BuckeyeClan

We just use one account--mainly because I'm the only one who uses the site and does the logging, and I'll be darned if I'm going to log for them! Really, it's up to you, whatever works for your family. If you are a real stickler about numbers, and really want your stats to be accurate, then set up separate accounts.

You can change a thumb up to a thumb down, or vice versa, but I don't see a way to "un-thumb". Nor do I see a way to "un-flag".

Wow, very sad that this is happening! There is hope though! I was browsing through some feedback topics, and came across these two responses to topics that others have posted regarding the archival of challenges: Groundspeak sees every archival that happens due to reporting, and apart from a couple of challenges in grey areas (less than 3), all archivals have been legitimate. --Jeremy Irish link This is what is in fact happening. If enough flagging occurs, the challenge is disabled and the Lackeys are notified. --Moun10Bike link So maybe somebody will see what is happening in your area, and unarchive the ones that should be okay. You might want to post about this issue in the feedback forum. Hopefully they have a plan for dealing with this. Keep us updated if you see any changes!

While I think your third choice isn't polar enough, (It would be better if it were worded along the lines of, "thumbs up/down .... meets guidelines and look ok/doesn't meet guidelines"), I think the crux of your question can be addressed; I think Groundspeak has stated fairly clearly what the thumbs up/down mean. "Players can rate each Challenge with a thumbs up or thumbs down to help others decide whether it is worth doing" As for Flags vs thumbs, Groundspeak has stated that the Flag button is the one to use if a challenge is inappropriate (defined as spam, unplayable or for offensive or prohibited content), or unplayable, (which I guess is the same as meeting the guidelines? Maybe? I really can't find any guidelines for challenges, though I have found a Knowledge Book article), which would at least indicate that the thumbs up/down buttons serve another purpose. Like, whether or not it's worth doing? I'm thinking that their choice of the word "worth" means they expect the results of the thumbs vote to be completely subjective. I don't agree with Toz's "Wow" interpretation, mostly because I don't agree with his premise that "Geocachers are familiar with the "wow" guideline from the old virtual caches". With the amount of growth we've had since the last Virtual was published, and the attrition of seasoned players dropping out of the game, I would venture to guess that many, if not most active cachers today could not cite the Virtual guidelines. For me, all that is left is, "Do you like it? Is it worth your time? Do you think it would be worthwhile for other players?" Or, as CM said, Thumbs up = Gud Thumbs down = Not Gud I'm just guessing here, but I interpret "unplayable" to mean that the conditions have changed and the challenge can no longer be done--the statue got torn down, the bridge washed away, the tree got struck by lightning and was chopped up for firewood. (Which has me wondering--all the block party challenges, should we be flagging them as "unplayable" since they could only be done at the block party? ) Since the challenge isn't owned, and the creator can't archive it because conditions have changed, it is up to the community to do that. But I'm with ya on the voting: "gud", or "not gud"! Though I will abstain from voting for "meh".

Thanks for the solution; I've noticed that too! Very annoying!

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough. What region? And how did you determine that? (which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?) Just something I've noticed while surfing through the stream of Challenge activity. Seems the Germans are pretty big on the down-thumb. At least, it seems that way. Until the search function becomes more useful it's really hard to substantiate that. I've noticed that about the German ones, too. I can't read German, so don't usually even look at those, but occasionally I do and they often have 10-15 down votes. Meanwhile decent English-language challenges seem to range between 0-5 down votes.

Why should it ruin someone else's fun if you vote? Cezanne Because, right now, it is unclear if a certain number of down votes might lead to the archival of a challenge. I personally don't have much interest in historical markers, so I'm not really interested in challenges that involve them. But I realize that some people *do* like them, and *would* enjoy such challenges. I would hate to see a challenge archived simply because some people don't like them. As such, I reserve a "thumbs down" vote for challenges that I subjectively deem to be "bad". THIS!!!! Wonderful example, too! I especially like your point of "filling a gap in the collection." I see that possibly coming into play as certain areas (such as the Washington DC monuments) get a lot of challenges listed. I can see some challenges getting down votes because it is repeating a challenge that is already listed, or just because it is deemed inferior to others in the area that are already listed. What is deemed "good" or "bad" may vary by region. Are you saying that the ones posted in the forums have gotten archived, or simply that they have gotten a few extra down votes? As long as the good ones listed here don't get archived, I don't see how you can deem the system a failure. I've seen bad challenges and challenges that don't meet the guidelines disappear before my eyes. All the challenges listed in my area I would rate as "okay" to "really great"; I don't see a stinker among them. (Though we don't have that many yet.) From what I can see, the system is actually working okay. YMMV

Just my opinion, but I think you are being too stringent. My personal method: If I think a challenge is interesting, or I think a certain segment of people would enjoy it, I give it a thumbs up. If I'm on the fence about it--good location, but I don't like the action requirement, or I just think it is too general--I don't vote at all. And if I think the challenge is downright bad, then I vote it down. And if it doesn't meet challenge listing requirements, I flag it. I might not go out of my way to visit a particular museum or plank at a particular statue, but I'm not going to vote it down and risk ruining somebody else's fun. I think it's sad that people are out there voting down every single challenge--I've seen evidence of this too. But I also wonder if there is some "behind the scenes" computer magic going on that takes this into account. Surely the system can detect when an account is down-voting every single challenge they view. Perhaps the system can discount these negative votes without giving an outward sign that it is doing so, at least when it comes to possibly archiving the challenge. nigel/liz, I like your challenge, and gave it a thumbs up. It looks like others have read this thread and done the same!

