Anyone else like to see option for no rating?

January 21, 2015

I know it seems wonky at first, but anyone else out there that likes minimal information on a cache? Less is more kinda folk?

13.7k · January 21, 2015

Nope.

As one who doesn't do a lot of caches (C&Ds mostly), I'd like to kinda know what to avoid thanks.

3.3k · January 21, 2015

What's your reasoning, besides the idea of "less is more" or "surprise me"? Are you saying the the unrated cache could be anything from 1/1 to 5/5??

2.8k · January 21, 2015

What's your reasoning, besides the idea of "less is more" or "surprise me"? Are you saying the the unrated cache could be anything from 1/1 to 5/5??

Between Google earth and past logs it would be easy enough to figure out both ratings.

I'm not a fan of caches that are created not to be found, they just result in too much damage to GZ.

1.1k · January 21, 2015

Bad idea, but some folks are already doing it, leaving the rating to default (1.5/1.5).

7.3k · January 21, 2015

I used to routinely load coords in my gps, and the cache description into a PDA (this before most gps units could handle the gpx data, and before smart phones). Then I'd happily head out, absentminded, leaving the PDA in the cradle on my desk.

Found a fair number of caches this way too, and DNFed more than my fair share. One I think I DNFed 3 times, it was an offset, some bearing and distance from listing coords. Tough hunt without that bearing and distance info ;-) but hey, I tried.

If you like obscurity, you sure have the option to create that for yourself.

Download into GSAK, or whatever software you own and omit a bunch of info columns. Create a gpx of what's left and go cache from that. Sure ups the odds on the DNF, and on you doing damage to the area, and possibly to the cache's permission - given that you may not be seeing restrictions.

10.2k · January 21, 2015

I know it seems wonky at first, but anyone else out there that likes minimal information on a cache? Less is more kinda folk?

Not Wonky, but I think there are very very few "less is more kinda folk" out there. From the numbers cachers, to the old timers with a couple thousand finds who like caches in the woods (yours truly), to the newbies, to the casual cacher who might find 50 caches a year, I think few people do this to be "challenged". When I get out of that car, I'm expecting to find the cache, not go looking for a needle in a haystack.

As IK said, you can make it like this for yourself. If you were thinking of doing it on your own caches, I foresee lots of drama in the logs.

January 21, 2015

My reasoning goes something like this,

- ratings are subjective at the best of times, and they change over time. The first time something is found and down the road, due to wear and tear or poorly re-hidden or even over hidden caches naturally change ratings and they can fluctuate quite wildly. We have all found 2's that kick our butts and 4's that were easy - so, does it really matter?

- in the less is more idea, much like a puzzle cache which information is constrained or obscured to up the level of game play for those so compelled, it's just another way to create challenge

- some people like the adventure of not knowing what they are going to find

- prevents people from chasing ratings and going in the spirit of pure adventure

I can see a direct need for the terrain rating for safety matters, the difficulty rating is not impactful in the same way. Perhaps to not waste time with something too hard, or even too easy, if you have new folk with you or kids - but it's an option, not mandatory. I came across a great local cache that contained a GPS unit from 1997 preloaded with a second coordinate - the challenge and difficulty of using this unit WAS the challenge it not only was it one of the most fulfilling experiences I have had - it was one of the most educational. It totally changed the game for me. I am certain I am not alone in that checking logs or hints is something I save for once I am stumped and even then, I take as little information as I need, in fact, truth is, I rarely read descriptions anymore because I want the pure finding experience. I want as little information as possible for as long as I can go without it. That said, I too benefit from the information I can procure from all of the above and at times need it - but I have also found caches that were way off the mark, rarely found and had few logs, or in some other way without the benefit of the additional information and again, I found those experiences some of the most instructive.

