Help
I wonder if it would be possible for GS to "lock" Difficulty / terrain ratings when a cache is found.
Over the past couple of years we have found quite a few caches where the D/T ratings have been changed by the CO.
Several of these were D5 rated caches when we found the cache... but have now been "downrated" by the CO's ... one is now a D2 because it was considered to be "too difficult" by the CO ! (why list it as D5 in the first place then ?)
For those caches who chase D/T rating combo's changing the D/T rating of a cache can cause havok.... a seemingly impossible task to keep track of what combo's have been found.
When ever cache stats are calculated the current ratings of a cache are used... so even if you find a 5/5 cache that has since been de-rated to 2/2 cache your new stats will show a 2/2 and you will loose a 5/5 .
Would it be possible for GS to "lock" the D/T rating of a cache when found.... and to keep this rating in cache stats ?
I suspect it's a mammoth task...
Thoughts?
Two Anchors
Page 1 of 1
D/T Ratings
#2
Posted 16 January 2012 - 01:45 PM
+1, I know there is another thread that was ongoing but I couldn't find it. I agree 1000%
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
#3
Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:03 PM
doug_hollyNKC, on 16 January 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:
+1, I know there is another thread that was ongoing but I couldn't find it. I agree 1000%
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
Totally understand your issues - but isn't it only a problem because you're playing a "game within a game", I could have very valid reasons to change the size of my cache. I've changed D and T ratings as cachers have commented on the original ones I gave, so why should we leave them the same - so you can fill in some arbitrary grid of ratings? *Stands back and hides*
#4
Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:26 PM
The suggestion is not that the CO should leave original D/T ratings if he/she feels they need to be changed for some reason....
The suggestion is that GS could Lock the D/T ratings to the finders stats when the cache is found.
We are not "into" D/T grids ourselves... but there are a lot of active cachers out there who are... recently several cachers we have met have commented on several caches that have had rating changed in our local area.
Currently the only way to preserve D/T ratings of a cache that has been "compromised" is to Archive it (and replace with another cache close by if the Co wishes to keep a cache in that location).. the Archive action preserves the D/T ratings and protects the stats of finders.
We have done this with two of our D5 rated caches which have "spoiled"... and have been thanked by several previous finders for doing so !
Furthermore.. it's not just about reduced ratings. A change of increased difficulty... or seasonal chgange in terrain ratings also effect the stats of previous finders. And it's the same with the Size issue.... some very active cachers out there really enjoy the "game within a game".... why make the game more difficult for them by messing the stats of caches they have already found.
There has to be an easier way of doing this... the Archive method has got to be a last resort !
Two Anchors
The suggestion is that GS could Lock the D/T ratings to the finders stats when the cache is found.
We are not "into" D/T grids ourselves... but there are a lot of active cachers out there who are... recently several cachers we have met have commented on several caches that have had rating changed in our local area.
Currently the only way to preserve D/T ratings of a cache that has been "compromised" is to Archive it (and replace with another cache close by if the Co wishes to keep a cache in that location).. the Archive action preserves the D/T ratings and protects the stats of finders.
We have done this with two of our D5 rated caches which have "spoiled"... and have been thanked by several previous finders for doing so !
Furthermore.. it's not just about reduced ratings. A change of increased difficulty... or seasonal chgange in terrain ratings also effect the stats of previous finders. And it's the same with the Size issue.... some very active cachers out there really enjoy the "game within a game".... why make the game more difficult for them by messing the stats of caches they have already found.
There has to be an easier way of doing this... the Archive method has got to be a last resort !
Two Anchors
#5
Posted 16 January 2012 - 03:20 PM
You could make a Bookmark of the caches you find, and enter the D/T when you found it.
GSAK will allow you to lock the ratings...
GSAK will allow you to lock the ratings...
#6
Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:16 AM
'Would it be possible for GS to "lock" the D/T rating of a cache when found.... and to keep this rating in cache stats ?
I suspect it's a mammoth task... '
As the 'birdman' suggests, this is a 'game within a game' and therefor whatever method used is up to the individual member and not the C.O.
I have been known to put out a few caches at the upper end of the D/T spectrum and at this level it is quite difficult to assess the grades.
I frequentely change them based on a number of different factors i.e
How many cachers are finding the cache - if there are repeat finds I may well lower the grade.
Ability to 'cheat' [using ladders being the main reason here]
Change in physical circumstances [a crucial branch or hand hold has fallen/ broken off].
Perceived dangers when placing the cache are no longer the case
I believe that fixing the grades would be ridiculous
Personally I don't have much time to carry out these grid caches - I also feel penalised as for most of them you cannot count your own caches. Given that many of them are the high D/ T there are few alternatives near me for me to qualify .Others are taking advantage of my caches and not appreciating how difficult it is in putting these caches out in the first place !
I suspect it's a mammoth task... '
As the 'birdman' suggests, this is a 'game within a game' and therefor whatever method used is up to the individual member and not the C.O.
