Jump to content

Well Rounded Washington Cacher - Discussion, Ideas, or ?


FluteFace
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

It was suggested that a thread be started for all things pertaining to GC13P6B - Well Rounded Washington Cacher (Fizzy Challenge). (Thanks, Ambrosia!) It seems like a good idea to me. This cache been quite the learning experience. It seems there is something new around every corner with this one. Anyway, this thread is meant as a forum for WA's Fizzy Challenge -- questions, thoughts, ideas, congrats, concerns -- what have you. There is an intelligent and thoughtful group of cachers in WA, both in and out of the forums, and I'm sure we can all benefit where this cache is concerned.

 

So I'd like to start by offering my biggest w00t!!! to hydnsek on her completion of the challenge.

 

(Aug 7 '07 -- I am out of town currently with limited internet access, but will do my best to keep up with the thread.)

Link to comment

Yes, I missed this one too.... I had heard some rumor about something well-rounded... tried a search or two and didn't get any results so promptly forgot about it.

 

Thanks for starting a thread -might have to take a peek at my current placement. Great idea for a challenge!

 

Congratulations Hydnsek! Sounds like you have had a fun time with this challenge and are now head and shoulders above the rest of us! :(

Edited by Lookout Lisa
Link to comment

Congrats Hydnsek!!! I've sliced & diced my finds, but I'm sorely lacking for this challenge. I'm working on it though and probably will be for a long time!

 

Flutey, I was very curious about your note on the cache page about GCV5EV...

Edited by Lizzy
Link to comment

I really do like the idea on this challenge. It looks like a fun quest.

 

I do have concerns about the limitations being put out about which caches qualify and which caches do not. There are thousands of caches that are not rated correctly and we can even argue about what is the correct rating is for many caches with no real solution.

 

I understand the requirement that the cache must have been available before this challenge was issued (we wouldn't want people to put out misleading caches just to fulfill the requirements) but I disagree with some of the other restrictions.

 

If a cache was already in the system at a certain rating before this cache was put out - they should qualify. Even at the request of the owners - Both of these caches should qualify:

GCKFFG -- The Hardest Cache You'll Ever Do by ohjoy!

GCV5EV -- Madame Defarge Takes Up Crochet by Hoppingcrow

 

The new cache GC13YM7 should be required. The object is to fill up the grid - right

 

I also have a cache rated higher than it should be GCZ752. It is rated a 2/4.5. It is really a 2/2 (but the joke was that you thought you needed to go up the mountain to get the cache). Should we eliminate that one too? I can point to many others that are not rated correctly.

 

We can start looking at the 4/4 caches - should they really be 4/4.5 caches? I know at least one cacher that lowered the ratings on caches based on this challenge (ones that I think are now rated incorrectly)

 

This should be FUN. The object should be to fill the grid - Period.

 

Once you start eliminating caches, you open up the can of worms on the entire rating system.

 

Yes, I did go out of my way to get both of the above caches - before they were eliminated. I don't like that they are now eliminated nor do I like the idea of others being added to the list (after I spend the gas money and time to go after them).

 

Congrats Hydnsek - but should she be worried that one of the caches she used to qualify will be disqualified next week (so she no longer qualifies for the smiley)?

 

I like the idea, but would feel much better about simpler rules

Link to comment

I love challenge caches! I am the co-owner of the DeLorme and All Counties Challenges here in Pennsylvania. And I've made great progress on the Washington versions of both those Challenges.

 

I was thinking of starting/owning this same type of challenge but I worried too much about verification. What if you got your buddy to change the terrain rating on her cache by a half star because you "needed" that for your grid? What if someone who is *not* your best friend decides to change their 3/5 hydrocache to a 2/5 hydrocache just to spite you?

 

I decided instead to just have fun completing my grid, nevermind the Challenge Smiley. I've got 12 difficulty/terrain combinations left to finish. I was able to make great progress on my grid during my recent trip to Washington, due to all the wonderful challenging caches you've hidden.

 

I hope that everyone has fun completing their grids!

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to comment

I, too, have begun to pick up missing combinations after seeing hydnsek's pics and the cool caches I otherwise wouldn't do. I think the rules as posted are adequate. "No rating changes of existing caches will be accepted as counting towards the goal" is one of the posted rules.

