Suggestion on 1/1 caches

[zuma]

I noticed that the Indiana reviewer addresses the problem of new cachers rating their caches as a 1/1, when that may not be appropriate by giving cache owners this feedback when they approve 1/1 caches:

“Your new cache has been approved, but I would ask you to please
double-check to make sure the terrain is rated properly. If you used the
cache rating system link ( (visit link) ) when you submitted the cache,
you will note that a 1 star terrain cache should be wheelchair
accessible. If that’s the case, great! If it’s not, then the terrain
should be at least a 1.5 star.
Thanks!

The Mad Reviewer”

(From GC1EY9Y and others)

As pointed out in a different thread, I have often pointed this out to cache owners when I log my find, which I do because I think accuracy is helpful in the cache listings in helping folks decide which caches they want to do.

However, I realize that most people are more PC in their logs and reluctant to give even a hint of helpful feedback, so most cache owners who inappropriately list their caches as a 1/1 are never made aware that there is a problem with the accuracy of their cache description.

So, this is to inquire as to what folks think about asking the WI reviewers to post a similar note when approving 1/1 caches in WI. Do you think this is a good idea?

I am especially interested in hearing what our fine WI reviewers think about this.

zuma

[Team Deejay]

I used to do this (the exact template, actually), but the responses I got ranged from nothing to “Bite me”. Since there is no guideline requiring that the terrain or difficulty be accurate, it seems like a waste of time. I used to do the same thing with bogus hints, which are also highly discouraged but not against the guidelines. I got better responses for that, but mostly was ignored.

[zuma]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I used to do this (the exact template, actually), but the responses I got ranged from nothing to “Bite me”. Since there is no guideline requiring that the terrain or difficulty be accurate, it seems like a waste of time. I used to do the same thing with bogus hints, which are also highly discouraged but not against the guidelines. I got better responses for that, but mostly was ignored.

Unfortunate that people would ignore helpful feedback like that, which I think is well worded, and nonoffensive.

I was just thinking if that kind of feedback came up front, from the reviewers, cache owners would be receptive to it, and in most cases, change the terrain to a 1.5.

Personally, I enjoy constructive feedback. For example, when ya approved my cache in Wausau (Weston actually) for Rick Blick Finds 1000 you gave me valuable feedback that I probably had the terrain rating too low, since it is on an island which requires wading in 2 -4 inches of water, more if ya choose the wrong place. So I adjusted the terrain rating to a 3.5. If I get feedback by folks who find the cache who think that 3.5 isnt right, I would pay attention to that and adjust as necessary.

D/T ratings are always gonna be a bit subjective, but to the extent possible, I think they should be close to the clayjar guidelines, in order to help folks choose what they want to do and what they can do.

zuma

[greyhounder]

I’ve gotten nearly the same feedback when I send out that template on caches. Difficulty and terrain rating are subjective, so it’s hard to pin down what it means for each person. In fact, I typically get the same response when I make suggestions to up the terrain rating on caches that require the use of a boat. I continue to send out the notes, but they are largely ignored.

What I’ve found much more effective it an email(s) from cache finders who have done the cache and feel that the difficulty or terrain are off.

Bec

[GetMeOutdoors]

Hold on… let’s talk for a minute about bogus hints, Zuma! 😉 I remember falling victim to at least one of yours like that. Not funny 😡 Well, it was a little funny, after I got done cursing your name 😆 Makes you wonder who you can trust anymore 😆

But to keep on subject, I guess it’s helpful for the reviewers to post a reminder note tot he owner but unless the topo shows it to be clearly in the middle of marshlands with no access roads around, or the description clearly contradicts the rating, there’s not much to be done to enforce it.

I agree that accuracy should be maintained (and owners should be receptive to feedback, while comparing their ratings to similar caches in the area to maintain consistency) for the sake of the searchers determining whether or not to attempt a cache but also to keep statistics accurate – not that that matters to some folks.

so no hard feelings Zuma, but I’ve got my eye on you 😉

[Team Deejay]

Just for clarification, I wasn’t referring to incorrect or not very helpful hints, but those hints like “you don’t get a hint”, or “Ha Ha, you wasted time decoding this”. Technically these are not allowed, but we don’t hold up a listing for just this.

On the other hand, STUPID hints (Parking locations, “Don’t fall in the lake”, “Don’t forget to mark the location of your car”, “Across the street from Lee’s Deli”) we generally leave alone.

[gotta run]

First of all, I’m amazed that reviewers would get responses that equated to “bite me.” But I guess I’m not surprised. That could make for interesting reading.

Second, I think that “Lame Hints” needs to be a forum thread…but I ain’t starting it. 😯

On the Left Side of the Road...

[jthorson]

@gotta run wrote:

First of all, I’m amazed that reviewers would get responses that equated to “bite me.”

It was such attitudes that led to my failure as a reviewer. I still grind my teeth over some interactions with hiders 2 years later.

It takes special people to do the job.

‘Have you appreciated your reviewer today?’

[LightningBugs Mum]

My daily reviewer appreciation.

I could never do it – I’m way too thin skinned.

[Trekkin and Birdin]

I’m sorry to hear that people who volunteer lots and lots of hours of their own time to help us play this game get that kind of response. Unfortunately, I’m not surprised, but…..

I have found the turn-around time from these two to be exceptional, and they’ve always been helpful with feedback to help us create a more enjoyable caching experience, too. Anyone who would disrespect them should go sit on the naughty chair—one minute for each year of their age! 😉

To the original topic; I do understand that these things are so subjective. To the hider, things usually don’t seem so tricky, cause we know where it is! We do notice regional variations in the terrain ratings, too. Over here where we are used to hiking up and down bluffs, most of the “hardest core” terrain cachings are maybe 3-4. Others from areas with less relief come here and think they should be 5s. I usually run that little utility that rates your cache, and I’ll adjust it based on my own judgement. Usually I think it does a pretty decent job if I’m honest about the responses….meaning, I realize *we’ll* walk through swamps and thorns, but others would see that as really nasty!

[Team Black-Cat]

@Team Deejay wrote:

I used to do this (the exact template, actually), but the responses I got ranged from nothing to “Bite me”.

What is wrong with some people? I think a good “guideline” would be that any disrespect of the reviewers during the review process will result in immediate archiving/deletion of the cache in question.
Being thick skinned shouldn’t be a requirement to be a reviewer.

[-cheeto-]

I think a good “guideline” would be that any disrespect of the reviewers during the review process will result in immediate archiving/deletion of the cache in question.

I agree 1000%

And I would further add that I still have some camo duct tape in my bag….

[Author]

Posts