I have been known to put out a few caches at the upper end of the D/T spectrum and at this level it is quite difficult to assess the grades.
I frequentely change them based on a number of different factors i.e
How many cachers are finding the cache - if there are repeat finds I may well lower the grade.
Ability to 'cheat' [using ladders being the main reason here]
Change in physical circumstances [a crucial branch or hand hold has fallen/ broken off].
Perceived dangers when placing the cache are no longer the case
I believe that fixing the grades would be ridiculous
Personally I don't have much time to carry out these grid caches - I also feel penalised as for most of them you cannot count your own caches. Given that many of them are the high D/ T there are few alternatives near me for me to qualify .Others are taking advantage of my caches and not appreciating how difficult it is in putting these caches out in the first place !
#7
Posted 17 January 2012 - 01:20 AM
The problem I've seen with this particular game within a game is that it is so subjective to start with (even without the fluctuations of D/T updates). There is nothing at all wrong with subjectivity; I use it all the time and may sometimes manage to be quite self-consistent (I'm not necessarily talking just about caching). But I quickly came to the conclusion that to fill in grids based on lots of different COs' D/T subjectivities (since it is their ratings you are using) was not very interesting to me. So if I were drawn to anything along these lines, perhaps I would D/T rate each cache that I found and compile my own grid of find ratings.
As for challenge-type caches that require one to find other COs' caches based on D/T ratings, they don't usually appeal to me for the same reason. They also seem a little parasitic to me. Just make a cache good enough to stand in its own right, that's what I say
As for challenge-type caches that require one to find other COs' caches based on D/T ratings, they don't usually appeal to me for the same reason. They also seem a little parasitic to me. Just make a cache good enough to stand in its own right, that's what I say
#8
Posted 17 January 2012 - 01:35 AM
TWO ANCHORS, on 16 January 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:
The suggestion is not that the CO should leave original D/T ratings if he/she feels they need to be changed for some reason....
The suggestion is that GS could Lock the D/T ratings to the finders stats when the cache is found.
The suggestion is that GS could Lock the D/T ratings to the finders stats when the cache is found.
Now that Groundspeak provides statistics (the statistics tab), I agree this would be nice for 1) Those that play the grid game and 2) Rely on the Groundspeak stats.
But I think it would be difficult to implement.
And you can work around it by keeping your own stats as suggested by others (GSAK, or a bookmark list).
#9
Posted 17 January 2012 - 03:13 AM
I've not noticed this, but that's probably because I haven't looked for it happening. As mentioned earlier, the D/T ratings are so tremendously subjective though. Correction after feedback from cachers is probably no bad thing, if it means the ratings are then more realistic.
I bang on about this all the time to my long-suffering caching mates - one CO's D5/T5 is another's D3/T3, one CO thinks difficulty should always be the same as terrain, I even saw an event listed with a rare D/T combination, nice easy shortcut to get that gap coloured in! But then I remind myself that it's only a game And it's not about the numbers (or the completion of grids)
I bang on about this all the time to my long-suffering caching mates - one CO's D5/T5 is another's D3/T3, one CO thinks difficulty should always be the same as terrain, I even saw an event listed with a rare D/T combination, nice easy shortcut to get that gap coloured in! But then I remind myself that it's only a game
And it's not about the numbers (or the completion of grids)
#10
Posted 17 January 2012 - 06:36 AM
Birdman-of-liskatraz, on 16 January 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:
doug_hollyNKC, on 16 January 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:
+1, I know there is another thread that was ongoing but I couldn't find it. I agree 1000%
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
Totally understand your issues - but isn't it only a problem because you're playing a "game within a game", I could have very valid reasons to change the size of my cache. I've changed D and T ratings as cachers have commented on the original ones I gave, so why should we leave them the same - so you can fill in some arbitrary grid of ratings? *Stands back and hides*
Lol Birdman, no reason to hide! I agree with valid reasons to change a size and gave an example. If you move a cache I could see valid reasons for changing a d/t. However it should probably be a new cache. If your changing d/t early in the caches life for several comments of being much easier than rated or the other direction, then I can understand that too.
#11
Posted 17 January 2012 - 12:07 PM
Don't forget that changes in D/T ratings can work both ways in that you may have a gap on a certain combination and then a CO amendment could occur and fill that gap.
I guess its the chance you take when you play this sort of 'Game in a Game'. Additionally, if a gap suddenly appears on your grid surely it means you can then continue the game and hunt out another cache to fill the gap or you could just make sure that you have done at least 2 of each D/T combination of the grid. Now that would be a real achievement?
I guess its the chance you take when you play this sort of 'Game in a Game'. Additionally, if a gap suddenly appears on your grid surely it means you can then continue the game and hunt out another cache to fill the gap or you could just make sure that you have done at least 2 of each D/T combination of the grid. Now that would be a real achievement?