 

I am also fine with the disqualification of "liar's caches" in the 5/5 category only. As D/T ratings are subjective anyway I think it wise to allow all other D/T ratings to qualify as posted.

Link to comment

The only problem that I have with the challenge is the requirement that the ape cache be found. In all reality the ape cache is nothing more than a traditional cache that can be used to fill one of the d/t requirements. If i find another cache with the same d/t rating as the ape cache then I have satisfied that d/t requirement. What makes the ape cache so different than a traditional cache? Having a special icon shouldn't be the only reason it's included.

Link to comment

The only problem that I have with the challenge is the requirement that the ape cache be found. In all reality the ape cache is nothing more than a traditional cache that can be used to fill one of the d/t requirements. If i find another cache with the same d/t rating as the ape cache then I have satisfied that d/t requirement. What makes the ape cache so different than a traditional cache? Having a special icon shouldn't be the only reason it's included.

Because it's cool, and we have one of only two left in the world! (The other's in Brazil.) People travel from all over the country (even world) just to get that icon.

 

You could make a similar argument for some other icons required:

  • a CITO event is just another kind of Event
  • a Letterbox is just another kind of Traditional

Icon diversity, in addition to D/T diversity, apparently is one component of the Fizzy challenges, and since we are the only state with an APE cache, Flutey decided to include it. Her discretion as cache owner.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

This challenge was a lot of fun, and thanks to all who offered their congratulations. Means a lot!

 

Since I have finished, and my bookmark list is posted and doubtless being scrutinized, I thought I'd respond to some of the concerns expressed earlier in this thread. While I have discussed this challenge with FluteFace and numerous folks working on it, the opinions expressed are my own except where noted.

 

If a cache was already in the system at a certain rating before this cache was put out - they should qualify. Even at the request of the owners - Both of these caches should qualify:

GCKFFG -- The Hardest Cache You'll Ever Do by ohjoy!

GCV5EV -- Madame Defarge Takes Up Crochet by Hoppingcrow

The new cache GC13YM7 should be required.

I disagree. That would be like forcing cache owners to include their caches on Cache Machines, even if they requested to omit them. Cache owners have authority over their own caches, and if they wish to exclude them, for whatever reason, from whatever secondary event/challenge/etc., that's their perogative.

 

The specific caches mentioned were omitted for different, but related, reasons. Two of these are 5/5 caches - the hardest combination - and my understanding is that their owners felt including them would be unfair to competitors who truly found 5/5-level caches. One of these is a liar's cache; the other would be a difficult cache if people did the required work, but so many have blatantly skipped to the end that the owner didn't feel they had earned the 5/5 (for purposes of this challenge). Omission of the third cache, honoring Flutey, is adequately explained by FluteFace herself on the challenge page.

 

I agree that ratings are subjective - heck, some of the ones on my list are UNDER-rated relative to their difficulty. But owners who choose to disqualify caches with deliberately inflated ratings are - I think - showing respect for those cachers who honor the spirit of the challenge and seek out caches that test their physical and mental capabilities.

 

This should be FUN. The object should be to fill the grid - Period.

I personally had a lot of fun doing this challenge. I enjoy physical and mental workouts, testing my limits, and learning new things (I learned two complex ciphers that had me tearing out my hair). It would be no fun for me at all to stroll around a few paths and parking lots and claim I was a well-rounded cacher.

 

For most of us, I think the goal/spirit of the Well-Rounded Challenge is to demonstrate (to ourselves and others) that we can successfully complete caches requiring different levels of mental and physical prowess. It's not about filling up a grid per se (any more than geocaching is about electronic smilies on a computer screen).

 

I have a 4/4 liar's cache among my finds. However, I wouldn't include it in my Well-Rounded list even if it were the only 4/4 cache I had found. I'd be too embarrassed to have folks compare that against the work done by others for the same rating. For similar reasons, I (hopefully) didn't include any caches where I took significant "shortcuts" to get to the finish (skipping waypoints, letting someone else do the work, etc.).

 

Another cacher I know has just a couple of missing combos, but he plans to replace two of his existing finds before declaring himself done to "make them more legitimate." He doesn't feel his current finds for those combos adequately reflect the difficulty ratings. It's a matter of pride. ;)

 

Once you start eliminating caches, you open up the can of worms on the entire rating system.

