thebruce0

Because ALs that don't follow guidelines should be reported, just like geocaches that don't. But of course do not report just because you "don't like" something. That is also an abuse of available features. Power trails of thousands of pill bottles (in and of themselves) do not break guidelines, therefore they should not be reported. AL locations that do not require visiting a location are not the same as a power trail pill bottle.

Geotrails? or Geotours? Most of the latter typically have rewards like coins, but you can scroll the map to find geotours and then read up to see if there are completion rewards...

In a way, I think HQ prefers this. The only difference between "because they can rather than because there's something worthwhile" in this context and the Virtual Geocache, is the latter required review before publish and reviewers hated the 'value' judgment. ALs are a 'container' where that's no longer an issue, so I don't see that arguing the reduced value of AL locations is going to make much difference

There's a difference between taking advantage of the framework within the spirit of the activity, and taking advantage of loopholes that promote an activity that's not in line with the spirit of the activity. "You don't have to find them all" applies nicely to geocaches you simply don't like or prefer... But we report problem geocaches that break guidelines (or they don't get published). ALs don't have that same ability. So the AL map may be littered with locations that are still in line with the intent of the AL activity that we may choose to skip, but we're also seeing proliferation of ALs that simply have nothing to do with [precise] location and are just to pad numbers. The difficulty is the arbitrary aspect that geocaches are physical so they take space in the real world, while AL locations are virtual so ultimately they don't "affect" anything but icons on a map and statistics that affect no one. ... but, it also affects the presentation, expectation, reception, and implied spirit of that activity. The more you allow things that are actually against the guidelines, the more the general/uninformed public think it's normal and allowed, and get angry if it gets "taken away", blaming the perpetrators (not TPTB but those who report) and vilify them. It's a hornet's nest. And complacency is letting it grow so no one wants to touch it, let alone kick it =/

Usually in a visual editor if Enter creates a new paragraph, Shift-Enter will do a single line; or Alt-Enter, or Ctrl-Enter (I find in that order - sometimes Ctrl-Enter may be understood as a sort of 'Send') But yes if you go to source view, <p>text</p> will usually add a margin either before and after, or an extra line after. <br> at the end of a line will move to a new line.

I figured you knew it was technically possible, I was just highlighting an anecdote I have literally seen occasionally with people with so many finds I was just as surprised to see no fizzy completed... but that's coming from us/people who watch stats so much it seems impossible to miss such a significant statistical thing

Heh, easy; I know plenty of people who aren't out for stats and just love finding quicker easier caches. Those high D or T caches require specific attention in many times. You could vastly imbalance the DT grid to the top left when just years and years of casual caching. Especially if your general home area doesn't actually have any particular DTs you might need to travel a greater distance for. I'm slowly inching towards 50 fizzies, mainly because my region is filled with stats people and power trails and challenges and tree climbs, each being quicker ways to earn those lower and rightmost DTs.

It's another question of the golden rule. If you just checked to ensure you qualify, it's just a nice thing to do to copy that proof and include with your log. Whether it's a screenshot, or an edit after the fact, or whatever... If the CO doesn't believe it they can still check, but 98% of the time (a number from the air) I'd say evidence provided with challenge find logs is good. This is coming from me in challenge-intense Ontario. Let's not let that number get lower

If I were programming it, I could see two options. - Count FPs given with find logs, adding to a distinct tally active during the promotion (I would think the backend function for flagging a Find log with a FP would include a +1 to the tally, which could also -1 if a FP is removed) and this can work with the posting of a Find log as well as adding a FP to a cache already found (I'd think the FP would be attached to the user's find log, so would only count to the total if it was also found within the souvenir period, a quick date check). - Or, the algorithm that shows current score would do a query on find logs within the date range, and add the FP count to the current point total (but this would be more cycles used for querying every time the point total is shown). One requires more code insertion but keeps the main promo functionality external to core functions with least impact (and the external call really only needs to be added into posting a find log (with its details), adding/removing a FP (with the find date), and completing an AL location); the other requires more live calculation and querying. I would think the former was employed as these souvenir promos are evolving to be able to 'track' quite a lot of activity, so the code has probably been improved sufficiently to be able to simply insert a call within whatever action is desired to be tracked to its own souvenir module, and can be removed once the promotion period is complete.

Effectively it's the same as April but with bonus point opportunities. 100 finds for hard, but faster if you find the intended cache targets (among other bonus points)

I'm sure they chose that number based on many factors - including the numerous surveys they've handed out asking about find counts, and likes/dislikes about souvenir challenges. I'm sure they felt that 100 was sufficiently difficult enough to satisfy the desire of advanced users for somewhat of a, well, challenge, knowing that it would be a much bigger reach for novice players, and knowing the variety of cache densities worldwide, both in general and by finders' stats. Since they can't seem to win, maybe next time they should add a 50 count souvenir too; or just award a souvenir for every 10 finds in the month. ;P (plzno, ikid)

