tomturtle

I am using Chrome, and all I see is a small fraction of my profile info. When it first comes up, it has scroll bars, but then they disappear and all I can see is the small portion that fits on the screen below the rest of the profile. I cannot scroll down at all either in the small window or the overall page. Please roll this back until this problem can be fixed.

I would. advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like. Personally, I would like to see less "you hate" from others when someone is expressing criticism about as aspect of the game. As I see it, it's not simply a matter of whether one likes or dislikes challenge caches or certain types of challenge caches. Those that are critical of challenge caches may be doing so because of the impact they may be having on the game as a whole. Instead of playing the hate card how about addressing the *reasons* for the criticism. Even if one never finds a challenge cache (perhaps using an ignore list) the impact on the game as a whole or within localized communities still exists. There is no attempt to play any hate card. That was the word used by the poster who I quoted. I simply don't want to lose these challenges which I consider vital to the game and which make the game more interesting. The positives far out weigh the negatives with challenge caches.

I would advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

I took the survey, but thought that it appeared to be written in such a way as to be considering only negative things, like eliminating certain types of challenges, etc. I for one would like to see challenge caching expanded, with as many new types of challenges as people can dream up! Many of the challenges listed, I've already done, so new challenges keep the game interesting.

Correct me if I am wrong, but multi-caches and mystery caches hidden in the early days of geocaching did not have to have their final waypoints listed. I remember at one point, our reviewer requested people update them on our local forums, but I don't think everyone did this. I still run into situations once in a while where I find an old multi-cache final that is closer to another cache than the 528 foot guideline. Is may be possible it was one of those caches..... Hmmm, that is another possible scenario. The only flaw I see in that is that the owner Lukin8R joined gc.com in 2008, and I think the 528 foot guideline was in place by then. While it is true that the 528 foot guideline was in place long before 2008, I'm pretty sure that the requirement to enter the final waypoint coordinates for a multicache did not occur until later. The posted coordinates for the cache in question could actually be miles from the final stage. The 528 foot guideline was in place, but would not matter in the case of an old multi, because a newer cache could get published closer than 528 feet to the cache. The reviewer would not know where the final stage was located, so has no reason not to publish the new cache. I found one a couple weeks ago that was like that. That being said, probably the best way to figure it out is to go back and take pics of the log book pages so you can see what caches different cachers who signed it have in common on the dates they signed it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but multi-caches and mystery caches hidden in the early days of geocaching did not have to have their final waypoints listed. I remember at one point, our reviewer requested people update them on our local forums, but I don't think everyone did this. I still run into situations once in a while where I find an old multi-cache final that is closer to another cache than the 528 foot guideline. Is may be possible it was one of those caches.....

Agreed. There are way too many here who appear to spend more time on the forums trying to tell everyone else what to do, than they spend actually caching.

But if you put up a post one day, the next day it will be an old post.... See how silly some of this nitpicking over the guidelines can get. You all would make much better use of your time if you would go out and find more caches. I for one appreciate those who go to the trouble of building an interesting cache whether they place it on an old post or a new post.

I too don't care for this thread. The guidelines have changed over time and there are still caches out there that met guidelines when they were hidden, but maybe not now. Much better to just go out and enjoy the game and not worry about whether someone else didn't meet the letter of the law... oh wait, they are just guidelines. If a cache is really a problem, it can be dealt with on an individual basis.

No sooner than I post that, it starts working again. Could someone could figure out why it sometimes doesn't work???? This is not the first time I have noticed this problem, but most of the time it can be fixed by refreshing the screen.

I am having the same problem. I can see caches on the map, but I can't tell which ones they are. This is one of the most important things I use for planning a cache trip and it's not working.

I do not condone the actions of the hider, but I did not have anything to do with it. The hider also cannot fix my stats for me. The cache was not illegally placed as far as actual laws were concerned, as it was located in a county nature preserve on a well established trail and appears to have had permission from the county parks. It was even on the side of the trail away from the tracks which could not be seen, so really there is little danger it is going to cause problems with the railroads and at this point in time, the cache is not even there as the hider moved the container later to another spot. The hider did not change the log book, because when I found the "new" cache, my signature was already there. I agree that the hider did violate Groundspeak guidelines, but I had no knowledge that he had done this. I am pretty much caught in the middle. I could not do what is suggested, delete my log from that cache, and log another one in it's place, even if I wanted to because I cannot access the online cache either. At this point, I don't want to do that because it would mess my stats up in another way and I would like to just see it fixed. The reasons for not doing so listed above don't hold much water at least on this cache and I do believe that Groundspeak has an obligation to keep stats from getting screwed up due to how their system works and this is just a request to have them correct it. I have seen a couple of other situations where retractions on caches were used with logs on them and am thankful that I was not a part of those, but I think it illustrates that I am not alone in having this problem and it would be nice if someone could take a look at this and find a solution. I also think it illustrates that this could happen to anyone.

Can any of the Lackeys comment on this? Is there any reason not to change how retractions work or are used? Is there any reason you can't fix the caches that were retracted with found it logs already on them?