The one comment that I do find most compelling against the idea is the potential damage to ground zero, it does seem that people will rip an area apart, but then again, I have seen that on rated stuff too. The fact of the matter is, that the rating does infer some information affecting the find and I am interested to see ultimately if there are others like me who want to chase those challenges. It's over drawn to suggest its like climbing unconquered peaks, but, maybe not so far in a symbolic sense.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

3k · January 21, 2015

Disagree. D/T is not just about knowing what to expect. It is also about connecting cachers with the caches they want to seek.

If you want an extra challenge then download LOC files instead of GPX or hide a cache with no details in the description and rate it accordingly so I can filter it out.

1.2k · January 21, 2015

I'm handicapped, so I kind of depend on D/T ratings (mostly terrain).

I find the ratings are not very accurate most of the time, but at least they allow me to filter out those caches that are out of my reach.

The rest is a surprise in the field and with a DNF (read could not reach) of one out of every ten caches that is adventure enough for me.

I'm happy with D/T ratings though.

7.3k · January 21, 2015

want to chase those challenges

I like multi-caches best, heading off into the (somewhat) unknown is part of that.

I know cachers avoid them, in part because maintenance issues can leave them unfindable. I'm sorta okay with that part though. Going as far as I can and doing as much as I can of the journey.

Not that I don't prefer to finish! I certainly do, but I'm still okay with the added DNF risk that goes with multi-caches, and I definitely like the unknown factor in a multi with some mileage in it.

7.5k · January 21, 2015

My reasoning goes something like this,

- ratings are subjective at the best of times, and they change over time. The first time something is found and down the road, due to wear and tear or poorly re-hidden or even over hidden caches naturally change ratings and they can fluctuate quite wildly. We have all found 2's that kick our butts and 4's that were easy - so, does it really matter?

They really shouldn't be all that subjective. The GC rating system generally works if people wouldn't pick it apart and examine the minutia of a word. Especially when it comes to terrain. Cache owners should be checking their caches from time to time to make sure the hide remains the same. If it's a D1 and suddenly people are having trouble finding it, go check it. It may be missing or it may have been moved to the wrong spot. If the CO changes the hide it should be reflected in the listing. If it was a Terrain 1.5 in the hollow base of a tree, but was moved by the CO to a nook 10 feet up a tree, the terrain rating should reflect the new hide. That way short people like me who don't climb trees, won't waste time and gas money. We can skip the unobtainable cache by filtering out anything over T4 and go do a cache that we can reach.

January 21, 2015

+ 1 Sivota

Joshiam - isn't that exactly making my point? There is an expectation that's anticipatable.

Lone.R - gradings sure seem subjective to me, but beyond that, any hide gets easier as it gets found if for no other reason than seeing traffic on it, unless it hasn't been found in forever

January 21, 2015

I'm fine with D/T ratings being optional. They can be avoided the same way caches of type "Other" or "Not Chosen".

3.1k · January 21, 2015

- ratings are subjective at the best of times, and they change over time. The first time something is found and down the road, due to wear and tear or poorly re-hidden or even over hidden caches naturally change ratings and they can fluctuate quite wildly. We have all found 2's that kick our butts and 4's that were easy - so, does it really matter?

It matters, because subjectivity is a continuum rather than a binary state. While I certainly find some ratings to be way off, most of them are in the same ballpark as I would assign. Just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean it's useless. Also, if conditions change, then owners have the ability to change their ratings.

- in the less is more idea, much like a puzzle cache which information is constrained or obscured to up the level of game play for those so compelled, it's just another way to create challenge

As someone else noted, people still can read logs or look at maps and get a general idea of the difficulty and terrain that they should expect. So, it's not really obscuring the information but rather making it more inefficient to obtain.

- some people like the adventure of not knowing what they are going to find

These people don't need to use the D/T ratings, if they prefer not to do so.

- prevents people from chasing ratings and going in the spirit of pure adventure

One of the things I like best about geocaching is the extent to which people can customize the activity to ways they most enjoy. If someone really enjoys chasing ratings, then they can do so; it doesn't really effect me. If someone wants to go on a "pure adventure," then they can ignore the ratings and have at it; it doesn't really effect me.

