tomturtle

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.

Is there a way to search for caches with a particular name or word in the title, without entering a location??? That would be handy.

Why would this stat matter to you? Do you have a guilty conscience or something? I have no guilty conscience, however, this stat has been the source of much angst on these forums and in the geocaching community at large. If the stat goes away, it will likely become a non-issue, eventually.

I for one am glad that the distinct word has been removed. It should never have been included in the first place in my opinion. I hope they do not ever bring it back, period.

This topic has been around a long time so I thought I would do some research to see what TPTB said about it in the past. I only found this: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=134448&view=findpost&p=2268274 It doesn't quite answer the OP's question, but it does show that it was intended to be left up to the cache or event owner. I don't know if that has changed at all since then.

Can you bring back the keyword search??? The starts with search doesn't do much good if you don't know what it starts with. I used that quite often. This is very frustrating. Edit: Not sure I posted this in the correct forum as I now see that it is also being discussed in another. Please feel free to move this as necessary.

I recieved one that I had set up to run on a daily basis, but the one time only pocket query that I set up has yet to run. I checked to make sure I had the right day of the week set. I have even deleted the request and resubmitted it but no luck.

I submitted a pocket query 40 minutes ago and it still hasn't run. Normally, the run within a few minutes if not faster. Is something broken?

If you haven't shown the coin since 06, then how did he get the number? Maybe he dropped year off of his claim? I happens. Don't forget about multiple accounts. That would be very unlikely. His log referenced that he saw the coin after an event that the coin was not even physically at. It was a very small gathering so I know who all was there. My guess is he just randomly guessed some numbers and happened to hit on one of my coins All I can say is that this is frustrating, because I was just trying to follow the guidelines on deleting bogus logs and it seems like I am getting all of the trouble for it while someone who has relatively little time invested in geocaching can go out and throw monkey wrenches into the system with little consequence.

I have found many caches in cemeteries. As long as they are not placed on someone's tombstone, it shouldn't be a big deal. I have seen some interesting areas that I would not have visited otherwise thanks to these caches. Several times, I have had to come back later due to a funeral or muggles being near by, but usually there are few people there. I even met a guy who worked for the county cemetery commission who was inventorying graves and he started accidently finding caches and decided to start playing.

I am having a problem with a cacher that logged one of my geocoins. The geocoin is in a collection that I only take to events, but have not done so since 2006. This person claimed in my log that I showed it to him after an event in 2007, though I am sure I have never met this person and know the geocoin was not at the event he mentioned. His account was not even created until 2009. I deleted the log and sent a note telling him I believe he was mistaken and why. His only response has been to repeatedly delete my legitimate log on one of his caches he has in my area. I found this cache with a group of people I regularly cache with, so I have 4 other witnesses. I have sent the info to one of the Groundspeak lackeys, but I am not really sure what to do in this situation. The cacher appears to live a couple hundred miles a way or so. Anyway, if anyone has any suggestions or knows the proper procedure to follow, I would appreciate it.

Perhaps something could be done programatically for these places with disputed names. Maybe have you check something in your profile, so that it would look the way you want it to look depending on your point of view. It sounds like a lot of work, but I guess it could be done. As for abandoning the countries and states, etc., I would be against that. In areas where things aren't disputed, I think it adds to the fun.

I have run 3 PQs today and haven't gotten any of them and mine is being sent to a yahoo address. Hope they get this straightened out soon. Update: I did just get the one from a couple hours ago. The one from early this morning is still missing and so is one I did 15 minutes ago.

Yes, but from last month The link at the top of the profile labeled "Edit your profile" changed today. It still says "Edit your profile" but no longer links to the area where you can change everything, including the pics. I was able to access it this way this morning, but not this evening. Anyway, my question about where to find it has been answered and this topic can be closed.

Thank you! I found the correct link. I guess that was one of the release changes.

After the emergency maintenance this afternoon, I noticed that when I go to the edit profile link, there is no longer a place to go to change your profile picture. Is there some other place I should look to do that or is this a problem that needs to be corrected? It appears that I can change the text in my profile info, but there is no place to change anything else.

I requested a My Finds PQ this morning, but have not received it, even though it appears that it ran.

I can see it just fine. I have done a couple of these caches and you give way more tips on how to view it and your stereogram is clearer than some caches I have done like this one. I would keep it the same.

This happens too often with both puzzles and multis where the earlier stages disappear and the owner wants to keep the final around. The situation is bad for the finders because either I lose my multi or puzzle find if they change the cache type or I end up with a cache on my to do list that I essentially have already found. I usually end up going out and logging it again to get it off the list, but it is not that much fun to go find it again. I could put it on my ignore list, but I try to keep those to a minimum. It would be nice if the cache owners would just archive the caches, pick up their container and hide it elsewhere for a totally different caching experience for the finders. Those that didn't find it first time round had their chance and if I am one of those who didn't get out there to find it, that is OK with me. I'm perfectly happy just to find the new one.

I don't mind begging. Please feel free to donate a year's membership to me.