This thread didn't seem to lead to any changes so I will attempt to revive it again. I found a cache 3 years ago, that was retracted a day or two after I found it. The cache was on a well-established trail within a park, but apparently too close to RR tracks just outside the park for the guidelines. The cache was on the opposite side of the walking trail from the tracks which were not even visible from the cache site due to topography associated with a canal, and vegetation. The owner had moved the coords a little to get it published, then moved them back a day or two later, prompting the cache to be retracted. I hiked quite a way to get this cache, all within the park (not on RR property), and I found it despite the coords being a little off. I didn't do anything wrong here, and while my find count on geocaching.com is correct and I can see the find in my myfinds PQ, I cannot see the cache on my list of caches found on Geocaching.com and worse, if I wish to use other sites such as Project-GC.com, they can't see the cache either and it causes my find count to be off on their site. I do not wish to lose the find (it was published at the time I found it) and I would like to be able to use the other sites and have my data be accurate. I would suggest maybe finding any retracted caches that have found it logs on them and simply making them archived and locking the page from any future logs if that is the concern. Also, for the future, never retract a cache that has had found it logs on it. Simply archive it.

Quite honestly, if that cacher purchased that fuel, it is theirs to use however they see fit. Where do you draw the line on being 'environmentally irresponsible'? The entire game of geocaching could be considered a waste of fuel if one drives to get caches, depending on who you ask, or it can be a rewarding activity which brings much happiness to those who participate. If you see going out for one cache as not worth it, then by all means you should not do it, but I think each cacher can make that decision for themselves. I personally like the stat.

This is a suggestion that should not be implemented. Some people might find it helpful, but others would find it to be a big inconvenience. It's best to just leave well enough alone.

With regards to the souvenirs that are being discussed, I don't think they are a replacement for challenges. The only reason I pay attention to them is because there are challenge caches out there that require a certain number of souvenirs. Otherwise, I would likely ignore them and get them by accident when I happened to meet some criteria. I can say the same for favorite points as well. I never look at them unless I need to find caches that have certain numbers of favorite points to get the challenge cache.

For those of us who enjoy the challenge caches, this is not particularly encouraging, given what happened with virtuals. I will hope for a better result this time around.

Why inflate the number of reviewers to handle this when it could be better managed with a few changes/clarifications to the rules? As has been stated numerous times, these caches make up a very small proportion of actual cache submissions. They're just very problematic to review and publish. Because many people enjoy them. Sometimes things that are worthwhile require a little extra work. No one wants them to be a burden on the reviewers, so more reviewers would help to share the workload. Yes, things that are worthwhile require a little extra work, like the effort Groundspeak is currently spending to review how these caches work and how the system can be improved to make them work better. ... and they may find that they need more reviewers to handle the workload.

Why inflate the number of reviewers to handle this when it could be better managed with a few changes/clarifications to the rules? As has been stated numerous times, these caches make up a very small proportion of actual cache submissions. They're just very problematic to review and publish. Because many people enjoy them. Sometimes things that are worthwhile require a little extra work. No one wants them to be a burden on the reviewers, so more reviewers would help to share the workload.

I really like challenge caches, but don't care for any that use percentages. While a cache for a certain average might reward you for doing high terrain or high difficulty caches, it is also rewarding you for not doing other caches which is a negative in my opinion. 2 cachers can do the identical high terrain caches, but if one of them also does some low terrain caches and their average fall below whatever the threshhold of the challenge is, they have actually done more in this game, but the other cacher is rewarded with a challenge find. Also, a cacher can be qualified for it at one point in time and later not be qualified for it. For this reason, I do not pay much attention to the averages.

From the point of view of a finder, I really like challenge caches. Those are the ones I go out of my way to do and they appear to be popular in areas that have mega events as people seem to make sure they find them if they are qualified. If this is a burden for reviewers, why not just get more reviewers? I'm sure you would have volunteers.

Challenge caches are the 2011-2015 version of the issues with reviewing virtual caches in 2001-2005. They've blossomed into quite a time drain both for reviewers and for the Appeals group at Geocaching HQ. You only see the ones that pass muster, and only after any listing guideline issues are already resolved. Challenge caches, on average, take more reviewer time than any other listing type. In contrast, a string of 100 country road micro hides tend to have copy and paste cache descriptions and few unique issues -- maybe a proximity issue here and there, or questions about private property. But generally, they are very fast reviews. There are no subjective factors, like proving that a challenge can be accomplished/is of interest to a reasonable number of local geocachers. There is no wow factor test for country road micro hides. If there were, I wouldn't publish very many of them. Feel free, however, to continue doubting the validity of that claim. You're entitled to your opinion. Since you don't see what reviewers see, I can understand why you'd think that way. People thought the same thing about virtual caches. I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting. I will also note that the demand for virtual caches is still strong, so I am hoping that Groundspeak will find a solution to whatever concerns it has this time, rather than just banning them.

Most of the challenges you describe here sound quite reasonable to me. I am not sure I would qualify for all of them, but that is OK. I enjoy the ones I can do, work on the ones that I might be able to do, and ignore any that I don't care to do or can't do for some reason. And just because I can't claim them doesn't make it a bad challenge. Needless to say, I am extremely disappointed in the moratorium. Challenge caches make the game more interesting for me and I especially like the more offbeat ones. I fear that Groundspeak will get rid of them altogether or dumb them down somehow and that will be a great loss to the game.

Is this going to replace the e-mail functionality on geocaching.com? Are we going to suddenly have no option but to use this message system? I hope not. I would much rather stay with the e-mail.