Some people say "stop when it's no longer fun" - with the idea in mind of what 'fun' is to them. There are many of us that find 'fun' in the completion of a goal when a specific instance just is hard work, tough, and not what people might think as 'fun'. So it's not so much a 'fun' factor to decide on, it's value, personal desire. If you're willing to do hard work, even when you don't feel like it, knowing that the greater goal has more value for it, then keep going. If you're only in the streak for as long as geocaches themselves are, well, entertaining, to find, then stop when when you're no longer finding value in the pursuit. I enjoyed doing my streak of 366 days even on days I didn't want to, because my value was in completing the goal I set for myself, not in the fun of individual caches. So, set a goal, set a purpose, and pursue it. Get the value out of it that you put into it. That's why I love challenge caches and souvenir promotions - not necessarily for the individual caches I find to earn them (because then yeah, it wouldn't be 100% "fun"), but for the fulfillment of achieving the goal i set out for. and the adventures had along the way are gems and exciting bonuses.:)

Technically not even that. If you don't sign the logsheet, the CO can delete your log. Strictly speaking. Of course there are exceptions and edge cases and 'spirit' of the activity. My comment about changing the goal was not every single person must sign every single logsheet of every single physical geocache they find or the game is wrong. I was pointing to the spirit of the activity - don't aim to find or spot 'the container' - change your goal to signing the log sheet. That's the only time you know that you are able to log the find with full legitimacy. And yes of course that's the spirit of the goal, not the letter of the goal.

As you imply, if you don't record your signing then there'd be no evidence of the signing. As a CO, if someone write a note claiming they signed but don't qualify, practically speaking you're on the same 'hook' to verify signature in the log as a regular cache find. Being a challenge cache, you'd be kind of an idiot if you were to go to someone a year later, who noted their find, and tell them you can't find their signature after the log has been lost or replaced. I think your anecdote is a very specialized situation, an exception to what I was describing as a general strategy people use. Same, exactly. And what I described was being on vacation, signing a bunch of hard challenges you don't yet qualify for, and wouldn't for perhaps a couple of years, noting that you've signed in, then checking again 2 years down the road to find you qualify. You are allowed to date it on the day you check, otherwise you would be required to determine the exact date you qualified and date the find log for then. That's not the case. So that ambiguity leaves room for 'fudging' the find log, for those whose conscience doesn't scream bloody murder if they do so.

People just need to change their goal - it's not about "finding the container", you are successful when you sign the logsheet. And that applies to so much more, once you start getting into gadget caches, field puzzles, red herriings, trick containers, etc... The logsheet should always be a geocacher's goal, when it's a physical geocache.

There are numerous ways to hide text in the description. If you're looking for something like "white on white", then you can use the editor to make text white, and make sure the background is also white (or change both to any colour). But that's not fool proof. If you're looking for hiding text in the source code (which would only be visible by using the browser's source code view or an Inspection feature), then you can put text inside an HTML comment: You have to be editing the description in Source view, and then just put the text in between <!-- and --> the HTML comment tags. As long as that's in the HTML source, then it'll stay in hidden from visibility unless someone views the source code or inspects the right element. For example: <b>This text will be visible and bold.</b> <!-- This text will only be visible in the source view or inspecting the element --> There are other ways, but it gets much more complex unless you know HTML to some degree and how it works.

It's not a checker that's associated with a challenge so won't be found by a challenge search. Scripts can still be made and run independently. It was put together by @Hügh to help specifically with this statistical anomaly

Keep in mind, unless it's a live announcement and wheel spin, they could record the wheel spins until it lands on the next intended icon, matching the preplanned 6 months of souvenir challenges

If you change the way every user logs challenge caches, then sure. That was not what I was saying. The way challenge caches are handled means: the Found It log on Challenge Caches doesn't/can't imply with the same certainty what it implies with every other physical cache type. And you are allowed to log either the date you signed the log, or date you qualified, and technically any date after, otherwise a rule for logging challenge caches would be to determine and include the exact date that you qualified for the challenge. This is not a requirement. So, for challenge caches, how would HQ adjudicate a disagreement about a Found It log that does not lie on the signing or qualification date? Probably 'just let it go, if the user has found it and qualifies'. I don't see HQ trying to determine if a user is just 'fudging' their found date to qualify for a streak unless there were a very very good reason to do so. And no, it should be clear I'm not advocating for that as a legitimate strategy. I'm just saying that the ALR nature of challenge caches in the realm of physical cache logging leaves room for people to fudge their streaks, and it becomes a matter of integrity and conscience. ETA: IMO the 'spirit' of challenge cache logging would be to log the Found as soon as you have both the log signed and task qualified. But that end date isn't a hard requirement, if the qualification date (falling after the signing) isn't reasonably determinable.

