Jump to content

Does changing D/T now need reviewer approval


Recommended Posts

While skimming through the Help Centre looking for something else, I came across page 4.15: Change a listing after publication. This now divides changes into Minor and Major, with the following text about major changes:

 

Major changes can alter the geocaching experience and are discouraged. You must get approval from a volunteer reviewer before you make major changes. Without approval, your cache may be archived.

 

Major changes include

•Difficulty and terrain rating

•Time, date, or location of your geocaching event

 

 

I know changing D/T ratings can upset finders' statistics and mess with challenge qualifications, but on the other hand I thought the D/T was supposed to accurately represent the cache. For common-as-mud D/T combinations like 1.5/2, I've sometimes bumped the difficulty up half a notch if it's proving harder for people to find than I expected, and likewise terrain can change over time if a cleared track becomes overgrown or vice-versa, a tree or rock fall blocks easy access or a road or bridge is opened or closed. Isn't keeping the D/T rating up to date one of the owner's responsibilities?

 

Is this requirement to get reviewer approval to make such changes something new, and if so, shouldn't the UI be changed to only allow reviewers to do it, particularly when the penalty for doing it without approval is archival?

 

The bit about events is also disconcerting. I recently had to postpone an outdoor event due to inclement weather, so just posted an announcement and changed the date field on the cache page. Such postponements can happen at relatively short notice and there may not be time to get reviewer approval.

Link to comment

I can see the point about events - as it can be a way to get around guidelines for event stacking or the 2 week minimum lead time. Also and perhaps arguably less importantly, it could potentially cause people to turn up at the original time and there's no event.

 

D/T ratings, I totally agree with you - I always thought keeping these accurate was the responsibility of the CO (although generally speaking my own policy on the matter is that I may adjust the ratings slightly in the early days of a cache, if it's clear I've got them wrong, and then much later if something major changes I will consider archiving and creating a new cache if I feel the experience has changed vastly... swings and roundabouts)

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

Link for reference:

 

Change a listing after publication

 

I can see it either way. Sure, a modest change to the D/T may not seem like a big deal, but if someone has spent a lot of effort to fill that particular grid square, and then to suddenly have it disappear, that would be rather irksome to most people.

 

Archiving and starting fresh, preserves the stat for the previous finders, and might be the best approach to avoid a lot of drama and conflict.

 

The Event scenario is totally understandable. Some people clear their calendars for an Event. If it's going to change in any way, shape or form, that's a pretty big deal in my book. I think most Reviewers would accept reasonable changes due to unforeseen circumstances.

Link to comment

The Event scenario is totally understandable. Some people clear their calendars for an Event. If it's going to change in any way, shape or form, that's a pretty big deal in my book. I think most Reviewers would accept reasonable changes due to unforeseen circumstances.

The event in question was my Piles Creek Picnic 2016 (GC6RY43). On the event page I said it would be postponed in the event of wet weather and, when it became clear a few days out that it was going to be a deluge, I had three choices: press on anyway and have no one turn up, cancel it and archive the listing, or change the date and announce the postponement. Looks like I picked the wrong option even though everyone who came thought I did the right thing.

 

Weather forecasts aren't very accurate here more than a few days in advance (and sometimes much less), so I guess I won't be hosting any more outdoor events unless there's plenty of all-weather shelter available.

Link to comment

Perhaps you're using the wrong weather forecasting outlet. Here's one in your *neighborhood* which also happens to be one of the preeminent centers in the world:

 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

 

Even though the name implies "medium-range", I think even they would take exception to the notion of characterizing their forecasts as being accurate for no more than a few days :laughing:

Link to comment

Perhaps you're using the wrong weather forecasting outlet. Here's one in your *neighborhood* which also happens to be one of the preeminent centers in the world:

 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

 

Even though the name implies "medium-range", I think even they would take exception to the notion of characterizing their forecasts as being accurate for no more than a few days :laughing:

Last I looked, Europe wasn't very close to Australia. Here right on the coast, a change of wind direction from SSW to SSE can mean the difference between clear skies and rain, and low pressure cells can pop up off the coast at short notice. On the day in question, the rain ended up coming about 12 hours earlier than forecast and by mid afternoon the sun was out, but even had I known, I probably wouldn't have risked the event anyway.

Link to comment

Perhaps you're using the wrong weather forecasting outlet. Here's one in your *neighborhood* which also happens to be one of the preeminent centers in the world:

 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

 

Even though the name implies "medium-range", I think even they would take exception to the notion of characterizing their forecasts as being accurate for no more than a few days :laughing:

Last I looked, Europe wasn't very close to Australia. Here right on the coast, a change of wind direction from SSW to SSE can mean the difference between clear skies and rain, and low pressure cells can pop up off the coast at short notice. On the day in question, the rain ended up coming about 12 hours earlier than forecast and by mid afternoon the sun was out, but even had I known, I probably wouldn't have risked the event anyway.