Disagree. Individual owners disqualifying their own caches for specific reasons is their choice, not an indictment of the system.

 

I think most of us will have bookmark lists containing a few caches that are over- or under-rated relative to their difficulty. I openly admit that I have one Fear This cache on my list (GCMEPC) - hey, I'm a bit claustrophobic. ;) But the overall list should balance out to reflect the work required to complete this tough challenge. Note that my 1/1 is Mountain Marsh (GC8) - does anyone who did it think that it is (was) a 1/1 cache?

 

Congrats Hydnsek - but should she be worried that one of the caches she used to qualify will be disqualified next week (so she no longer qualifies for the smiley)?

Thanks, and no worries here. ;) I believe that, as with other challenges, so long as all caches are valid at the time you finish, the cache owner isn't going to later strip you of your smiley.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

Very cool challenge. I just started looking at my completed Terrain/Difficulty combinations this morning. Looks like I have some work to do to finish this off. At least I have 48 of the combinations completed.

 

The only rule that I have any concern (for lack of a better term) with is...

 

All finds except CITO and Event caches must be on caches that were published before this cache to avoid dummy caches being listed just to meet the requirements of this cache. The exceptions may be (at the cache owner's discretion) caches published that satisfy a D/T combination that didn’t exist or were rare prior to the publication of this cache. Those exceptions may be added once there is adequate evidence that they are indeed the D/T combination stated. In the event that such a cache becomes allowed, the placer will not receive credit for the D/T combination of the stated cache. They will still be required to go elsewhere to satisfy that D/T rating if such a cache exists in the state.

 

That just seems that it will become problematic as months/years go by. Will there be a maintained list of newer "approved" caches that can be used for this challenge?

Link to comment

Hydnsek I appreciate the possitive way in which you presented your arguments. However, I guess we might need to agree to disagree on this challenge.

 

I asked for my overrated cache to be disqualified and was turned down.

 

"Cache owners have authority over their own caches, and if they wish to exclude them, for whatever reason, from whatever secondary event/challenge/etc., that's their perogative." isn't the case here.

 

Also, if you go back and look at the original Fizzy challenge, there are not all of the additional rules and qualifications as in the Washington challenge. There are not any judgements made about what caches should or shouldn't qualify. I would like this cache to be true to the cache that it is trying to copy - one with less rules or judgements about fairness.

 

We all play the game differently. We can make our own judgements on which caches should or shouldn't qualify on our own bookmark lists.

 

I have "." (GCRXQN)listed as my 1/1. It is way underrated as well. Does this really make up for an overrated cache I might have on my list?

 

How is an underated 5/5 cache not acceptable but an underrated 5/2.5 cache is OK?

 

How can you fill a grid when a 5/3.5 is available but not required? We already have talked about overrated and underrated caches being acceptable. This is a Sassy&Gordy cache not one by owned by Flutey. There is a missing part of "Well Rounded" without it - unless you find another cache that qualifies.

 

Some of the catagories have only one or two caches that qualify for that rating. They all may get muggled or archieved and by the rules can not be replaced by newer caches. By eliminating other caches (for any reason)just makes this cache more subjective and tougher to complete.

 

I'd just prefer to keep any challege as objective as possible

Link to comment

I see posted over and over in this very public thread a discussion identifying a liar's cache. I doubt the cache owner appreciates this.

 

I hope that you are making a funny and know that a liar's cache is not referring to the cache owner's integrity. A true Lair's cache is one that encourages the logger to embellish and exaggerate, and well…, Lie!

 

Wether you like the idea or not they're out there see Today's cacher or the the cache listings.

 

Heck some are even called Liar's cache.

Link to comment

I see posted over and over in this very public thread a discussion identifying a liar's cache. I doubt the cache owner appreciates this.

 

I hope that you are making a funny and know that a liar's cache is not referring to the cache owner's integrity. A true Lair's cache is one that encourages the logger to embellish and exaggerate, and well…, Lie!

 

Wether you like the idea or not they're out there see Today's cacher or the the cache listings.

 

Heck some are even called Liar's cache.

No, nothing like that. With most of the liar's caches I've seen, the owners want it to be a surprise to the finder.

Link to comment

I see posted over and over in this very public thread a discussion identifying a liar's cache. I doubt the cache owner appreciates this.

