[Az-Geocaching] The problem is often the RATINGS

[Mike Schwarz]

My opinion is that these caches that prove really frustrating for
people are perfectly okay, as long as the difficulty rating is high
enough.  Many of these caches are underrated in this respect.

Any cache that causes a lot of geocachers to post couldn't-find-it
logs, especially experienced geocachers, should have a difficulty
rating of 4 or above.  Or if the cache requires a very large
investment in time or effort, either in the "homework" or the
actual searhing.  I've seen some caches like this where the
difficulty rating was only 2.5.

Everybody, including me, was happy that the 4 "Fire Closure"
caches were recently placed.  And we should be thankful to the
placer of those.  But all 4 of those had a rating of 1/1.  Based
on the logs and my own experience with FC3, either the difficulty
or terrain of these was SIGNFICANTLY higher than a 1.

I thought a few caches were definitely OVERrated, like Bob View
and Canned Mtn Preserves.  In fact, the terrain rating for the
latter one caused me to search a lot in very steep nearby rocks,
and later I found the cache was in relatively easy terrain.

Right now the placer of the cache has sole authority to determine
the rating numbers for the cache.  Sometimes I feel that an
independent panel of local geocachers should also rate each cache,
vote on what THEY feel the ratings should be, and have these
alternate ratings listed in the description for the cache, along
with the cache owner's own ratings.

Just my 2 coins worth.  Awaiting your heated responses....

Mike (Malthusian)

At  08:59:25 -0700 6/7/02, Loran wrote:
>
>Ok round two. Clarification.
>
>I wasn't blasted too bad on the first round .
>
>Ok what got me going. As of lately the trend in the area seems to be to hide
>caches that require more leg work than mental work. Usually these are in the
>area of multi caches. I don't mind multi caches when there is something to
>find at each stage. The ones that drive me crazy are the ones that only have
>a tiny sticker with the coords on them and there are too many probable
>hiding places within the search area.  Add to that the uncertainty of the
>coords and you can spend hours searching for just one stage.
>
>Ok here is the bad part, you want examples. These are my opinion and other
>my think differently.
>
>Bombs away
>Neat idea but directions way to vague. I worked with the owner and reduced
>the search area. Originally the search area was 2000 feet long.
>
>Justin Time
>A very good cache with a good hiding place. Its just that the coord put me
>25-30 feet from the first stage. I have talked to others that had the same
>problem.
>
>Neighborhood Park Cache
>Still haven't broken this one. First stage is ok because there are only two
>probable seach areas. Second stage the coords are uncertain and search area
>is much larger. When your best teams require multiple returns to find a
>single stage something is wrong.
>
>Ultimate Puzzle Cache
>This ones going to get me in trouble but I felt it must be included. One of
>the products involved with this geocache is so specialized it can be found
>at maybe one or two store chains. The newer hint does help narrow the
>search. I believe the concept behind the location of the cache was very
>clever and the trouble with find the product wa unnessessary. Others have
>voiced thier dislike with the product search if not vocally. This might
>explain why there has been only 2 finds for this cache.  I have finally
>found the elucive product and will attempt to find the cache.
>
>Ok, enought for now. I'll get off my soapbox and get back to geocaching. I
>might even place some.
>
>Loran (Team Sand Dollar)
>
>