Well, it's up to you I guess. The BOM Australia uses a slightly modified version of the NWP model developed at this well known forecasting center:

 

UK Met Office

Link to comment

Perhaps you're using the wrong weather forecasting outlet. Here's one in your *neighborhood* which also happens to be one of the preeminent centers in the world:

 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

 

Even though the name implies "medium-range", I think even they would take exception to the notion of characterizing their forecasts as being accurate for no more than a few days :laughing:

Last I looked, Europe wasn't very close to Australia. Here right on the coast, a change of wind direction from SSW to SSE can mean the difference between clear skies and rain, and low pressure cells can pop up off the coast at short notice. On the day in question, the rain ended up coming about 12 hours earlier than forecast and by mid afternoon the sun was out, but even had I known, I probably wouldn't have risked the event anyway.

Well, it's up to you I guess. The BOM Australia uses a slightly modified version of the NWP model developed at this well known forecasting center:

 

UK Met Office

The BOM's official forecast for yesterday was for a cloudy day with a medium chance of showers, but by mid morning the sky had cleared and there wasn't a cloud or shower in sight. 20km away it probably was cloudy and showery though; the weather's like that around here, as I said a slight change in wind direction on the seaboard makes a huge difference. I'm not going to plan an event based on what someone in Brussels or London might think will happen 2 or 3 weeks out.

Link to comment

I can see it either way. Sure, a modest change to the D/T may not seem like a big deal, but if someone has spent a lot of effort to fill that particular grid square, and then to suddenly have it disappear, that would be rather irksome to most people.

 

Archiving and starting fresh, preserves the stat for the previous finders, and might be the best approach to avoid a lot of drama and conflict.

Archiving and starting again seems a bit extreme if you just want to bump the difficulty up from 1.5 to 2.0 after feedback from the first few finders, and I'm not even sure that's allowed so soon after publication. Most cachers are unlikely to have empty grid squares in the low D/T range anyway, except maybe T1.0.

Link to comment

 

I can see it either way. Sure, a modest change to the D/T may not seem like a big deal, but if someone has spent a lot of effort to fill that particular grid square, and then to suddenly have it disappear, that would be rather irksome to most people.

 

Archiving and starting fresh, preserves the stat for the previous finders, and might be the best approach to avoid a lot of drama and conflict.

 

I guess the reviewers would run quite unhappy if they are addressed for every correction of wrongly set T values. I very often encounter T=1* ratings which are plain wrong and ask the cache owners to change the rating and they often decide to follow my suggestion. It can happen that such changes are done after months or years as most cachers do not look at the T rating.

 

While I doubt that such caches are relevant for grid fillers I also think that a correct rating which should help handicapped cachers is more important. It would ridiculous however to come up with a new cache listing in such cases.

 

As the D rating of a new puzzle cache is regarded, it is also common to adapt the rating based on the first feedbacks and that makes much sense in my opinion and it is not something the reviewers should be involved into.

Link to comment

The event clause I can understand.

 

The D/T clause leaves me a bit baffled to be honest, as does the idea that we need worry about upsetting grid fillers by making a change for good reason.

 

Maybe it's the opposite way around and the idea is to prevent people from having a cache published and then wildly altering the D/T in order to make their cache attractive to grid fillers and, in doing so, leave a cache with a D/T that doesn't reflect the facts.

 

I do wish that when such changes are made to the guidelines a little explanation of WHY was appended such that we could at least understand the reasoning behind them :mad:

Link to comment

Interesting, I've not seen that before. I wonder if/when it was updated?

 

One thing pretty common around here is for a CO to change the D rating of a puzzle a few weeks after publication. Usually increasing the rating if people aren't solving it much. I've also seen people changing T rating because of feedback or because conditions changed.

 

As the tools allow it, and not everyone (hardly anyone) will have memorized the entire help center, I think most COs change D/T without getting reviewer permission.

 

I'm sure I've done it once or twice.

Link to comment

I think most COs change D/T without getting reviewer permission.

 

I will continue to do so even now after having become aware of the help center article.

 

If Groundspeak should decide to archive a cache of mine because I adapted the rating in a fully reasonable way, I would decide to archive all of them

and continue only on another site.

 

I'm very careful when it comes to changes and when I suggest to others to change their ratings I also do that with having accurateness in mind which should always be

more important than things than filling grids. I'm deeply disappointed about the way statistics meanwhile dominate aspects which are much more important and central to

my understand of what a geocache listing and geocache should be about.