Are you using Internet Explorer as your browser? You might have the zoom set too high--I've noticed this problem occurs with certain pop-up windows in Internet Explorer if you have the zoom on the page above 100%. In the upper right of your browser window, click "page" and then "zoom", and set it to 100% or less. It could also be due to what you have your screen resolution set to.

I like it too!

The thing you are missing is all the explanations in the forums about why virtuals will never come back as they were. Too many people flooded the reviewers with absurd listings (an old shoe in the woods, a dead animal carcass), so they instituted the "wow" factor. That put reviewers in the awful position of having to judge whether or not a listing was "wow" enough. Reviewers have said that they spent way too much time dealing with virtuals and all the associated problems. I've read posts from Keystone and others saying that if Groundspeak tried to bring back virtuals in their original form, many reviewers would quit on the spot. Even earthcaches have issues with listings. Read some of the threads in the earthcaching forums--there is plenty of angst surrounding what can/can't be listed, what verification is permitted, etc. That's the (potentially) good thing about the way challenges work. The community gets to decide what is good and what is bad. Ultimately, if people take this seriously, each community should end up with exactly the kind of virtuals (challenges) that they deserve. edit to add linkto one of Keystone's recent posts on the matter.

Go look at how they implemented it (just got the "completed" email). A smiley count and a "caped guy" count. Looks like it will do more to draw attention to Challenges as an available activity than the original way. Looks good to me!

I don't see challenges as replacing physical caches, but it could "lighten the load" so to speak. Suppose somebody wants to highlight their favorite restaurant: instead of placing a micro in the parking lot and going back and forth with the reviewer three times over the wording of their listing, they just list a challenge. Then the community gets to decide if it's a good one or not. Maybe some of the cache owners that don't/can't do maintenance will list challenges instead, thereby reducing the number of broken or missing caches. The serious cache owners will always want to place and maintain physical caches, but challenges offer a good option to people who are more casual about caching.

We aren't the owner of what we create so no notice. I sure would like to be able to watchlist some listings. +1. That doesn't seem to me like it would be difficult to implement. We can already watch geocache and trackables, both of which have a unique GC/TB code. If GS wants to shift the burden of maintaining the integrity of the logs from the creator to the community, it would be nice if we had a tool to follow the logs on a challenge. And please, GS, give me an option to hide "accepted" logs. There's a feedback topic for that!

You are exactly who Groundspeak wants to make such judgements. You, and I, and all the rest of the users who look at these things. As long as you are looking with a critical eye and making a conscious decision it's all good. Unfortunately it seems like some are just shooting down everything they can. I'm pretty sure I saw a quote from Jeremy somewhere (scratching my head here, trying to recall where) *encouraging* people to vote up or down, even if they haven't done the challenge. I think the idea is that if everybody gives their opinion on any challenge that they look at, then the unfairly biased votes don't count as strongly. That way people that vote everything down on principle, or maybe vote up on bad challenges because their friend listed it, don't have as great of an impact.

Oops! GOF is right. If the challenge is still active, you should be able to delete it. If the challenge has been archived, you will have to wait until they add that ability.

You can't, yet. They are adding that functionality soon.

We aren't the owner of what we create so no notice. I sure would like to be able to watchlist some listings. I'm assuming (hoping?) that they will eventually add the ability to watchlist listings, and other functions. Just a thought until they do: accept the challenge even if you don't think you'll complete it. That adds it to the list in your profile. That might get a little messy if you accept a whole bunch, but it might work well enough for you for now.

I agree with this! When I read challenge pages that are informative, fun, or creative, I get a positive feeling. When I read listings that say "in order to complete this challenge you MUST..." I cringe a little. As long as the challenges are ownerless, and belong to the community, challenge creators are going to need to shift their mindset a little. It's not about *making* people do things, it's about inviting them to do things.

Those are great! Actually, I love the fly a kite one. The aspect of challenges that has caught my interest is some of the fun or silly things that my kids might enjoy. They just don't get into caching very much, but I can see them having fun with some of these challenges.

Yeah, because geocachers are the only ones out there doing silly poses! Somehow planking and phooning has spread without the help of Groundspeak. And in all seriousness--if there's a huge rush of headstands at the Washington Monument, and the security folks there get upset about it, then the cachers that they talk to should flag the challenge as unplayable or prohibited. That way the challenge will eventually get archived. It's up to cachers themselves to rate these challenges.

I don't see #2 or #3 listed in the Worldwide Challenge Tab, which makes them prohibited, as user-listed challenges must be for a specific location. Instead of logging them as completed, you should have flagged them, so that they will be archived. The (possible) good thing about this system is that it gives the community the tools to determine what is good or bad, acceptable or not acceptable. No need to wait for Groundspeak, or a reviewer, or an absentee cache owner.

I'm fine with not seeing everybody's find count. If you want to know how many finds someone has, just click their username and look at their profile!

When they released the 10/10/10 souvenir, everybody had several days to log their finds to get the souvenir. I'm sure they'll do the same this time.

I remember another day awhile ago when gc.com came to a screeching halt--hmmm, let me think--ah yes! It was 10/10/10, when they released the first souvenir, and they "challenged" the caching community to set a record of number of people to log a cache in one day. Cachers succeeded in breaking the record, and in (temporarily) breaking the website. Yesterday was the first international caching day, so now there are probably lots and lots of people trying to log their finds and get their souvi. Be patient! They'll get it fixed. (Funnily enough, the Challenge app seems to be working! )