 

I hope that you are making a funny and know that a liar's cache is not referring to the cache owner's integrity. A true Lair's cache is one that encourages the logger to embellish and exaggerate, and well…, Lie!

 

Wether you like the idea or not they're out there see Today's cacher or the the cache listings.

 

Heck some are even called Liar's cache.

No, nothing like that. With most of the liar's caches I've seen, the owners want it to be a surprise to the finder.

Yeah, that's what I took it as. That the owner wouldn't appreciate their cache being talked about because it took away the fun of it by spreading it around.

Link to comment

One of the hardest parts of running a challenge cache is the fact that most owners have never run one before. I know the owner of this and all challenge caches are trying to provide an outlet for others to have fun. So when there are bumps and unexpected things along the way, you do your best, try to learn from the mistakes and move on. Which may mean the challenge gets edited from time to time, and things that were thought to make it better but discovered that they aren't might get changed, or removed. So I would just keep in perspective that Flutey doesn't get paid to monitor the cache or the challenge, she is doing her best in trying to help us have fun. So lets give the owners of this and all challenge caches some grace.

Link to comment

One of the hardest parts of running a challenge cache is the fact that most owners have never run one before. I know the owner of this and all challenge caches are trying to provide an outlet for others to have fun. So when there are bumps and unexpected things along the way, you do your best, try to learn from the mistakes and move on. Which may mean the challenge gets edited from time to time, and things that were thought to make it better but discovered that they aren't might get changed, or removed. So I would just keep in perspective that Flutey doesn't get paid to monitor the cache or the challenge, she is doing her best in trying to help us have fun. So lets give the owners of this and all challenge caches some grace.

Hey, I think she's doing a great job! :P

Link to comment

I'm finally nearing home after having been searching out lookouts and high places on the dry side for over a week, and camping along the way. Needless to say, internet access has been poor to unavailable, especially during the later half of the trip. I'm looking forward to being able to respond to comments soon. :-)

Edited by FluteFace
Link to comment

One of the hardest parts of running a challenge cache is the fact that most owners have never run one before. I know the owner of this and all challenge caches are trying to provide an outlet for others to have fun. So when there are bumps and unexpected things along the way, you do your best, try to learn from the mistakes and move on. Which may mean the challenge gets edited from time to time, and things that were thought to make it better but discovered that they aren't might get changed, or removed. So I would just keep in perspective that Flutey doesn't get paid to monitor the cache or the challenge, she is doing her best in trying to help us have fun. So lets give the owners of this and all challenge caches some grace.

 

I will say that I have exchanged some e-mails about this challenge with the owner and I'm sure you can tell that I disagree with some of the decisions made. She has always been extreemly nice to me in all our contact, much more so than if I was in her place.

 

I have nothing but good things to say about the owner of this (and all of the other) challenges. This topic was started to talk about ideas and changes of the cache. I hope people don't see me taking issue with some of the rules on this cache as having issues with the owner - that just isn't true.

Edited by sciuchetti
Link to comment

Thanks to you all for your patience while I've been out of town. I'm back for a bit and will respond to some of your thoughts and ideas.

 

There are thousands of caches that are not rated correctly and we can even argue about what is the correct rating is for many caches with no real solution.
I agree with this. It is my view that a cache's D/T rathing is primarily an opinion put forth by the cache's owner. It has been my intention to keep out of the ratings game as much as possible because there is no good solution.

 

If a cache was already in the system at a certain rating before this cache was put out - they should qualify. Even at the request of the owners - Both of these caches should qualify:

GCKFFG -- The Hardest Cache You'll Ever Do by ohjoy!

GCV5EV -- Madame Defarge Takes Up Crochet by Hoppingcrow

Maybe. However, both of these cache owners came to me (not the other way around) with valid concerns about these caches and their D/T suitability for this type of challenge cache. After some thoughtful dialog with their respective owners, I agreed to disallow them.

 

The new cache GC13YM7 should be required.
Nope. This is one spot where I am willing to concede that I am being unreasonable. But since my name and likeness are prominently displayed on this cache page, I wish to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

 

The object is to fill up the grid - right
On the most basic level, that is true. But there is more to it than that. This is also about taking pride in yourself and your abilities where Geocaching is concerned. In some ways, it might be considered a reflection of life. There is also what might be referred to as “the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.” Now substitute ‘Geocaching’ for the words ‘the law’. Just because something can be done one way doesn’t mean it should be done that way. I’ve elected to lean towards those cachers that are looking at this challenge in the spirit in which it was offered.