 

On the one hand Groundspeak encourages regular maintenance visits to caches one owns and on the other hand they seem to discourage changes based on experiences made during such visits.

It can for example easily happen that some area with no overgrowth at all at the time when the cache got hidden changed over the years and one wants to adapt the rating accordingly. It would be absurd to list a new cache when the area affected is just one of say 10 stages along a 15km multi cache. Not in my dreams I would choose to come up with a new listing in such a cache and not in my dreams I would think of discussing with the reviewer (who does not know my caches anyway) if he allows me to raise the T-rating due to increased overgrowth.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Perhaps you're using the wrong weather forecasting outlet. Here's one in your *neighborhood* which also happens to be one of the preeminent centers in the world:

 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

 

Even though the name implies "medium-range", I think even they would take exception to the notion of characterizing their forecasts as being accurate for no more than a few days :laughing:

Last I looked, Europe wasn't very close to Australia. Here right on the coast, a change of wind direction from SSW to SSE can mean the difference between clear skies and rain, and low pressure cells can pop up off the coast at short notice. On the day in question, the rain ended up coming about 12 hours earlier than forecast and by mid afternoon the sun was out, but even had I known, I probably wouldn't have risked the event anyway.

Well, it's up to you I guess. The BOM Australia uses a slightly modified version of the NWP model developed at this well known forecasting center:

 

UK Met Office

The BOM's official forecast for yesterday was for a cloudy day with a medium chance of showers, but by mid morning the sky had cleared and there wasn't a cloud or shower in sight. 20km away it probably was cloudy and showery though; the weather's like that around here, as I said a slight change in wind direction on the seaboard makes a huge difference. I'm not going to plan an event based on what someone in Brussels or London might think will happen 2 or 3 weeks out.

 

I can understand not relying on a prediction for the weather 2 to 3 weeks out but the fact that the prediction is coming from someone based in London or Brussels is really irrelevant.

Link to comment

Cache owners should be free to modify the D/T of a cache based on finder feedback and changing conditions. If changing the terrain by 0.5 affects someone's side game, oh well. These ratings are meant to be informational. They aren't rewards.

 

When I first started caching, there were COs who would regularly adjust the ratings up and down based on the season. That sort of pro-active cache maintenance seems to be gone with the wind now. It's totally ridiculous that COs can't keep their cache listings up to date without someone throwing a tantrum.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

 

Why does it warrant a new listing if it's the same cache? The important thing is for the cache information to be current for the benefit of new finders.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

 

Why does it warrant a new listing if it's the same cache? The important thing is for the cache information to be current for the benefit of new finders.

Because I believe that a change of 1 or more on the D/T rating (either way) warrants a new listing. I like to think that I have my ratings set accurately at the time of placement, give or take a little. IMO, anything more than .5 is too high a change to keep it as the same cache, even though the new cache might be the same, just with a different D/T that more accurately reflects the current state of the difficulty and/or terrain of the area. I'd rather NOT change the D/T rating so as not to mess up someone's Fizzy, but I have done so in the past, but only if it didn't affect the previous finders' Fizzy. They were also only a .5 change on the two I did change.

 

It's just my personal belief.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

 

Why does it warrant a new listing if it's the same cache? The important thing is for the cache information to be current for the benefit of new finders.

Because I believe that a change of 1 or more on the D/T rating (either way) warrants a new listing. I like to think that I have my ratings set accurately at the time of placement, give or take a little. IMO, anything more than .5 is too high a change to keep it as the same cache, even though the new cache might be the same, just with a different D/T that more accurately reflects the current state of the difficulty and/or terrain of the area. I'd rather NOT change the D/T rating so as not to mess up someone's Fizzy, but I have done so in the past, but only if it didn't affect the previous finders' Fizzy. They were also only a .5 change on the two I did change.

 

It's just my personal belief.

 

I guess it makes the number hunters happy too.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

 

Why does it warrant a new listing if it's the same cache? The important thing is for the cache information to be current for the benefit of new finders.

Because I believe that a change of 1 or more on the D/T rating (either way) warrants a new listing. I like to think that I have my ratings set accurately at the time of placement, give or take a little. IMO, anything more than .5 is too high a change to keep it as the same cache, even though the new cache might be the same, just with a different D/T that more accurately reflects the current state of the difficulty and/or terrain of the area. I'd rather NOT change the D/T rating so as not to mess up someone's Fizzy, but I have done so in the past, but only if it didn't affect the previous finders' Fizzy. They were also only a .5 change on the two I did change.

 

It's just my personal belief.

 

I'm firmly in the camp of allowing COs to keep their listings accurate.