This is where the seal on the can of worms breaks... It can be a nuanced argument. While this is generally the way people handle logging challenges: ...there are plenty of times that someone may find a challenge cache on vacation, sign it, and then forget about it for a few years. When they realize that they now qualify for the signed challenge, but have zero clue when that occurred, they'll log it found on that date. It's a problem with this 'black sheep' of physical geocaches, having this effective "ALR" that makes the "Found It" log not actually mean what it implies. Typically on a physical geocache the Found It implies the cache was visited on that date and successfully signed. But everyone knows with challenge caches you can't expect to infer that accurately from its log history. We tend to scroll until we see a Found It log (or a Note) that describes the person's physical visit to the cache, since so many are "Found previously, just qualified today" sort of logs. However, this: ...I would say is not a good comparison. Any other physical cache type still gives the Found It log the same meaning: It was physically visited and signed that day. So dating a Found It log on a date where the cache was not physically visited was objectively misleading and inaccurate. The issue stems from the fact that the Found It log on Challenge Caches doesn't/can't imply with the same certainty what it implies with every other physical cache type. That said, it still comes to the 'spirit' of the challenge cache. With legitimate find logs being posted on dates it was not physically signed, and there being legitimate reason for Found It not being the date a user actually qualified, one can only trust a user is playing by the 'spirit' of the cache type. A CO I'd say wouldn't have the right to delete the log of someone who didn't seem to log the Found It on a) date signed, b) date qualified, c) date realized qualified. If the user qualified (any date) and signed the sheet, then the log would stand. It does kind of leave the room open for the additional situation of d) fudging the date that "I realized I qualified", for the sake of a streak. Is it worth throwing a fit over? Not really. But it does beg the question of the integrity of the user logging it if known that it's to maintain a streak. I've had a couple of instances of that in the past (realizing qualified on some past date), but on those dates, I'd try to also go and find a cache, just so the streak doesn't rely on the inferred legitimacy of a logged challenge cache someone could come along and argue I was "dishonest" about. So it comes back down to The spirit of the streak to me means challenge caches aren't a rock solid "Find" in geocaching terms. If it's dated the same day I qualified, that means I had to find a cache that day to qualify anyway. But if it's dated for having discovered I qualified long ago, then really there's been no "Find" on that date and isn't in the spirit of the geocaching streak, even if the date of the log is not actually dishonest. How would you handle that date if you were faced with it? Log it anyway and claim the continued streak on that find alone? Log another cache to lock in the date for the streak? Or do the work find out the actual date you qualified, then log it on that date? (That is another option, but not always worth the effort depending on the complexity of the challenge; YMMV)

Sure, never disagreed with that. As for other points, what JL_HSTRE said.

Find 10 caches of some type, for example, is literally about quantity and a sustained find rate (souvenir period), where 'high' is always going to be subjective (and if you say that one period isn't a 'sustained rate', then 100 finds in one month isn't a "sustained high find rate", just a single target goal). And correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe you've complained about find count requirements even that low by screen capping your local region showing how few caches are available under whatever categorization was required, even for lower counts than 100. I've almost come to expect a screencap of your local cache map whenever there's a new promo Sentimentally, I agree. But I do certainly support HQ trying to find a way to address issues of lack of available finds in some areas. That's another reason I think the ranked easy/medium/hard souvenirs for this promotion (even though month #1 has no additional parameters) are a step in the right direction. 100 in a month is a goal that, probably, most of the worldwide community won't earn, either by choice or ability or availability, but it is one that is certainly more attractive to those who've been pining for a goal that's a little more "advanced", for a challenge. And that's just fine.

Comparing digital souvenir images for a family friendly healthy hobby to addictive narcotics probably won't make this thread last much longer... =/

Yes, we on the forum are well aware of your anecdotal local geocaching landscape whenever it comes to finding more than a handful of geocaches. Things change. It happens. The old has not gone, it is still around, even if it's becoming overshadowed. Again, HQ can't appeal to everyone all the time, and I'll just point again to my prior post about balancing the variety in souvenir promotions - whether they last 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, or 1 year.

Every souvenir promo is going to be based on some statistic. The leaderboard points for the Labyrinth were for a variety of hide styles. Not merely quantity. Points are the way they 'convert' finds to the theme's progress. So you can choose what progression you want to take; the long way, the short way, or the adventurous way. That's different than mere quantity, which this first challenge wheel souvenir is. You can't get away from the fact of course that souvenir promos will be about finding geocaches. The themes just dictate the available makeup of those caches we're directed to find. On the flipside, if a souvenir promo were all about story and narrative and the finds were not quantity at all, people who love the caching challenge would complain simply because they earned them caching normally (and some do even with these). There are some that want story, theming, narrative; and some that want statistical tasks and challenges, and couldn't care less about theming. Can't really have it both ways. So HQ can only try different things, and hope to appeal to various groups who enjoy different aspects of the hobby. This time, they're kind enough to give us a variety of souvenirs from easy to hard, instead of catering to the 'average' and below geocacher. 100 finds in a month is waaaay above the average geocacher, from the way it sounds by their reports. And the 'theme' for this series is, well, statistical tasks. And all we know so far is what the first month requires. Who knows what varieties of caching experiences may show up in the next 5 months. Everyone's already speculating at the icons... So ya, you may not get the hard souvenir, but you could choose to try, or not, or just wait for the next month, or wait for the next promo entirely and hope it's more narrative and story driven. Or not. *shrug* I'm just going to try to enjoy whatever promo they put forward and see if I can earn what I can. Remembering that it's just for digital graphics I rarely if ever look at... But more important, plus whatever memories and adventures I'm fortunate to have along the way.