I have to take that back. Cache hiders often are like irresponsible children and need to be treated as such.

 

Here's one of the issues: recently, a newbie in my area placed 35 (that's right, 35) caches at one time. They were all microcaches. I am sure you can imagine the quality of the hides and coordinates. Anyway, the hider rated every single one of the caches a 1/1. After a certain amount of, um, feedback, he relented and rated the terrains appropriately, but left all the difficulties as 1 as "an extra challange. [sic]"

 

For reasons that I cannot entirely explain, I find this behavior intensely annoying. So I have two questions: first, in your opinion, does this violate the guidelines? And second, what can (or should) be done about it?

When you start projecting your etical guidelines onto someone else, trouble is usually not far away. Since it is up to each cache hider to rate his / her caches, what you and they consider to be a 1/1 could be totally different.

 

Unless there is some flagrant violation of GC.com policy or rules, I would just let it be. Word travels fast amongst cachers. Once it gets around that this person's caches are either rated wrong, or are just plain lousy hides, not many people will want to seek them out. IMHO

[+Planet]

OK, first I need to eat some crow.  I have long complained that geocaching.com treats cache hiders like they are irresponsible children.  Well, given a couple of recent events in my area, I have to take that back.  Cache hiders often are like irresponsible children and need to be treated as such.

 

Here's one of the issues:  recently, a newbie in my area placed 35 (that's right, 35) caches at one time.  They were all microcaches.  I am sure you can imagine the quality of the hides and coordinates.  Anyway, the hider rated every single one of the caches a 1/1.  After a certain amount of, um, feedback, he relented and rated the terrains appropriately, but left all the difficulties as 1 as "an extra challange. [sic]"

 

For reasons that I cannot entirely explain, I find this behavior intensely annoying.  So I have two questions:  first, in your opinion, does this violate the guidelines?  And second, what can (or should) be done about it?

When you start projecting your etical guidelines onto someone else, trouble is usually not far away. Since it is up to each cache hider to rate his / her caches, what you and they consider to be a 1/1 could be totally different.

 

Unless there is some flagrant violation of GC.com policy or rules, I would just let it be. Word travels fast amongst cachers. Once it gets around that this person's caches are either rated wrong, or are just plain lousy hides, not many people will want to seek them out. IMHO

Terrain rated 1 is SUPPOSED to be wheelchair friendly. If a cacher in a chair goes through all it takes to get to the cache site and finds a set of stairs in the way, and just suppose it were you, wouldn't you be a bit PEEVED at the hider for not rating it correctly? I know I would!!! Terrain ratings are important, very very important. Suppose it was rated a 4 and you got all the way there only to discover you needed a boat, or climbing gear, or scuba gear. Again wouldn't you be ticked off?

Here is the rating system: http://clayjar.com/gcrs/ Now play fair!

[+briansnat]

I don't think it violates the GC.COM guidelines. I don't see anything there requiring us to rate caches properly, or saying that our hides should be good. However I don't see how placing 35 micros in one day adds anything to geocaching. How much thought really could have gone into them? Sounds like someone walked around with a bunch of film canisters with a slip of paper inside and said "Ooh, I can put one here, and here, and here....."

 

Bassoonpilot once mentioned a scenario where someone would drive down a highway with bag full of film canisters and stop every tenth of a mile to stick one to the guardrail. I think most people thought he was being silly at the time, but it seems that he wasn't too far off the mark. This sounds pretty close.

 

As far as what to do about it? Nothing. You can ignore his caches. I bet that as each one disappears, he will just archive them. I'm sure though, that a lot of people will drool at the opportunity to knock off 35 finds in a short period of time. Unlike WH, I see this series being very popular among a certain segment of the geocaching community.

 

Since it is up to each cache hider to rate his / her caches, what you and they consider to be a 1/1 could be totally different.

 

Not true. There are standards. 1 star terrain is supposed to be handicap accessable as Planet said. 5 stars require special equipment, like scuba, or climbing gear. In between there is some wiggle room, but not a lot.

 

Here is a refresher:

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

Edited April 15, 2004 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

I fail to see the logic in thinking by giving a wrong rating it will increase the difficulty. Kind of sounds like he didn't know what he was doing and now doesn't want to admit it.

 

Sorry to hear you have this problem in your area.