 

If I have a cache that's simple to get to after a nice easy walk on a trail, I might rate it a 2. If it snows in six months and then for the next three months you'll have to slog through three feet of snow for a quarter mile, then up a hill, you bet I'm gonna up the difficulty for the winter!

 

The D/T ratings are for the benefit of the people looking for the cache. "I'm going out today - what's out there?"

 

The Side-Games? We covered this last week in the thread on changing the 'Placement Date'. Too bad, in my opinion. Keep track of your own.

 

Not allowing COs to change D/T wouldn't fix the grid problem, since reviewers would be changing them anyway. So, that reason to not allow it is moot.

 

If you want to do this right, then GS should be recording the D/T ratings for each log as of the log date, so your grid can show what was true when you did it. I've written about that idea before. Just like displaying two 'find-counts' on logs: how many you had when you wrote the log, and how many you have now. 'Nother conversation.

 

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

 

What would the decision-tree be for a reviewer faced with a request for a D/T-change?

 

"Hmm. He wants to change this from a T2 to a T3. Looking at Google Maps, I don't see how this could be a 3."

"Hmm. This new guy wants to change the D-rating on his puzzle from a 1.5 to a 3 because experienced cachers are telling him it's actually hard?" (My first hide, BTW!)

 

Yeeeaahhhh - don't think so.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

 

Why does it warrant a new listing if it's the same cache? The important thing is for the cache information to be current for the benefit of new finders.

Because I believe that a change of 1 or more on the D/T rating (either way) warrants a new listing. I like to think that I have my ratings set accurately at the time of placement, give or take a little. IMO, anything more than .5 is too high a change to keep it as the same cache, even though the new cache might be the same, just with a different D/T that more accurately reflects the current state of the difficulty and/or terrain of the area. I'd rather NOT change the D/T rating so as not to mess up someone's Fizzy, but I have done so in the past, but only if it didn't affect the previous finders' Fizzy. They were also only a .5 change on the two I did change.

 

It's just my personal belief.

 

I'm firmly in the camp of allowing COs to keep their listings accurate.

 

If I have a cache that's simple to get to after a nice easy walk on a trail, I might rate it a 2. If it snows in six months and then for the next three months you'll have to slog through three feet of snow for a quarter mile, then up a hill, you bet I'm gonna up the difficulty for the winter!

 

The D/T ratings are for the benefit of the people looking for the cache. "I'm going out today - what's out there?"

 

The Side-Games? We covered this last week in the thread on changing the 'Placement Date'. Too bad, in my opinion. Keep track of your own.

 

Not allowing COs to change D/T wouldn't fix the grid problem, since reviewers would be changing them anyway. So, that reason to not allow it is moot.

 

If you want to do this right, then GS should be recording the D/T ratings for each log as of the log date, so your grid can show what was true when you did it. I've written about that idea before. Just like displaying two 'find-counts' on logs: how many you had when you wrote the log, and how many you have now. 'Nother conversation.

 

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

 

What would the decision-tree be for a reviewer faced with a request for a D/T-change?

 

"Hmm. He wants to change this from a T2 to a T3. Looking at Google Maps, I don't see how this could be a 3."

"Hmm. This new guy wants to change the D-rating on his puzzle from a 1.5 to a 3 because experienced cachers are telling him it's actually hard?" (My first hide, BTW!)

 

Yeeeaahhhh - don't think so.

 

The cache owner should be the one to determine if a change in D/T materially changes the substance of the geocache as a whole. If someone honestly believes that a change in D/T warrants a new cache, then whatever. But to insist on this for all cache owners is ridiculous, and yet another way that Groundspeak is incrementally taking away cache owners' ability to exercise their own discretion in making decisions about their caches.

 

If a cache owner decides that the cache isn't materially different, he/she should be able to change the D/T without reviewer permission and without facing harassment from cachers who erroneously see these informative ratings as rewards.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

 

Why does it warrant a new listing if it's the same cache? The important thing is for the cache information to be current for the benefit of new finders.

Because I believe that a change of 1 or more on the D/T rating (either way) warrants a new listing. I like to think that I have my ratings set accurately at the time of placement, give or take a little. IMO, anything more than .5 is too high a change to keep it as the same cache, even though the new cache might be the same, just with a different D/T that more accurately reflects the current state of the difficulty and/or terrain of the area. I'd rather NOT change the D/T rating so as not to mess up someone's Fizzy, but I have done so in the past, but only if it didn't affect the previous finders' Fizzy. They were also only a .5 change on the two I did change.

 

It's just my personal belief.