 

I know at least one cacher that lowered the ratings on caches based on this challenge (ones that I think are now rated incorrectly)
That's a shame. :surprise:

 

This should be FUN. The object should be to fill the grid - Period.
I agree, it should be fun, but I don’t agree (see above) that the only object is to fill the grid. No matter what the object is, if it’s not fun then why do it? (Fun is where you find it. :()

 

Yes, I did go out of my way to get both of the above caches - before they were eliminated. I don't like that they are now eliminated nor do I like the idea of others being added to the list (after I spend the gas money and time to go after them).
I’m sorry about that. This cache will always be something of a work in progress, and there most likely will be changes along the way. There may be quirks that I didn’t have the foresight to predict and those may have to be addressed as they come up. Unfortunately, some of the other state challenge caches have also seen changes after publication. One in particular, GC14EX0 -- Washington's Highest Caches Challenge, by its definition will be a work in progress as new caches are added at higher elevations. I’ve had a cache on that list knocked off, and because I haven’t yet completed the challenge, my total elevation has taken a hit. I view it as a minor bother in terms of the challenge, but most certainly don’t begrudge the money and time I spent to get there. I’m ready to go back!

 

Congrats Hydnsek - but should she be worried that one of the caches she used to qualify will be disqualified next week (so she no longer qualifies for the smiley)?
No, she has nothing to fear. Current and common practice is that so long as requirements for a particular challenge cache have been satisfied at the time it is finally logged, then the find stands. A good example of this is GCQQ9B – Washington DeLorme Challenge. This cache has changed since I logged it, but I have not been stripped of my smiley. :D
Link to comment
I love challenge caches!
Ditto!! :D:surprise:

 

What if someone who is *not* your best friend decides to change their 3/5 hydrocache to a 2/5 hydrocache just to spite you?
:( Well, this is a possibility and may have already happened. It would seem I have made more enemies with this cache than friends. I may just need a thicker skin! :D

 

But thanks for the support!

Link to comment
I am also fine with the disqualification of "liar's caches" in the 5/5 category only. As D/T ratings are subjective anyway I think it wise to allow all other D/T ratings to qualify as posted.
This seems like a reasonable avenue to take, especially when a 5/5 cache is often considered as a pinnacle.
Link to comment
The only problem that I have with the challenge is the requirement that the ape cache be found. In all reality the ape cache is nothing more than a traditional cache that can be used to fill one of the d/t requirements. If i find another cache with the same d/t rating as the ape cache then I have satisfied that d/t requirement. What makes the ape cache so different than a traditional cache? Having a special icon shouldn't be the only reason it's included.
This cache is included because Washington State has one. If it were to become archived, then it would no longer be required. If this cache were in Oregon, and not in this state, it would not be required. And, as icons are part of geocaching, and this icon is available here, it is another reason to include it.

 

On the topic of icons, there are at least two other icons that are currently not included in this challenge, and may never be included: a Mega event icon, and the GPS Maze icon.

Link to comment
I see posted over and over in this very public thread a discussion identifying a liar's cache. I doubt the cache owner appreciates this.
I agree. There are very specific reasons why there are only the statements that these caches are disallowed. I wanted to protect the integrity of these caches. Don't assume automatically that they are both liar's caches. There are other issues involved. Edited by FluteFace
Link to comment
The only rule that I have any concern (for lack of a better term) with is...

 

All finds except CITO and Event caches must be on caches that were published before this cache to avoid dummy caches being listed just to meet the requirements of this cache. The exceptions may be (at the cache owner's discretion) caches published that satisfy a D/T combination that didn’t exist or were rare prior to the publication of this cache. Those exceptions may be added once there is adequate evidence that they are indeed the D/T combination stated. In the event that such a cache becomes allowed, the placer will not receive credit for the D/T combination of the stated cache. They will still be required to go elsewhere to satisfy that D/T rating if such a cache exists in the state.

 

That just seems that it will become problematic as months/years go by. Will there be a maintained list of newer "approved" caches that can be used for this challenge?

It is my expectation that there will be a list of such caches on the challenge page if and when they become available.