[+Mopar]

I think the best you can do is be truthful in your logs. If the rating is off, post that, and suggest the actual rating. This is especially important on the terrain rating, as others have stated. Even non-handicapped people look at the cache ratings to decide what caches to do. We use them to determine if a cache is infant/child friendly. We use them to determine if we can snag the cache in our work clothes. We use them to determine what equipment we need to bring with us to safely attempt the cache. For a 1-1.5 terrain I would probably carry little more then the GPS, a compass, a pen, and a camera. For a 4 terrain I would have a whole backpack of stuff. Water, spare batteries, first aid kit, 2 way radios, food, the works. Pretty much everything needed to survive at least a night or 2, if need be.

 

Intentionally mis-rating a cache is at the very least, annoying. At the worst, it could cause injury or death. Here in the country of lawyers, it could probably also lead to the cache hider getting sued.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Mopar

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Here's one of the issues:  recently, a newbie in my area placed 35 (that's right, 35) caches at one time.  They were all microcaches.  I am sure you can imagine the quality of the hides and coordinates.  ... For reasons that I cannot entirely explain, I find this behavior intensely annoying.

This log summed it up: "This had to be the easiest one yet as it was laying out in the open with no cammo or anything. Just laying on the grass."

 

I think it is sad that people intentionally rate their caches incorrectly. It is even sadder that caches like those, in those numbers, were approved.

 

BrianSnat is right ... a certain element will find these caches appealing ... why, it wouldn't surprise me if someone even created an "Event Cache" and got a group together to find all 35 ... make that 36.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Lately when a cacher rates a cache a 1 when it obviously isn't I Just mention that in my log. That if I were in a wheelchair I couldn't have gotten to this cache. Hopefully those that don't get it will.

 

But hiding 35 micros? I'd give that cacher a big wet kiss on the cheek. That adds 35 to the totals baby.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

[Find Now, Log Later?]

But hiding 25 micros? I'd give that cacher a big wet kiss on the cheek. That adds 35 to the totals baby.

Never mind --- I saw your post before you edited the finger-slip, and was going to ask how you decided which ones to log twice.

[+JMBella]

"Ooh, I can put one here, and here, and here....."

 

That just gave me an image of a big hairy man dressed in a tinker bell costume skipping around throwing film cans all over like they were pixie dust.

 

Anyway, the biggest problem I see is that people are going to run out and find all these caches and be happy to have 35 more smileys. To be completely honest, I probably would too. However I would DPM them all. At least he adjusted the terrain rating the difficulty rating probably is a 1 anyway.

[+Stem]

I think it is really bad form to intentionally rate caches wrong.

 

** All the caches have been rated a 1 difficulty as an extra challenge.

 

The rating system is in place for a very good reason. It doesn't add more of a challenge to rate them wrong. It bothers me that he did this. I looked at several of the cache pages, and there are some very short (two letter even) log notes for some of these. That may be a hint. Also, it seems to be a trend with several that his coords are off by a good clip. If he hid all 35 in one day, did he even attempt to get a good avg?

 

Another thing I noticed about these caches:

 

I'm not sure if this is bad form or acceptable, so I would be interested in others feedback on this part. It seems this is a family that is using one username. Several members of the family have logged these caches as finds . It does appear that the member of the team that hid them did not assist the others in finding them. They have over twenty finds of their own caches. Is this considered bad form? I know logging a cache you hid as a find is generally considered a breach of etiquette, but what if it is different members of a family using the same username?

[Ferreter5]

If he wanted to make people work for it a little bit more he could have made it a 35-stage multi -- NOT!

 

Personally, I'd never do these caches knowing that they were all just slapped out there like that. They'll probably disappear over time -- and everyone knows it -- so there're really kind of like temporary caches. I seriously doubt they'll be properly maintained.

[McKenzie Clan]

Can one of the approvers chime in on this.

 

Why on earth would someone think that 35 cache hides in one day would result in 35 good hides?

 

As an approver would you not find this strange?

 

Scott

[+Renegade Knight]

What should be done about it? Nothing. Why? Because any answer would infringe upon the ability of people who do caches that you enjoy to keep on doing them with minimal interference.

 

The solution is one that we all use anyway. We get a feel for a persons hides over time. We develop a mental rating of the hider and use that to judge whether to jump all over that FTF or to wait until there is nothing else remotly close to find before we look for their cache, if we look at all.

 

I find the concept of introducing cache hider ratings amusing but not praticial.

[+Harrald]

It seems to be bad form to me. But as long as the terrains are rated correctly there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with what he's done. Personaly I wouldn't waste my time hunting 35 micros hidden in parking lots and street signs.

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Anyway, the biggest problem I see is that people are going to run out and find all these caches and be happy to have 35 more smileys.