I'm with you in that i would hate to mess up someone's fizzy. But at the same time, it's more important that a cache page be accurate. A .5 change may not be enough to warrant a new cache but, imo, neither is a 1 or 2 point change. Regardless of the amount, any change will affect a fizzy chaser. If terrain and/or difficulty changes in such a way to make the cache experience totally different from the original, then yes, i agree that a new cache might be in order. This of course, would be up to the cache's owner.

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

I'm with you in that i would hate to mess up someone's fizzy. But at the same time, it's more important that a cache page be accurate. A .5 change may not be enough to warrant a new cache but, imo, neither is a 1 or 2 point change. Regardless of the amount, any change will affect a fizzy chaser. If terrain and/or difficulty changes in such a way to make the cache experience totally different from the original, then yes, i agree that a new cache might be in order. This of course, would be up to the cache's owner.

 

So a 2.5 T cache up to a 4.5 T cache doesn't warrant a new cache? A 2.5 D to a 4.5 D either? 4.5 to 2.5, either D or T? A 2 point change seems rather high to me to keep it as the same cache.

 

I can see the argument for a 2.5 to 3.5 (D or T) as possibly not being grounds for a new cache, but I'd personally still create a new cache for it. I also would have no problem with someone else changing it, even if it did mess up my Fizzy. It's not my cache so I get no say on what the CO does with it.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

I'm with you in that i would hate to mess up someone's fizzy. But at the same time, it's more important that a cache page be accurate. A .5 change may not be enough to warrant a new cache but, imo, neither is a 1 or 2 point change. Regardless of the amount, any change will affect a fizzy chaser. If terrain and/or difficulty changes in such a way to make the cache experience totally different from the original, then yes, i agree that a new cache might be in order. This of course, would be up to the cache's owner.

 

So a 2.5 T cache up to a 4.5 T cache doesn't warrant a new cache? A 2.5 D to a 4.5 D either? 4.5 to 2.5, either D or T? A 2 point change seems rather high to me to keep it as the same cache.

 

I can see the argument for a 2.5 to 3.5 (D or T) as possibly not being grounds for a new cache, but I'd personally still change it. I also would have no problem with someone else changing it, even if it did mess up my Fizzy. It's not my cache so I get no say on what the CO does with it.

 

Ultimately, it's something that only the cache owner can decide. The cache owner is the one who understands the intention of the cache, and it's the cache owner who can determine if the change in D/T is important enough to warrant a new listing. A cache isn't just a set of variables on a screen.

Link to comment

I know of at least one cacher in the UK who regularly changes the terrain ratings on his caches according to the season. In winter the hills around him are often covered in snow and ice and you may well need winter walking gear (ice axe and crampons) T3.5 - T5. In summer they're on grass and are much easier - maybe T2.5 - T3.5. Should he really be expected to archive them at the end of each season?

 

And there's also this virtual which changes location to a new trigpoint over week or so. The terrain rating and name are updated to reflect the new location. Does this mean that it will be archived, once archived never republished as it's a virtual? It's dearly loved by many UK cachers - you can log it once for every location it has visited in the past. I believe the same CO has a similar virtual in Canada.

Link to comment

 

Ultimately, it's something that only the cache owner can decide. The cache owner is the one who understands the intention of the cache, and it's the cache owner who can determine if the change in D/T is important enough to warrant a new listing. A cache isn't just a set of variables on a screen.

 

I agree. If the ratings were simply "wrong" (CO receives feedback that it is under or over rated and adjusts), then I see no need to archive and republish, no matter how big the D/T change is.

 

If in the CO's opinion something changed which means the D/T is different and the cache experience is now significantly different, then archive and republish makes sense.

Link to comment

Geez.

 

You change your event's difficulty rating once, and Groundspeak makes up a rule for you. (I had a popular recurring event that I once changed to D5, because people seemed really focused on D5s that month for some reason. I said to come prepared for "intelligent conversation, abstract concepts, and deep ideas", which seemed legitimately D5 to me.)

 

Ah well, the Frog always wins.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

 

Why does it warrant a new listing if it's the same cache? The important thing is for the cache information to be current for the benefit of new finders.

Because I believe that a change of 1 or more on the D/T rating (either way) warrants a new listing. I like to think that I have my ratings set accurately at the time of placement, give or take a little. IMO, anything more than .5 is too high a change to keep it as the same cache, even though the new cache might be the same, just with a different D/T that more accurately reflects the current state of the difficulty and/or terrain of the area. I'd rather NOT change the D/T rating so as not to mess up someone's Fizzy, but I have done so in the past, but only if it didn't affect the previous finders' Fizzy. They were also only a .5 change on the two I did change.

 

It's just my personal belief.

 

I'm firmly in the camp of allowing COs to keep their listings accurate.

 

If I have a cache that's simple to get to after a nice easy walk on a trail, I might rate it a 2. If it snows in six months and then for the next three months you'll have to slog through three feet of snow for a quarter mile, then up a hill, you bet I'm gonna up the difficulty for the winter!

 

The D/T ratings are for the benefit of the people looking for the cache. "I'm going out today - what's out there?"

 

The Side-Games? We covered this last week in the thread on changing the 'Placement Date'. Too bad, in my opinion. Keep track of your own.

 

Not allowing COs to change D/T wouldn't fix the grid problem, since reviewers would be changing them anyway. So, that reason to not allow it is moot.

 

If you want to do this right, then GS should be recording the D/T ratings for each log as of the log date, so your grid can show what was true when you did it. I've written about that idea before. Just like displaying two 'find-counts' on logs: how many you had when you wrote the log, and how many you have now. 'Nother conversation.

 

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

 

What would the decision-tree be for a reviewer faced with a request for a D/T-change?

 

"Hmm. He wants to change this from a T2 to a T3. Looking at Google Maps, I don't see how this could be a 3."

"Hmm. This new guy wants to change the D-rating on his puzzle from a 1.5 to a 3 because experienced cachers are telling him it's actually hard?" (My first hide, BTW!)

 

Yeeeaahhhh - don't think so.

 

The cache owner should be the one to determine if a change in D/T materially changes the substance of the geocache as a whole. If someone honestly believes that a change in D/T warrants a new cache, then whatever. But to insist on this for all cache owners is ridiculous, and yet another way that Groundspeak is incrementally taking away cache owners' ability to exercise their own discretion in making decisions about their caches.

 

If a cache owner decides that the cache isn't materially different, he/she should be able to change the D/T without reviewer permission and without facing harassment from cachers who erroneously see these informative ratings as rewards.

 

Completely agree. A scenario I posted earlier could be a case where the CO placed the cache but erroneously set the D/T, perhaps switching the values. For example, they meant to select a D=2, and a T=4 but mistakenly entered a D=4, T=2. The fact that someone may have found it, and used it to fill in a box for a challenge, doesn't change the fact that it should have been a 2/4 all along.

Link to comment
Archiving and starting fresh, preserves the stat for the previous finders, and might be the best approach to avoid a lot of drama and conflict.
And there's never been drama and conflict over owners churning cache locations, allowing people to re-find the same caches over and over to get additional smileys...

 

 

So a 2.5 T cache up to a 4.5 T cache doesn't warrant a new cache?
If it's the same container, same location, same log, and same purpose, then no, it doesn't warrant a new listing. The fact that a road is now closed and the nearest trailhead is now a strenuous all-day hike, instead of a gentle two-hour stroll, does not change the cache itself.

 

The primary point of the difficulty and terrain ratings is to communicate the general nature of the cache experience to potential seekers. Any side games should remain purely secondary.

 

A 2.5 D to a 4.5 D either?
The landscaping around the historic monument was changed, removing the "obvious to experienced geocachers" hiding spot, so the owner had to change the camouflage. But the container, location, log, and purpose are still the same.

 

4.5 to 2.5, either D or T?
The road was reopened. The landscaping was changed in a way that created an "obvious to experienced geocachers" location.
Link to comment

For reference, the Help Center article in question was changed sometime since October 11, 2016. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine hasn't been checking that page very frequently and we can't pin it down any closer.

 

It's very interesting comparing the new wording with what it used to say:

You might wish to make minor changes to your geocache page after it has been published. Your geocache must still abide by the Guidelines.

 

To edit your listing, log in to your Geocaching.com account and display the listing. In the Navigation box in the upper right corner of the geocache page, use the "edit listing" link. That will take you to the original geocache report where you can edit the title, text, hint and geocache size. You can also edit the difficulty and terrain ratings. You may wish to make adjustments after a few finds on a new geocache, or if a geocache container has been replaced.

Link to comment

Perhaps you're using the wrong weather forecasting outlet. Here's one in your *neighborhood* which also happens to be one of the preeminent centers in the world:

 

European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts

 

Even though the name implies "medium-range", I think even they would take exception to the notion of characterizing their forecasts as being accurate for no more than a few days :laughing:

Last I looked, Europe wasn't very close to Australia. Here right on the coast, a change of wind direction from SSW to SSE can mean the difference between clear skies and rain, and low pressure cells can pop up off the coast at short notice. On the day in question, the rain ended up coming about 12 hours earlier than forecast and by mid afternoon the sun was out, but even had I known, I probably wouldn't have risked the event anyway.

Well, it's up to you I guess. The BOM Australia uses a slightly modified version of the NWP model developed at this well known forecasting center:

 

UK Met Office

The BOM's official forecast for yesterday was for a cloudy day with a medium chance of showers, but by mid morning the sky had cleared and there wasn't a cloud or shower in sight. 20km away it probably was cloudy and showery though; the weather's like that around here, as I said a slight change in wind direction on the seaboard makes a huge difference. I'm not going to plan an event based on what someone in Brussels or London might think will happen 2 or 3 weeks out.

 

I can understand not relying on a prediction for the weather 2 to 3 weeks out but the fact that the prediction is coming from someone based in London or Brussels is really irrelevant.

Um, local knowledge and experience? Anyway, this is moving off-topic and if postponing an event due to rain is no longer allowed then the simple solution is not to host any more outdoor events. Problem solved.

Link to comment

For reference, the Help Center article in question was changed sometime since October 11, 2016. Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine hasn't been checking that page very frequently and we can't pin it down any closer.

 

It's very interesting comparing the new wording with what it used to say:

You might wish to make minor changes to your geocache page after it has been published. Your geocache must still abide by the Guidelines.

 

To edit your listing, log in to your Geocaching.com account and display the listing. In the Navigation box in the upper right corner of the geocache page, use the "edit listing" link. That will take you to the original geocache report where you can edit the title, text, hint and geocache size. You can also edit the difficulty and terrain ratings. You may wish to make adjustments after a few finds on a new geocache, or if a geocache container has been replaced.

Aha, I knew it must have been a fairly recent change! That's quite an about face, going from encouraging a CO to tweak the D/T rating based on early feedback to now prohibiting it without reviewer approval.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

Geocaching HQ is in the middle of a comprehensive update to the Help Center, to make it more... well... helpful. It's a great project! Obviously this article was updated. Sometimes wording changes produce unintended results.

 

Several Reviewers, myself included, read this forum thread today and dashed off to ask HQ if we'd missed a Memo. That's why no Reviewer has posted to the thread until now, as we were equally surprised. After discussions with HQ today, I am pleased to confirm that no policy change was intended by this update. Reviewers and Lackeys are now working on a revised version of the article, which will be posted to the Help Center within a week or so.

 

Most of the Help Center updates are being made with direct reviewer input on the proposed text. Somehow, this advice about major changes to a cache listing slipped into the Help Center. Sorry for the confusion!

 

Finally, I'd like to thank barefootjeff for starting this thread. Your question will lead to clearer guidance in the near future.

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

Geocaching HQ is in the middle of a comprehensive update to the Help Center, to make it more... well... helpful. It's a great project! Obviously this article was updated. Sometimes wording changes produce unintended results.

 

Several Reviewers, myself included, read this forum thread today and dashed off to ask HQ if we'd missed a Memo. That's why no Reviewer has posted to the thread until now, as we were equally surprised. After discussions with HQ today, I am pleased to confirm that no policy change was intended by this update. Reviewers and Lackeys are now working on a revised version of the article, which will be posted to the Help Center within a week or so.

 

Most of the Help Center updates are being made with direct reviewer input on the proposed text. Somehow, this advice about major changes to a cache listing slipped into the Help Center. Sorry for the confusion!

 

Finally, I'd like to thank barefootjeff for starting this thread. Your question will lead to clearer guidance in the near future.

I was hoping a reviewer would stop by and clarify. Thanks, Keystone!

Link to comment

Any reviewers willing to clarify the D/T change with regard to reviewer approval? MUST we now run it past the reviewer for our area or are we still OK to change/modify it a bit (I'm talking .5 either way because I think anything over +/- 1 warrants a new cache listing, IMO) due to unperceived difficulty or ease or a change in terrain due to construction or vegetative growth in the area?

Geocaching HQ is in the middle of a comprehensive update to the Help Center, to make it more... well... helpful. It's a great project! Obviously this article was updated. Sometimes wording changes produce unintended results.

 

Several Reviewers, myself included, read this forum thread today and dashed off to ask HQ if we'd missed a Memo. That's why no Reviewer has posted to the thread until now, as we were equally surprised. After discussions with HQ today, I am pleased to confirm that no policy change was intended by this update. Reviewers and Lackeys are now working on a revised version of the article, which will be posted to the Help Center within a week or so.

 

Most of the Help Center updates are being made with direct reviewer input on the proposed text. Somehow, this advice about major changes to a cache listing slipped into the Help Center. Sorry for the confusion!

 

Finally, I'd like to thank barefootjeff for starting this thread. Your question will lead to clearer guidance in the near future.

Many thanks Keystone, good to see some common sense prevailing :) .

Link to comment

Thank you, Keystone. I was just thinking what a huge hassle this new "rule" could become to not only the cache owners, but reviewers also. Some of us who place caches DO pay attention to feedback from those cachers who care to give it. New cache owners need help sometimes-- glad I got a heads up when I placed my first difficult cache from the ones who found it first!