1.8k · January 21, 2015

What's your reasoning, besides the idea of "less is more" or "surprise me"? Are you saying the the unrated cache could be anything from 1/1 to 5/5??

Between Google earth and past logs it would be easy enough to figure out both ratings.

I'm not a fan of caches that are created not to be found, they just result in too much damage to GZ.

AMEN to the second sentence ... especially here in the land of uber sensitive ecosystems.

January 21, 2015

I"m not for a moment suggesting that people can't just go without the information - I do it all the time, as stated, perhaps I am nutjob but I have specifically purchased older units just to enjoy the difficulty it adds -

Much as Josh has pointed out though, people could also just opt out of something without a rating - just as they do with a mystery cache or any other.

I did really like the point about multi's though - that is definitely one expression of a way to engage with the uncertainty.

January 21, 2015

I don't at all concur with the sentiment that something without a rating insinuates it's not to be found - the game is exactly the friction point between being found and obscuring it. Furthermore, the conversation we should be having about uber sensitive ecologies goes much farther - should we be hiding anything at all then? What of the responsibility of the cachers to cache responsibly, place responsibly and encourage such behaviour? The cache is as much the problem in the first place with that argument. Shall we just put them on the sign posts in parking lots where there is zero chance of impact or poor judgement?

3.7k · January 21, 2015

- ratings are subjective at the best of times, and they change over time. The first time something is found and down the road, due to wear and tear or poorly re-hidden or even over hidden caches naturally change ratings and they can fluctuate quite wildly. We have all found 2's that kick our butts and 4's that were easy - so, does it really matter?

Maybe it bothers some, but I have, on several occasions, changed the D or T ratings to account for changes such as you describe. On a few of my caches, a previously difficult trail was regraded and the T ratings dropped. On some of my puzzles, I will raise or drop the D ratings for various reasons (feedback from solvers/finders, time gone without a solve, etc.). I'm not interested in any case people make for fitting a cache into some grid challenge...I'm more interested in the reality of a cache's difficulty and accessibility.

So basically, no. I would even go one further and state my preference for people keeping their D/T ratings up-to-date and accurate to account for any changes to the cache hide and the area around GZ.

Edited January 21, 2015 by J Grouchy

January 21, 2015

I agree with this, in fact I think that process is always going to be dynamic - I think in the event that ratings are being used (and they are) then it's only responsible to manage this on some level - I have adjusted caches up and I anticipate adjusting some down over time. They are guides and merely that, I recognize that.

7.5k · January 21, 2015

I"m not for a moment suggesting that people can't just go without the information - I do it all the time, as stated, perhaps I am nutjob but I have specifically purchased older units just to enjoy the difficulty it adds -

I'm sure there are plenty of geocachers (quite sane, not nutjobs) who also love the uncertainty and challenge of having very little information - just the coordinates, when searching for a cache.

2.4k · January 21, 2015

If Groundspeak were to make any change in this respect, I'd be OK with a setting in each account to show the ratings or to hide them. I would NOT support COs being able to submit caches without ratings.

That way those who want the "challenge" can play their way, while those of us who prefer to know what we're getting into aren't excluded from caches where the CO has deliberately left out the info.

2.7k · January 21, 2015

I know it seems wonky at first, but anyone else out there that likes minimal information on a cache? Less is more kinda folk?

No - a less is more type of answer.

3.4k · January 21, 2015

Nope--they would absolutely go on my Ignore list.

8k · January 21, 2015

If Groundspeak were to make any change in this respect, I'd be OK with a setting in each account to show the ratings or to hide them. I would NOT support COs being able to submit caches without ratings.

That way those who want the "challenge" can play their way, while those of us who prefer to know what we're getting into aren't excluded from caches where the CO has deliberately left out the info.

You certainly would have the option to ignore a cache if the owner opted out of specifying D/T.