 

:surprise: Don't look now, but I have heard rumblings that a cache with the missing combination may be in the works.

Link to comment

One of the hardest parts of running a challenge cache is the fact that most owners have never run one before. I know the owner of this and all challenge caches are trying to provide an outlet for others to have fun. So when there are bumps and unexpected things along the way, you do your best, try to learn from the mistakes and move on. Which may mean the challenge gets edited from time to time, and things that were thought to make it better but discovered that they aren't might get changed, or removed. So I would just keep in perspective that Flutey doesn't get paid to monitor the cache or the challenge, she is doing her best in trying to help us have fun. So lets give the owners of this and all challenge caches some grace.

 

I will say that I have exchanged some e-mails about this challenge with the owner and I'm sure you can tell that I disagree with some of the decisions made. She has always been extreemly nice to me in all our contact, much more so than if I was in her place.

 

I have nothing but good things to say about the owner of this (and all of the other) challenges. This topic was started to talk about ideas and changes of the cache. I hope people don't see me taking issue with some of the rules on this cache as having issues with the owner - that just isn't true.

 

Absolutey not, Scott! At least I don't.

 

We are all very passionate about this crazy game addiction and, if you venture out into the main forum and check out a handful of threads, you're likely to see one or two (or three or four) posters get into a heated discussion. And, sometimes it goes over the line and is practically on fire with all the flaming. BUT, I'm not seeing that here. In fact, quite the opposite. And that pleases me.

 

Flutey posted this thread for discussion and ideas - and I'm glad she did. She's my BFF but, like all of us, she is sensitive to critisism on her caches and I have, privately, pestered her about different parts of the challenge that bug me (among aother things: the bookmark takes time, and I'm lazy. I can't figure out how to get the grid to work, and that makes me cranky) so much so that even I don't want to hear my complaints anymore. And even though I don't want to be a bother most of the questions I have are already posted in this thread (Blue Power Ranger, I'm looking at you) and I'm pretty sure when she gets home and rested from her vacay to the East-side Flutey will speak to each point. She's super thourough like that.

 

I can't speak for Harriet, but she's awful tender hearted and I think she was just trying to remind people that behind every cacher's name is a real person with real feelings. And I sure can't fault her for looking out for her friends.

 

Congratulations hydnsek, you da bomb!

Link to comment
Cache owners have authority over their own caches, and if they wish to exclude them, for whatever reason, from whatever secondary event/challenge/etc., that's their perogative.
Actually, I can't totally agree here. From my point of view for this challenge cache, the line needs to be drawn somewhere. There is a huge potential for the development of a verification nightmare if I were to allow caches to be withdrawn from the challenge for any reason. I like k7-wave's philosophy and am mulling over if that's where the line needs to be drawn. The ultimate goal is to make this cache fun for as many cachers as is reasonably possible, including myself.

 

=================================

 

That's enough from me for the moment, but I'm not done yet . . . :surprise:

Link to comment

Nope I didn't see your remarks as against Flutey, or anybody else. Just trying to keep things in perspective for this and ALL other challenge caches and their owners. Flutey is much braver than me, to open up the can of worms to offer to listen to suggestions. But thats also one of the things that makes Flutey great! Always looking out for fellow cachers, and wants to do her best to enhance their caching experience.

 

Maybe thats what I picked up on... I felt it was going into a thread about whats wrong with this challenge, instead of ways/suggestions to make it better for everybody. Maybe it writes the same on the computer screen, but the heart behind it is different. Half full vs. Half empty.

Link to comment

I'm back from dinner break, and looking to catch up. Yumm . . . pizza! So, to continue . . .

 

I asked for my overrated cache to be disqualified and was turned down.
Unless I misread your e-mail, that wasn’t what you requested. I did, however, turn down the request in that e-mail.

 

Also, if you go back and look at the original Fizzy challenge, there are not all of the additional rules and qualifications as in the Washington challenge. There are not any judgements made about what caches should or shouldn't qualify. I would like this cache to be true to the cache that it is trying to copy - one with less rules or judgements about fairness.
Some of the reasons for the rules for this cache is because it is for Washington State only and this state’s cache issues need to be taken into consideration. I have corresponded with Kealia about the issue brought up by the disallowed caches, and took his knowledge and opinion into consideration when I made my decision. Also, keep in mind that Kealia’s challenge is not specific to California, although that is where the final is.