 

And then there's that whole terrain thing. It varies from season to season sometimes and of course there are regional differences of opinion. GS, please let us work some things out amongst ourselves- we're not ALL dumb

Link to comment

I'm glad to see that the new wording of the policy is under review.

 

Bottom line for changes such as this, if they are left up to the CO, they should not be done lightly. For new caches, I have certainly adjusted difficulty or terrain based on feedback. But the longer that aspects like that are in place, the more other cachers rely on them. (And whether a particular CO likes them or not, challenge caches and/or statistics are part of the game for enough cachers that I think some restriction on change is advisable.)

 

Even if an aspect of a cache appears to be inaccurate, the longer it is out there, the more cachers rely on it not to change. Just look at the recent brouhaha over the change (and subsequent reversion) of the placed date for Ancient Lakes.

 

Perhaps a time window should be discussed on major changes to non-event caches. Up to, say, six months after publication, CO has the ability to change difficulty, terrain, date placed, etc.; after six months, only a reviewer can effect such a change.

Link to comment

(I had a popular recurring event that I once changed to D5, because people seemed really focused on D5s that month for some reason. I said to come prepared for "intelligent conversation, abstract concepts, and deep ideas", which seemed legitimately D5 to me.)

 

Ah well, the Frog always wins.

Even though you may feel like gaming the system, events should always be D1

 

Tip: Event caches should always have a 1-star difficulty rating because it is easy for geocachers to “find” events. They are in plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching. It does not matter how difficult the event activities may be.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=82

Link to comment

The event clause I can understand.

 

The D/T clause leaves me a bit baffled to be honest, as does the idea that we need worry about upsetting grid fillers by making a change for good reason.

 

Maybe it's the opposite way around and the idea is to prevent people from having a cache published and then wildly altering the D/T in order to make their cache attractive to grid fillers and, in doing so, leave a cache with a D/T that doesn't reflect the facts.

 

I do wish that when such changes are made to the guidelines a little explanation of WHY was appended such that we could at least understand the reasoning behind them :mad:

 

Agreed, and I'll continue to make whatever D/T changes I might have to make (although it happens very rarely)without bothering a reviewer unless that area gets locked after publication ... If that were to happen might really impact caches being hidden.

So much unneeded control simply makes it less attractive to hide any caches at all!

Link to comment

The event clause I can understand.

 

The D/T clause leaves me a bit baffled to be honest, as does the idea that we need worry about upsetting grid fillers by making a change for good reason.

 

Maybe it's the opposite way around and the idea is to prevent people from having a cache published and then wildly altering the D/T in order to make their cache attractive to grid fillers and, in doing so, leave a cache with a D/T that doesn't reflect the facts.

 

I do wish that when such changes are made to the guidelines a little explanation of WHY was appended such that we could at least understand the reasoning behind them :mad:

 

Agreed, and I'll continue to make whatever D/T changes I might have to make (although it happens very rarely)without bothering a reviewer unless that area gets locked after publication ... If that were to happen might really impact caches being hidden.

So much unneeded control simply makes it less attractive to hide any caches at all!

 

Did you miss the bit in post #38 above where Keystone said this wasn't the intended policy and the wording is being adjusted?

Link to comment

The event clause I can understand.

 

The D/T clause leaves me a bit baffled to be honest, as does the idea that we need worry about upsetting grid fillers by making a change for good reason.

 

Maybe it's the opposite way around and the idea is to prevent people from having a cache published and then wildly altering the D/T in order to make their cache attractive to grid fillers and, in doing so, leave a cache with a D/T that doesn't reflect the facts.

 

I do wish that when such changes are made to the guidelines a little explanation of WHY was appended such that we could at least understand the reasoning behind them :mad:

 

Agreed, and I'll continue to make whatever D/T changes I might have to make (although it happens very rarely)without bothering a reviewer unless that area gets locked after publication ... If that were to happen might really impact caches being hidden.

So much unneeded control simply makes it less attractive to hide any caches at all!

 

Did you miss the bit in post #38 above where Keystone said this wasn't the intended policy and the wording is being adjusted?

 

Yup .... thought I read them all, but I missed that page :huh:

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

One would hope that some sort of communication from GS is in the works about the major overhaul/massive changes occurring in the Help Center.

 

Haven't received this week's newsletter yet...maybe it's in there?

 

And hopefully the incorrect bit about D/T ratings has been fixed.

 

Trying to find stuff in the Help Center is a bit of a struggle now. Article titles have been changed so it's not as easy to find what you're looking for now.

 

B.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...