#12
Posted 19 January 2012 - 03:48 AM
Lime Candy, on 17 January 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:
And it's not about the numbers (or the completion of grids)
It is if you're doing a cache such as "The Somerset Well-Rounded Cacher". There's quite a lot of us working on that one (albeit slowly in my case)!
#13
Posted 19 January 2012 - 06:37 AM
Birdman-of-liskatraz, on 16 January 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:
doug_hollyNKC, on 16 January 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:
+1, I know there is another thread that was ongoing but I couldn't find it. I agree 1000%
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
Just like if you went and found a LARGE, but over time it keeps getting muggled so the co makes it a regular or small so they can hide it better. Poof goes your large.
Totally understand your issues - but isn't it only a problem because you're playing a "game within a game", I could have very valid reasons to change the size of my cache. I've changed D and T ratings as cachers have commented on the original ones I gave, so why should we leave them the same - so you can fill in some arbitrary grid of ratings? *Stands back and hides*
The issue isn't so much what the cache is now but what it was when I found it. If what I found was a large container at the very top of a 100-foot tree then it would be "large", and T4.5 or T5. If it subsequently becomes a film pot at the base of the tree it's "micro" and perhaps T1.5
I guess the underlying issue is how much a cache can sensibly change before it needs to be archived and relisted as a different cache.
#14
Posted 16 March 2012 - 02:55 AM
What about a particularly tricky puzzle, which the CO thinks is a 4.5, but then to increase the finds begins to release hints...
We've found some puzzles that were rated as 4's by decrypting some very difficult puzzles and found them, then the CO says, OK, only 2 people have found it, so I'm going to give you a hint, but that really makes it a 3...poof goes the 4.
Maybe the CO should have the option of maintaining the previous finds as the old difficulty by having to do an official rating change like the co-ord change button, putting up a flag in the database or some such thing, that way early changes could be done one way, and a "major" change could be done a different way.
Just a thought.
We've found some puzzles that were rated as 4's by decrypting some very difficult puzzles and found them, then the CO says, OK, only 2 people have found it, so I'm going to give you a hint, but that really makes it a 3...poof goes the 4.
Maybe the CO should have the option of maintaining the previous finds as the old difficulty by having to do an official rating change like the co-ord change button, putting up a flag in the database or some such thing, that way early changes could be done one way, and a "major" change could be done a different way.
Just a thought.
#15
Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:11 AM
WIth this issue I certainly want both sides of the arguement.
I want the CO to be able to change the D/T or size of a cache as caches do evolve over time and the CO knowledge evolves over time.
I want to have captured the D/T and size at time of my find/DNF as that is what I went on the hunt for regardless of if the actual find was easier or harder.
I want my stats to be updated to show the true D/T /size rating.
I want stat updates to only be relevant if at time of my find (e.g. if the CO later moves the cache or changes the container then I don't want that to appear in my stats.
Oh dear, looks like I want too much from this game
I want the CO to be able to change the D/T or size of a cache as caches do evolve over time and the CO knowledge evolves over time.
I want to have captured the D/T and size at time of my find/DNF as that is what I went on the hunt for regardless of if the actual find was easier or harder.
I want my stats to be updated to show the true D/T /size rating.
I want stat updates to only be relevant if at time of my find (e.g. if the CO later moves the cache or changes the container then I don't want that to appear in my stats.
Oh dear, looks like I want too much from this game
#16
Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:12 AM
Lime Candy, on 17 January 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:
I've not noticed this, but that's probably because I haven't looked for it happening. As mentioned earlier, the D/T ratings are so tremendously subjective though. Correction after feedback from cachers is probably no bad thing, if it means the ratings are then more realistic.
Reminds me of a cache I did in the US a while back which was rated T2.5 or T3 (I forget which). I was quite surprised to be able to park within 50 feet of it, although in fairness from there I did have to actually get out of my SUV and walk that monumental distance of 50 feet or so to find it at the base of a tree under a stone.
#17
Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:23 AM
metal-bijou, on 16 March 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:
I want to have captured the D/T and size at time of my find/DNF as that is what I went on the hunt for regardless of if the actual find was easier or harder.
I should point out that my first FTF was a 5/5 for which I was really pleased. To me at the time it was a 5/5 for sure. Comparing to other 5/5 it maybe isn't a 5/5. But then I think that there is a range with 5/5 too depending on the individual and their approach.
#18
Posted 16 March 2012 - 04:38 AM
I understand the desire to lock in the D/Ts to what they were when you found the cache. I have played the D/T game and have seen cache ratings be changed subsequently so that I get a had new hole in the grid. Currently, I have a completed grid but I have decided to accept that this might not be the case in future and I will just have to find another cache of that rating if and when that happens. Personally, I think if you want to lock in the ratings, it is up to the cacher to use GSAK rather than to get Groundspeak to do it.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1