 

We all play the game differently. We can make our own judgements on which caches should or shouldn't qualify on our own bookmark lists.
Yes, we do. For the most part, you can make your own judgments about what should be on your bookmark list. Again, letter verses spirit comes in here. But besides living with their own choices, each finisher's choices will be scrutinized by their caching peers.

 

I have "." (GCRXQN)listed as my 1/1. It is way underrated as well. Does this really make up for an overrated cache I might have on my list? How is an underated 5/5 cache not acceptable but an underrated 5/2.5 cache is OK?
This starts to try to make me the cache police for this cache, which is a job that, for the most part, I am unwilling to take on. It is impossible for me to judge each and every cache for the purposes of this challenge.

 

How can you fill a grid when a 5/3.5 is available but not required? We already have talked about overrated and underrated caches being acceptable. This is a Sassy&Gordy cache not one by owned by Flutey. There is a missing part of "Well Rounded" without it - unless you find another cache that qualifies.
I have already addressed my personal issue with this cache. However, no points will be taken away if it is included. :surprise: If it is included, then you will have a filled in grid.

 

Some of the catagories have only one or two caches that qualify for that rating. They all may get muggled or archieved and by the rules can not be replaced by newer caches. By eliminating other caches (for any reason)just makes this cache more subjective and tougher to complete.
Actually, there are provisions in the rules for those rarer D/T categories: “All finds except CITO and Event caches must be on caches that were published before this cache to avoid dummy caches being listed just to meet the requirements of this cache. The exceptions may be (at the cache owner's discretion) caches published that satisfy a D/T combination that didn’t exist or were rare prior to the publication of this cache. Those exceptions may be added if there is adequate evidence that they are indeed the D/T combination stated.” I'm considering just how to handle the rarer (not missing) combinations.
Link to comment

I just did a quick overview of how close, or is it far, I am from meeting the requirements and I have 46 of the 81 combinations and I'm missing the Ape and CITO. The terrain aspect I'm having no problems with but the difficulty part on the other hand is killing me. I have hardly any caches with a difficulty of 4 or above. Oh well.

 

Cache on,

Bccruiser

Link to comment

The only problem that I have with the challenge is the requirement that the ape cache be found. In all reality the ape cache is nothing more than a traditional cache that can be used to fill one of the d/t requirements. If i find another cache with the same d/t rating as the ape cache then I have satisfied that d/t requirement. What makes the ape cache so different than a traditional cache? Having a special icon shouldn't be the only reason it's included.

Because it's cool, and we have one of only two left in the world! (The other's in Brazil.) People travel from all over the country (even world) just to get that icon.

 

You could make a similar argument for some other icons required:

  • a CITO event is just another kind of Event
  • a Letterbox is just another kind of Traditional

Icon diversity, in addition to D/T diversity, apparently is one component of the Fizzy challenges, and since we are the only state with an APE cache, Flutey decided to include it. Her discretion as cache owner.

 

Seeing that you(bccruiser) haven't actually found the APE cache... I challenge you to find it. Once you've found it, come back and tell us how 'Its just anonther cache'

 

The Steaks

Link to comment

There has been some question about bookmark lists, and what exactly is required for this challenge. So, here’s what’s what:

 

When you make a bookmark list for this challenge, you are given the choice of having the list shared (“I want to share this list with others”) or public (“Make this list public (show on bookmarked listings)”) or both. This challenge requires a shared list, meaning that anybody who has the url to that list can view the list of caches you used to finish the challenge. And, of course, they get the url from the link in a cacher’s posted completion note. The other option for a bookmark list is “Make this list public” and that is not required for this cache. When that attribute is checked, then the fact that a cache is on a bookmark list shows up on the cache page, and that list is available on your profile’s page Bookmark Lists tab. However you may use it for this challenge at your option, in addition to the required shared attribute. (FYI, these attributes can be also be changed after the list has been created.)

 

I’ve made changes to the wording and removed the word ‘public’ – maybe that will help clear it up some.

Link to comment

I really do like the idea on this challenge. It looks like a fun quest.

 

I do have concerns about the limitations being put out about which caches qualify and which caches do not. There are thousands of caches that are not rated correctly and we can even argue about what is the correct rating is for many caches with no real solution.