Unfortunately, geocaching does seem to have turned into a game where, in many areas, the "smileys" are the only element of the cache experience that "makes people happy."

[+Criminal]

I have to say, the popularity of the game has resulted in a lot of sloppy players. Sloppy players leave sloppy trades, leave the cache sloppily replaced, and eventually lead to sloppy hides.

 

Post a note on the cache page telling why you won't hunt for it, if you feel very strongly about it. Or just ignore them.

[+The Leprechauns]

Personally, I'd never do these caches knowing that they were all just slapped out there like that. They'll probably disappear over time -- and everyone knows it -- so there're really kind of like temporary caches. I seriously doubt they'll be properly maintained.

The caches may or may not disappear.... there are plenty of caches put out by excellent hiders that go missing very quickly under mysterious circumstances and, conversely, plenty of ill-planned caches that seem to last forever. I found a cache in July 2002 that's 20 feet from the road and I said to myself "this one will never last." It's still there.

 

In the meantime, while we wait and see if these caches disappear due to poor hiding, poor maintenance, or whatever, you've got to feel badly for fizzymagic and others in that area who have to stare at 35 micros which they may not ever want to hunt. "Just don't look for them" isn't the best answer for someone who likes to challenge themself to keep the nearest X miles free of unfound caches.

 

Several solutions have been offered: (1) the ability to "ignore" a cache or an owner online (not currently possible) or in third party software with pocket queries (possible), or (2) just setting your pocket queries to exclude micros, or (3) changing the cache hiding guidelines to add a limit on the sheer number of hides allowed, or (4) changing the cache hiding guidelines to incorporate a substantive coolness factor.

 

I'm not sure that any of these is the perfect answer. What I worry about most is that someone who hides *good* micros (for those of us who like them to begin with) could have their good micros swept away with the carelessly tossed ones, through some sort of filter or limitation. The same is true with tupperware, ammo boxes and virtuals. But presently, there is absolutely nothing in the cache guidelines prohibiting someone from hiding 35 micros at once along the side of the road, provided they all meet the other guidelines (proximity to other caches, not in a National Park, etc.) Nor is there any way for the cache reviewer to validate the appropriateness of the assigned rating, except based on obvious things in the cache description. It is one thing for a reviewer to note that since the cache description mentions paddling to an island, the cache ought to be rated terrain 5 for special equipment needs, or since the cache description mentions climbing a muddy hill, that the cache ought to be rated higher than terrain 1, which should be handicapped accessible. It is an entirely different thing to say that "a difficulty 1.5 looks a bit low" because it's impossible to know that without actually being there hunting the cache.

[+Hemlock]

Can one of the approvers chime in on this. 

 

Why on earth would someone think that 35 cache hides in one day would result in 35 good hides?

 

As an approver would you not find this strange?

As the approver for the area in question I guess I should chime in here

 

Unfortunately there is nothing in the guidelines to prohibit lame physical caches. If there was, I could probably turn down at least 25% of the caches I review.

 

A year or so ago, there was much public upheaval here in the forums over lame virtual caches that resulted in tightening the guidelines for virtual caches. Interestingly, now people complain because those same guidelines prevent them from placing new lame virtual caches. We can't have it both ways, folks.

 

Personally, as a cacher, I would love it if there was a guideline that physical caches had to meet some standard for quality. However as a reviewer, I think this would be impossible to implement without going out and visiting every cache. While that would be fun to do, Groundspeak doesn't pay me enough.

 

To answer the question, yes, I did find this series strange and egotistical. The 35 caches were placed because it was the hider's 35th birthday However all of the locations appeared to meet the guidelines for placement, so they were approved. Unfortunately it was found out later that some of the coords were munged, 5 of them being over 0.1 mile that required my intervention to correct. He's currently working on another series and I'm working with him to make sure the quality is better this time. I'll note this thread was the first I heard of the 1/1 ratings issue, so I'll look at that on the new ones.

 

In closing I just want to say peer pressure and feedback is much more effective than guidelines in a case like this. And as Leprechauns noted, hard guidelines or filters will tend to exclude other caches that are perfectly fine.

[+JMBella]

I think trying to implement guidelines to regulate the "quality" of caches is just a bad idea. I'd rather deal with the occasional rash of lame micros than have to try and convince the admin that my well thought out and creatively hidden micro is worthy of a listing on GC.com.

[CoyoteRed]

Interestingly, now people complain because those same guidelines prevent them from placing new lame virtual caches.

Happy people are generally quiet. The people complaining aren't the one's that seen the results of lax virt guidelines. We simply have to point out the reasons.

[McKenzie Clan]

Hemlock.... thanks for the perspective.

 

Scott

[CoyoteRed]

I concur that asking others to pass judgement on a third party is a bad idea. The better solution would be to pass judgement for ourselves and ourselves only.

 

I'm hoping the upcoming "buddy lists" will be a viable solution.

[+Stem]

I'm not trying to start a battle with an approver, but hemlock said:

I'll note this thread was the first I heard of the 1/1 ratings issue, so I'll look at that on the new ones.

 

It says in the description of each cache:

** All the caches have been rated a 1 difficulty as an extra challenge.

 

I don't know if I picked up on that because it was obvious, or because I looked at those cache pages because of this thread. He (the hider), admitted right in his description that the ratings were erroneous

[Moun10Bike]

I don't know if I picked up on that because it was obvious, or because I looked at those cache pages because of this thread. He (the hider), admitted right in his description that the ratings were erroneous

Fizzy mentions in his original post in this thread that "[a]fter a certain amount of, um, feedback, he relented and rated the terrains appropriately, but left all the difficulties as 1 as 'an extra challange. [sic]'"

[+wimseyguy]

Oooh another lame cache thread. Break out the deceased equine artwork. I have mixed feelings about this behavior. It does detract from the overall quality of the caching experience for most. But as someone who doesn't always have time to drive miles away to find new caches-I would seek them if they were in my 'hood.

Smiley's make me happy , finding caches makes me happy. Will I go into great detail in my logs-Nah not likely. TNLNSL should suffice unless the ratings are way off.

Thanks for chiming in Hemlock and offering the level voice.

[+Harrald]

Oooh another lame cache thread. <<SNIP>>

I don't think that's the point here. I believe it was more of a "Rating the cache wrong on purpose" thread.

 

Lame is in the eye of the beholder. Incorrectly rated caches is a different issue.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

But hiding 25 micros?  I'd give that cacher a big wet kiss on the cheek.  That adds 35 to the totals baby.

Never mind --- I saw your post before you edited the finger-slip, and was going to ask how you decided which ones to log twice.

You're quicker than me.

 

Sadly I type quickly and poorly.

 

Can't I log my favorite 10 twice each?

 

There are no lame caches, only lame cachers

[+Renegade Knight]

One thing I like about this thread is that people universially now take a 1 to mean Wheelchair assessable and use peer pressure to enforce it.

 

It's one of the few universals people agree on. When it comes to a difficulty rating it's all I can do to get my own right.

[+The Leprechauns]

When it comes to a difficulty rating it's all I can do to get my own right.

God yes. In my mind, all of my own hides are difficulty 1.5 because, while they're out of sight, I can usually find them pretty quickly!

 

But even your best guess about how long it would take *others* to find your cache is better than saying you're intentionally setting the rating as X when you know in your heart that it is not X.

[+fizzymagic]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts so far. A couple of notes:

 

First, I don't object per se to the number of caches placed. Interestingly, just before these appeared, I had done this series, which were all excellent hides of good containers. I'm not advocating that caches be rejected by approvers just because there are a lot of them.

 

I have only searched for one of the 35, so I can't comment directly on their lameness. I probably won't intentionally avoid them; if I am in the area with a few minutes to spare, I will hunt them. But I am not going to go out and grab all 35 to add to my numbers. I may well try to come up with innovative DPM logs.

 

I did place a note on one cache page indicating that I didn't think that the intentional mis-rating was OK; that note was deleted by the cache owner.

 

Please note that the terrain ratings are now OK. It's the difficulty ratings that are intentionally incorrect.

 

One concern I have about the purposely bad difficulty ratings is that it could well start a competition around here: who can place the hardest cache rated as a difficulty 1? I don't like that for a whole variety of reasons, not the least is that it would be pretty unfriendly to new cachers.

[+briansnat]

To answer the question, yes, I did find this series strange and egotistical. The 35 caches were placed because it was the hider's 35th birthday

 

I hope he isn't living near me when he turns 50!

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

To answer the question, yes, I did find this series strange and egotistical. The 35 caches were placed because it was the hider's 35th birthday

 

I hope he isn't living near me when he turns 50!

I hope he lives around me I enjoy them all and at these gas prices there isn't one close enough to warrent the costs to find one. Not a single one between me and town to be found

[+Touchstone]

In rock climbing vernacular this behavior is referred to as “sandbagging” (i.e. intentional underrating of a climb). Although frowned upon, it’s not unheard of. The problem is usually self-correcting. As more people do the climb, word gets out that it’s not rated correctly.

 

We have an advantage here. With the miracle of modern science and the internet, we can post logs, start forum discussions, and get the word out more quickly.

 

I think Fizzy’s approach with the Note was appropriate, but the cache owner does have the ability to delete logs. Perhaps if a “Find” had the essence of Fizzy’s note in it, the cache owner would have a more difficult time justifying the deletion. That’s assuming this individual has some scruples .

[+buck09]

Well, if you look back at that cache out in the open, it has disappeared. Suprise, suprise. The game is nicely self-correcting that way.

 

Rating 1/1 is, IMHO lazy and I think every cacher should PM him each time they find a cache that isn't 1/1, but if the finds are decent, let the cachers decide wether they find them or now.

 

I assume this is the gentleman you're referring to...

Edited April 15, 2004 by buck09

[+briansnat]

I assume this is the gentleman you're referring to...

 

Well after looking at the logs, people certainly seem to be enjoying them, which I knew would happen (see my original post here). Most of these already have more finds in the few weeks they've been out, than most of my caches get in a year or two.

[+Cool Librarian]

I don't know why you guys had so much trouble. It was pretty easy to me. I mean, it was a little off, but after awhile it was pretty easy. It only took me about 2 minutes. I am only twelve years old, so I would think all you adults should have no trouble.

 

This quote was taken from a log on one of the 35 micros. I am assuming this child is a relative of the hider (same "team" name....)

 

I can see there is a lot of "quality" all the way around in this group. If I had used that obnoxious tone as a 12 year-old to adults, I would have been sorry.

 

I can understand the frustration here. But as much as I would like to rule the world and make sure that everyone puts in the same amount of thought/effort/maintenance that I try to in my own caches, it just ain't gonna happen. My opinion - if you are not into the FTF, save them for a day when looking for better caches isn't an option and you just have to go find SOMETHING!

Edited April 15, 2004 by cool_librarian

[Find Now, Log Later?]

I concur that asking others to pass judgement on a third party is a bad idea.

Never been called for jury duty, have you?

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Well, if you look back at that cache out in the open, it has disappeared. Suprise, suprise. The game is nicely self-correcting that way.

Are you suggesting that "the revolution has begun?"

[Find Now, Log Later?]

Unfortunately there is nothing in the guidelines to prohibit lame physical caches. If there was, I could probably turn down at least 25% of the caches I review.

Perhaps the guidelines should be edited to read "Lame physical caches may not be approved," since at least one of the approvers has stated that he interprets the words "may not be approved" to be synonymous with "are prohibited." That should provide the approvers the "out" they need.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Bassoon Pilot

[+buck09]

Well, if you look back at that cache out in the open, it has disappeared. Suprise, suprise. The game is nicely self-correcting that way.

Are you suggesting that "the revolution has begun?"

Not really. It's just nice to know that geocachers aren't the only ones picking up trash in the parks.

[+Planet]

How did this go from a "wrong rating" thread to a "lame cache" thread? After leaving the forums and coming back it has taken a whole different twist. I read the cache page, and it does seem like he put some thought into the placement, the issue here is the ratings and the coords being off deliberately (or not enough time spent taking them perhaps). It's not about being lame.

[+SoCalAdmin]

As the reviewer who actually approved most of them, if not all of them, let me chime in here...

 

As Hemlock pointed out, the caches met the guidelines that are currently in place for traditional caches. That's why they were approved.

 

As far as terrain ratings go, when possible, we try to get cache owners to put an appropriate terrain rating on a cache. If I see a cache placed on a mountain top rated a 1 on terrain, I'll confer with the cache owner before approving it. Micros placed in a park are very often rated as 1s and do not really raise a flag when submitted.

 

Speaking as a geocacher, I find it particularly annoying when a cache is deliberately under rated. If I find that one person constantly under rates their caches, I will sometimes contact them via private email and suggest that they might reconsider their ratings. Most of the time, I just take into account their method of rating and avoid their caches all together.

 

As an approver, I cannot and do not attempt to make a judgement of the quality of a traditional cache hide. It's impossible. It's also silly for anyone to even suggest that we can.

[+radioscout]

Many caches are rated wrong. Most of them because the owner never understood or even read the rating system. Where are 15 km hikes rated 1/1 and the owner says that is ok because you walk on paved roads all the time.

I suggest to add a feature to the site: Let every finder of a cache rate it and show the ratings with the log. Calculate the average rating of the finders rating and display it under the owners rating so one can compare how the owner and the finders rate the cache.

 

BTW: If someone intentionally rates his caches wrong why not logging them intentionally wrong as NOT FOUND and make the owner check all 35 caches? Ok, thats not fair so don't do it.

[+Stem]

Many caches are rated wrong. Most of them because the owner never understood or even read the rating system.

 

I do agree with that statement, many caches are over/under rated. However there is a difference between a cache being misrated based on ignorance, and a cache being misrated on purpose. Cachers rely on these ratings. I have no problem with someone making a diffucult cache, or a tricky, misleading cache. It can add to the excitement of the find. However, there is one place where dishonesty should not be allowed, and that is in the rating system.

 

I'm not sure exactly why, but this situation has got me really miffed. I live no where near these caches, and am never going to attempt them, but I believe the cache rating system should be done as accurately and honestly as possible.

[+briansnat]

Many caches are rated wrong. Most of them because the owner never understood or even read the rating system. Where are 15 km hikes rated 1/1 and the owner says that is ok because you walk on paved roads all the time.

I suggest to add a feature to the site: Let every finder of a cache rate it and show the ratings with the log. Calculate the average rating of the finders rating and display it under the owners rating so one can compare how the owner and the finders rate the cache.

 

I suggested that when you click on the rating on the cache page, you get this:

 

Difficulty rating:

* Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

** Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

*** Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

**** Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days or trips to complete.

***** Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating:

* Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

** Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

*** Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

**** Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

***** Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

Is it a perfect solution? No, but it would make a lot more people aware of the system. I made the suggestion in the Geocaching.com forum, and a few people liked the idea, but it didn't get very far.

Edited April 16, 2004 by briansnat

[+Team Perks]

Speaking as a geocacher, I find it particularly annoying when a cache is deliberately under rated. If I find that one person constantly under rates their caches, I will sometimes contact them via private email and suggest that they might reconsider their ratings. Most of the time, I just take into account their method of rating and avoid their caches all together.

 

As an approver, I cannot and do not attempt to make a judgement of the quality of a traditional cache hide. It's impossible. It's also silly for anyone to even suggest that we can.

Nothing riles me more than an underrated terrain rating. Going after a 1/1 in my work clothes is infuriating after I've gone 20 minutes out of my way and then I realize I have to wade through a stream. I can deal with incorrectly rated difficulty--we can find any 3-rated or 4-rated cache with little trouble, but for some reason always have the most trouble on the easy ones. I think difficulty is extremely subjective--what might be really easy to the locals who know a particular cacher's style might be very tough for those who are unfamiliar with the "customs" in the area.

 

As far as the approvers reviewing the quality of the cache--in my view, that would only place an unnecessary burden on them and would not accomplish much. I think the cachers themselves are quite capable of policing poorly rated caches. Nothing is more effective at getting a bad cache fixed than a bunch of ticked off people emailing the cache owner. I've seen that happen on more than one occasion.

[+PandyBat]

Suppose the guy didn't rate it correctly and a person in a wheelchair ended up getting hurt?

 

Everytime I read a thread like this about someone doing something stupid, I think, everyone is so dead set on not having any rules yet they complain about every aspect of the game. I've done my fair share of complaining as well and I haven't been playing for very long at all. Playing the game without rules is just going to get so ridiculous over time with the non-chalant attitudes, that someone is going to do something someday that is going to put the whole game in jeopardy. There has to be some sort of rules otherwise it leaves it open for someone to ruin it for us all. Believe me, I don't want to see the game change anymore than anyone else but there has to be some sort of set guidelines to follow in order to rein in these dingdong people that don't play fairly like the rest of us. Mark my words, the government or some other official lawmaking department WILL get involved with this game sometime in the future and start making their own rules for the game, disclaimer or no disclaimer, and it will all be because of one stupid jerk who decided not to play the game fairly like the rest of us.

[+bons]

Suppose the guy didn't rate it correctly and a person in a wheelchair ended up getting hurt?

If the person in the wheelchair is taking Terrain:1 to mean wheelchair accessable then they had better learn to read. The actual description quoted says "handicapped accessable" which is a little more vague. The only place "wheelchair" is mentioned on the system is under "level terrain" and I'm betting most people don't think of curbs or anything else that you can get a stroller and a bike by without thinking but can be a bit difficult in a wheelchair.

 

When the description for Terrain:1 changes to "wheelchair accessable" let me know so I can find a local cacher in a wheelchair to verify cache ratings.