@AstroD-Team wrote:

I would be in favor of it, but I think it has the potential of being more subjective than objective. One only needs to look at the D/T rating of many caches… but it would be a good start.

I would love to see an attribute for puzzle caches that can be solved in the field. Those are much different than solving those puzzles requiring me to sit home at a computer and pulling my hair out. As it stands, I have to read each puzzle cache page to sort them out. That’s a big PITA!

If you follow the Geocaching website forum where Groundspeak asks you to post your requests and new ideas you will see that every single thread asking for a new cache size, new attribute, rating system, etc. has many responses just like this one from Astro D Team. And I agree, you are correct.

Just as with the existing difficulty, terrain, attributes, heck even cache size and description the cache owner is free to pick and choose. Subjectively, objectively, correctly, incorrectly, etc.

These things are always subject to interpretation. However, providing the system in the first place is a start. I like that the features are there and open to interpretation based on location, your local caching community, and so forth. If the feature is there cache owners will use it and in general they should be fairly reliable just like the other features. Yeah it’s subjective and not always right but it’s a start to help those looking to “filter the madness” 🙂

The ideal system for me as a Mystery/Puzzle cache creator (by the way with the new website update today all references to “Unknown” type have been removed and replaced with Mystery/Puzzle) would be the following 2 NEW options:

Mystery/Puzzle Category:
Research/Trivia, Field Solve, Math/Numbers Puzzle, Cipher, Series/Multi, Word/Letters Puzzle, Other, Not Chosen (and maybe other “high level” categories?)

Mystery/Puzzle Difficulty:
5-Star system similar to existing rating systems with a Not Chosen option.

Ideally both of these options would be available in a Pocket Query similar to cache type and difficulty/terrain.

All existing puzzle/mystery caches would be set to Not Chosen for both new options and owners would have the choice to use them on existing and newly published caches.

Owners could choose whether adding the category is appropriate and whether it would increase or decrease the difficult to know the category or not.

Because these caches often “push the envelope” they can’t always be categorized but if the categories are broad they could work.

Oh and for this proposed system to work, challenge caches would have to be separated out from Mystery/Puzzle with a new type (requested often in the geocaching.com forums) OR set as one of the Puzzle/Mystery cache categories. Difficulty would then rate the “challenge”.

This way, the existing cache difficulty rating would be solely for the cache hide in the field as opposed to the difficulty of the puzzle.

-cheeto-

@PCFrog wrote:

What the problem I found is there are now some multi caches that are really puzzles. I get the 1st waypoint and read the description to find out that it is a multi cache but you have to solve a puzzle to even ID the next stage.

This has been an issue for some time. The nut of it is that offset multicaches are publishable as multicaches. Most often this seems to come up with cemetery caches, where “multi” means “do some calculations” rather than “find the waypoint.” However, these caches are appropriately published as multicaches.

Ideally you could have different icons for “waypoint multis” versus “offset multis,” but I’d have a better chance of growing another…well, let’s just say it’s not likely to happen.

Regarding a puzzle cache rating system, I don’t think it’s needed, but I can see no downside to it, so it’s worth pursuing if the community feels strongly about it.

@cheezehead wrote:

“Night Caches” are now to be designated with a “?” or so I read somewhere.

Yep, that could be added to my category option. Forgot those.

As PCFrog alludes to, there is a problem on how to list some caches – puzzle or multi?

Before initiating a puzzle rating, I think that issue should be resolved first.

@marc_54140 wrote:

I do not believe a puzzle rating system would work, unless you have large numbers of cachers make input to it/them.

For example, rating them 1 to 5, with 5 being the hardest.

If the owners rate them: Owner rates it 2, I look at it and can not figure out what the subject is! I see it as a 5. Who’s answer is correct? This system will require other cachers to ‘know’ the owner in order to judge for themselves what the difficulty of any particular puzzle might be.

When I hiked in Arizona, there was one hiker who rated the hike to the top of the highest mountain as moderate. It started at 10,000 feet, and went to 13,600 feet, over a 2.5 mile trail. Almost everyone else rated it extreme. Depends …………

If cachers rate them: A new puzzle comes out, and the ftf to rates it a 1. Quick and easy. Well, I come plodding along, and again, can not figure it out. Is it a 5 for me? Ok, the average is now 3, based on two inputs.

If you had, say 25 to 50 cachers, making an input to a particular puzzle, a better average would result. But how would you begin to get others to make an entry, when many puzzles might not have that many solvers/finders?

I don’t feel a puzzle system is needed as I said above, but Marc your logic doesn’t seem to make sense, unless you also argue that the CURRENT cache rating system doesn’t work. Because the same subjective rating problem that you illustrated with puzzles, applies to the terrain/difficulty rating example you gave under the existing system. In other words, both are subjective, but that does not mean they would not “work.” 😕

Time for a poll…