 

I understand the requirement that the cache must have been available before this challenge was issued (we wouldn't want people to put out misleading caches just to fulfill the requirements) but I disagree with some of the other restrictions.

 

If a cache was already in the system at a certain rating before this cache was put out - they should qualify. Even at the request of the owners - Both of these caches should qualify:

GCKFFG -- The Hardest Cache You'll Ever Do by ohjoy!

GCV5EV -- Madame Defarge Takes Up Crochet by Hoppingcrow

 

The new cache GC13YM7 should be required. The object is to fill up the grid - right

 

I also have a cache rated higher than it should be GCZ752. It is rated a 2/4.5. It is really a 2/2 (but the joke was that you thought you needed to go up the mountain to get the cache). Should we eliminate that one too? I can point to many others that are not rated correctly.

 

We can start looking at the 4/4 caches - should they really be 4/4.5 caches? I know at least one cacher that lowered the ratings on caches based on this challenge (ones that I think are now rated incorrectly)

 

This should be FUN. The object should be to fill the grid - Period.

 

Once you start eliminating caches, you open up the can of worms on the entire rating system.

 

Yes, I did go out of my way to get both of the above caches - before they were eliminated. I don't like that they are now eliminated nor do I like the idea of others being added to the list (after I spend the gas money and time to go after them).

 

Congrats Hydnsek - but should she be worried that one of the caches she used to qualify will be disqualified next week (so she no longer qualifies for the smiley)?

 

I like the idea, but would feel much better about simpler rules

 

Of course, all of the rules for this challenge are determined by the cache owner.

 

That being said, however, I agree with 100% of everything you say here, sciuchetti.

 

The more you nit-pick over certain difficulty combinations on the grid, the less fun it is.

 

This is a game, right? Isn't it supposed to be fun?

Link to comment

I doubt that it will make any difference, but I'd like to register my frustration about the requirement that all qualifying caches must have been published prior to 11/30/2008. I just went through my list of 40 fizzy bookmarks and six of them, fully 15%, violate this rule. Many of them are caches near my home, so it's maddening that I'll need to drive half-way across the state to get a qualifying cache when there's a perfectly good cache within a few miles of my house that is properly rated but is simply too new to meet the challenge rules. Especially when I can point to at least a dozen caches on my list of 481 finds that were published before the cutoff date and are therefore valid but are clearly mis-rated for one reason or another.

 

I realize that the cutoff date was established to prevent people from creating caches just to meet the fizzy requirements. But it seems to me that those are the caches that need to be disqualified, not perfectly good new caches. Otherwise this challenge becomes a collection of relics, rather than a reflection of the wide range of excellent contemporary caches published around the state.

Link to comment

Actually the cut-off date has already been moved forward once.

 

Until 11/30/09 the cutoff date for caches was somewhere in the summer of 2007 and some categories had only one cache or had no caches in that category because so many of the older caches had been archived. The fizzy challenge was slowly getting tougher and tougher to finish.

 

She moved the cutoff date forward to 11/30/08 to open up more caches and keep the cache difficult but still POSSIBLE to finish.

 

I really don't see anyone placing caches just to meet the Fizzy Challenge requirements, however. After all, you can't log your own caches for the challenge, so you'd be placing bogus caches that are rated artificially high just for others to log? Would people really bother with this? Why?

 

Maybe she'll move the cut-off date forward again?

Edited by GrnXnham
Link to comment

Any list of caches that have been added, ie King County Thomas Guide Challenge GC1A012 or RBBank GC17XX3? I would love to beef up my 5* difficulty caches from the technically allowed Fear This Series. Just wondering.

I was wondering if someone was going to bring up caches like our "Fear This:" series, which if you aren't familiar, are caches that address several different phobias. For those with those phobias, they truly are 5 star difficulty caches. For example, on the "Fear This: Acrophobia" (fear of heights), you have to look over the edge of a spectacularly high bridge in order to get the coords for the final. Mrs Team Noltex doesn't like to even go onto the bridge, let alone look over. The ratings are a bit tongue-in-cheek for most people, but we occasionally get logs about how truly horrifying they were for someone to do. So in that sense, the 5 star rating is justified. I guess you'd need to judge for yourself if it qualified for this challenge cache.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...