In fact I would guess that a significant number of people would do just that. I doubt that leaving off D/T would attract very many cachers who are looking for the "mystery".

A high difficulty can indicate that a cache has some surprises along the way. No rating may simply be a way for an owner to get people who routinly ignores 1/1 caches in parking lots to not ignore this cache. If I had cache that was meant to suprise with the unexpected, I'd rate it properly and let people who want suprises know that they're likely to get a surprise.

January 21, 2015

I got to admit, I am really surprised by the responses on this - but I suppose I shouldn't be. Thanks for weighing in and giving me a snapshot of who's out there.

I guess I am going to have to keep playing with less information on my lonesome.

4.5k · January 22, 2015

I"m not for a moment suggesting that people can't just go without the information - I do it all the time, as stated, perhaps I am nutjob but I have specifically purchased older units just to enjoy the difficulty it adds -

I'm sure there are plenty of geocachers (quite sane, not nutjobs) who also love the uncertainty and challenge of having very little information - just the coordinates, when searching for a cache.

As i've said a couple of times in other threads, i don't care for all the handholding that gecoaching has these days. We found many a cache, DNFed quite a few too, using a basic gpsr with manually entered coordinates. Yep, there were lots of wrong turns, deadends, and a decent amount of frustration at times but what can i say,,, it was fun and provided lots of good memories.

On the otherhand, and imo, D/T ratings are a good thing to have. Omitting them would definitely make more caches more challenging but at the same time, would also cause more unnecessary problems that many finders wouldn't want to encounter.

Myself, i wouldn't have a problem with GC.com providing the option to not list them. I have to say that a cache with no difficulty ratings would actually peak my interest!

Edited January 22, 2015 by Mudfrog

15.3k · January 22, 2015

- prevents people from chasing ratings and going in the spirit of pure adventure

No, it won't. All it does is give them another rating to chase. So instead of a 9x9 difficulty-terrain grid, we'll have a 10x10 difficulty-terrain grid, because you've added "Not Chosen" to the existing possibilities.

January 22, 2015

If Groundspeak were to make any change in this respect, I'd be OK with a setting in each account to show the ratings or to hide them. I would NOT support COs being able to submit caches without ratings.

That way those who want the "challenge" can play their way, while those of us who prefer to know what we're getting into aren't excluded from caches where the CO has deliberately left out the info.

This is what I was thinking. I fully support people who want to challenge themselves in this way, but I think D/T is important because these factors do restrict some people (e.g. the very young, the very old, the handicapped, etc.) Since these people are generally already limited in the number of caches they can search for, having another whole subset of caches they could very well be searching for but can't because there's no D/T rating to guide them does seem a bit unfair. For example, a cache could easily be a 1/1 and they'd never know, which takes away one of the few caches they could find.

I really enjoy your idea, though! I like the idea of people being able to customize the game to the exact way they like to play, so this might be a feature Groundspeak can look into. They could have it hidden or encrypted just like hints.

January 22, 2015

If you want to hunt caches where the "D" rating is an unknown try going after difficult "?" caches. Is it a 4 level multi-cipher with a 1.5 level hide or is the hide just as tough as the puzzle? You won't know unless the CO adds extra information in the write-up or the hint.

As for me, I often NEED the D/T ratings. Currently, about half of my finds are outside of my home state and 2/3 of my finds are by bicycle. If I am on a bike tour, whether I'm in Bruges or Budapest, I do not have the time to look for D>3 caches. I hope that the caches I do find on those excursions bring me to some place interesting rather than to a dull place with an "interesting" hide. I don't care about outwitting the CO of some evil hide with minimal information, I'd rather get rewarded with a view like this:

January 22, 2015

I know it seems wonky at first, but anyone else out there that likes minimal information on a cache? Less is more kinda folk?

No. How else would I avoid those super hard ones? :blink:

Anyone else like to see option for no rating?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment