Rock Chalk

I would not normally action a thread in which I'm specifically mentioned. But I'm making an exception here since the original post does violate forum guidelines. If the OP wishes to start a thread to discuss forum moderation in general, that's totally fine. So long as it's courteous, which was not the case here. This seems an opportune moment to mention that whether you're a new user or a veteran, please read the Forum Guidelines. They are meant to facilitate open, interactive, and friendly dialogue. If you do not agree with the guidelines, then you probably should not participate here. To be clear, as much as I value and encourage transparency, we are not going to discuss details of individual forum member's situations. Thanks all.

Please direct any further discussion to the newer thread: Return of challenge caches

We’ve just now posted in the Announcements forum about the end of the moratorium on challenge caches. The text of that post is below. ************************************* Today we’re happy to announce the end of the moratorium on challenge cache submissions. Effective immediately, new challenge caches may be submitted in accordance with the updated guidelines. Visit the Geocaching Blog for much more information about the new framework for challenge caches. We’ve gone into great detail there about the reasons for the various changes. We’ll share this news in our weekly email to Geocaching members on May 31. Thanks for your patience as we’ve worked through this process. We know a lot of people love challenge caches, and have eagerly awaited the end of the moratorium. Community input has been invaluable as we’ve tried to construct a framework that allows challenge caches to continue and thrive. We’re happy to know that challenge caches will continue to inspire people around the world to achieve exciting geocaching goals!

I just checked the system and there's no record of a question from you about that cache. It could be that there was a hiccup and it just didn't go through. I'm emailing your reviewer to ask about the cache. (Which you're also welcome to do.) For what it's worth, you asked two questions last month via the Contact Us link and got answers to both questions. So, you've had luck contacting Geocaching and should know that people do typically look at your questions.

New versions of what? These Release Notes are about the Search tool, but people have taken the thread off topic into talking about the app. So I'm not sure whether you're asking about Search or the app.

This issue should now be fixed.

Closing this thread, since it's essentially a duplicate of your December thread ("I don't like looking for caches..."). Feel free to continue the conversation in that thread.

I've been using Sony Cycle Energy Rechargeable AA batteries in my Garmin 600 for the past few years and they've been great for me.

The issues surrounding Favorite Points are now fixed.

Closing this duplicate thread in favor of existing threads. See example here.

An event host has to apply for Mega-Event Upgrade. In this case, that application happened after the event was published. I imagine you'll see it upgraded to Mega fairly soon, since last year's IEE easily exceeded Mega qualification.

I wasn't aware this change was happening this week. Otherwise I would have suggested Release Notes for it. My apologies for that. Beginning this week, memberships are offered as an annual auto-renewing Premium Membership and a quarterly auto-renewing Premium Membership. (This is made clear on the Renewal page.) Both membership options can be canceled anytime after the initial purchase. There are two options for canceling your auto-renewing Premium Membership purchased on Geocaching.com. Option 1: Visit your Membership Page "Settings" Select "Cancel Recurring Membership" Option 2: Visit your Profile Page Click on the arrow/gear at the top right corner Select "Settings" Select the Membership tab Select "Edit Membership" * Select "Cancel Membership" *If you have an auto-renewing subscription purchased on the Geocaching mobile app, you'll need to turn off auto-renewal through Settings for an Apple device or on the Google Play store for an Android device. If you purchased your membership before these changes went into effect, then the membership will simply end on your Expiration/Renewal Date. It will not auto-renew. But your next purchased subscription would be on the auto-renewal.

If it was me, I'd archive and re-list it. In fact, I'm thinking about doing the same thing with one of my own caches. To me, the essence of the cache changes enough when the challenge aspect is removed that I prefer the idea of starting fresh with a new listing.

Just chiming in with thoughts on a couple of the oft-repeated themes... It's natural to speculate on what sort of challenges the checkers will and won't be able to handle. But I suggest it would be more fruitful to do so after the rest of the framework has been announced. I know that won't stop the speculation. But if it was me, I wouldn't attempt to determine whether a challenge checker could accomodate my challenge idea until I could study the framework in its entirety. I only quote this particular comment because it represents a common refrain that I think deserves to be addressed. It would be erroneous to think that any of the results of the moratorium are based on lobbying or lack thereof. We're not doing anything because one "side" yelled louder or the other "side" didn't yell loud enough. Rather, the decisions are based as much as possible on review of quantitative data. Of course, qualitative and anecdotal evidence also feed into the decision making. Many of the people who've been most intimately involved with the process have several years of experience with reviewing challenge caches and/or addressing challenge-related appeals. If something is added after the moratorium (e.g. challenge checker), you can safely assume it's because the data showed a significant desire for it from players and/or reviewers. By contrast, if something is subtracted, you can assume it's because the data led to that decision. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone will quietly accept every aspect of the new framework. But perhaps at least a few of the protesters can acknowledge that the decisions were long-deliberated and thoughtful, even if the results aren't completely acceptable to them. Or perhaps not. But back to the part about calling challenge caches "popular." In 2014 (the last full year before the moratorium began), only 2.4% of active users logged a challenge cache. Judging by Found It stats, Multi-Caches are roughly 8 times more popular than challenge caches. (But how often do you hear people say Multis are "popular"?) Wherigos are actually found more often than challenge caches, which surprised me. (I know, I know....it'll be argued that challenge cache popularity should be measured in other ways. That a lot of cache finds go into qualifying for that one challenge cache find, etc., etc. Nevertheless, this is some of the hard data we have to work with.) Now, I say all of this as someone who personally loves challenge caches. Last I checked, I'd logged something like 1,400 of them. But I'm informed enough to know that the overwhelming majority of the community doesn't share my passion. Just because I like challenge caches a lot, and you like them a lot, and the people around us like them a lot, doesn't necessarily mean I'm ready to accept for a fact that they're "popular." Our main goal of this process to reduce the difficulty of reviewing them, but we also hope to see them become more popular for players before all is said and done. I do a double-take whenever I see it implied that the reasons for the moratorium have not been made clear. Anyone needing a refresher can read the Help Center article.

Like I said before, I know, we’re terrible. Yes. Just because the solution isn’t what you wanted doesn’t mean it’s not a solution. The status quo wasn't an option. The “solution” was to find the best alternative to getting rid of challenge caches. We’ve rolled out part of the solution, with the rest coming in a few weeks. It's discouraging that more than one person in this thread has a "my way or the highway" attitude. It does and it doesn’t. You could still do all of those laudable things. You just wouldn’t have an extra cache to find when you’re done. But, again, would you rather not have challenges at all? That's the alternative. If I were you, and I was this unhappy with a provider, then I'd stop paying them. I don't say that to be provocative. Rather, I truly don't understand why you'd continue patronizing a company that you hold in such contempt. No matter what the result is, I don’t think it’s possible for it to be better than the forum regulars think it will be. We could announce that we're sending a barrel of money to every active geocacher, and I'd be preparing for a riot here about some aspect of the plan to distribute free money. But what I can promise is a result that is the best that we could come up in order to keep challenges while reducing the burden on reviewers. I do hope people will give it a real chance before bringing out the torches and pitchforks.

That seems rather selfish. As was stated in the announcement, within a few weeks. The new framework can’t and won’t be all things for all people. But it’s a best intentioned effort to preserve a type of geocache that a lot of people like. I hope people try to see that. The percentage of naysayers in this thread is something I would've expected, but it’s still disappointing. If the checker doesn’t work, the cache is subject to archival. And if it was found that a CO knowingly submitted a cache with a faulty checker, then I imagine their future submissions would be more heavily scrutinized. Actually, if you read through the User Insights Forum, you'll see cache owners complaining about how their caches were valued for challenges more than for the intrinsic value of finding a cache. I don't think the new framework will cause additional burden. The answer to your first two paragraphs is yes. There were two possible results for the moratorium: get rid of challenges completely or else bring them back with a new framework that hopefully allows them to stay around a long time. We’re choosing option B. If the community decides it doesn’t like option B, then we may have to someday look at option A. As someone who enjoys challenge caches, I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Quite a variety of comments, thus far. Some are insightful. Others… Anyway, I’ll try to answer a few of them. Seriously. We’re terrible. You haven’t seen the new framework, so I’m not sure how you know that it excludes almost all the challenges that you found attractive. But if it does, then that’s an unfortunate reality. Or write it yourself, once Project-GC permits applications for new script writers. We’re not going to put reviewers in the position of having to debate with COs about whether or not their challenge cache should require a checker. That would be a nightmare. Therefore, all challenge caches will require checkers. You do live up to your username. Then the cache would be subject to archival. Your second sentence answered the first one. Seems odd to pass judgement on a solution when you acknowledge not knowing yet what the entire solution looks like. I really don't see a correlation between the checker aspect of the new framework and 'participation trophy' mentality. The point of a challenge cache should be to encourage geocaching achievement, not to see how difficult a CO can make it to prove qualification. It's up to the CO to ensure that the checker is infallible. If it's not, then the cache is subject to archival. The CO certainly has a vested interest, then, in infallibility of the checker. +1 (with my player hat on)

Please direct further commentary on the moratorium to the more current thread.

Please direct further commentary on the moratorium to the more current thread.

We’ve just now posted an update about the Challenge Cache Moratorium in the Announcements section (link). The text of the announcement is below. **************** Geocaching HQ is nearly ready to announce the end of the moratorium on "challenge cache" submissions. However, a few details remain to be addressed. We will complete the process and present an updated framework for challenge caches within the next few weeks. In the meantime, we want to share a few details about one key aspect of the new framework. All future challenge caches must include a web-based challenge checker. At this time, Project-GC is the only website approved to host challenge checkers. This is one of the changes we’re implementing based on feedback from community surveys. We hope that challenge checkers will make it easier for players to determine their qualifications for challenge caches. Additional details are available in this Project-GC FAQ. When the complete framework for challenge caches is ready, we will share that information via the Geocaching newsletter and blog. Thank you for your patience!

Closing thread at OP request.

Closing thread at OP request.

If you google geosmashers, the first thing that comes up is the King5 story, because that term is used in the body of the story text. But it's unrelated to the current Instagram situation. Closing thread.

This is already being discussed in this thread. The KING5 story you referenced, which mentions the term "geo-smashers", is from 6 years ago, and appears unrelated to what's being discussed in the other thread.

We do not delete caches from the system. They remain as historical records for those cachers who found them.