False Finds

[+Confucius' Cat]

It would be nice if the log system (I know, I know - great way to suggest work for others to complete...) could be upgraded to allow a publisher to flag a "found" log as "verified" or "unverified". Only the publisher would have access to these additional tags, and possibly only if the cache was marked with a "challenge" attribute flag.

An excellent solution and probably easily implementable.

[+Happy Humphrey]

A Challenge cache should really be an Award that you can stick on your profile (i.e. an icon). The problem with the OP's cache is that he's trying to shoehorn an idea into a cache that isn't designed to cater for it.

 

Perhaps one day, Groundspeak will come up with a solution that will work elegantly.

 

In the meantime, why not just let people log the cache whichever way they choose. If they submitted evidence that showed them to have completed the challenge, they get a place in the "Hall Of Fame" in the cache description (should they want such recognition).

 

If not, they just get the usual smiley, without the extra kudos.

 

If I'd completed the challenge, why would I be bothered that others had found the cache without jumping through all the hoops? It's just a record that they visited the cache: it doesn't affect me - I have a record that I found the cache AND completed the challenge.

Because that's not how ALRs work?

So what?

It solves all the problems.

[Dinoprophet]

It would be nice if the log system (I know, I know - great way to suggest work for others to complete...) could be upgraded to allow a publisher to flag a "found" log as "verified" or "unverified". Only the publisher would have access to these additional tags, and possibly only if the cache was marked with a "challenge" attribute flag.

An excellent solution and probably easily implementable.

Yes, I do like that idea.

 

One thing that's very interesting about it is that the challenge owner can still be accountable, as it were, for not verifying valid logs. If someone's log is not validated, anyone who cared to check that person's finds could see if they actually qualified and the owner was being petty.

 

I'd still like to see the virtual badge thing, though. Unlike other caches, I think the point of a challenge cache really is bragging rights -- if that's not so, why do so many people want to log their own challenge? You completed the challenge, so you rightly want your name on that list. Wouldn't it then make sense to let someone look at a profile and see at a glance what challenges that person has completed? Since this implementation adds a challenge attiribute of some kind to a cache, it seems like adding challenge badges wouldn't be too much larger a step.

[+sbell111]

A Challenge cache should really be an Award that you can stick on your profile (i.e. an icon). The problem with the OP's cache is that he's trying to shoehorn an idea into a cache that isn't designed to cater for it.

 

Perhaps one day, Groundspeak will come up with a solution that will work elegantly.

 

In the meantime, why not just let people log the cache whichever way they choose. If they submitted evidence that showed them to have completed the challenge, they get a place in the "Hall Of Fame" in the cache description (should they want such recognition).

 

If not, they just get the usual smiley, without the extra kudos.

 

If I'd completed the challenge, why would I be bothered that others had found the cache without jumping through all the hoops? It's just a record that they visited the cache: it doesn't affect me - I have a record that I found the cache AND completed the challenge.

Because that's not how ALRs work?

So what?

It solves all the problems.

It does so by causing other problems.

 

Lots of people don't like puzzle caches. We could solve this problem by simply outlawing all puzzle caches.

 

Some people are bothered by the fact that they can't find a cache that requires a boat. No problem, let's solve that problem by requiring all caches to be on dry land.

 

etc, etc, etc

 

The thing is, there is no real problem here that requires solving. A cacher chose to own an ALR cache. Another cacher chose not to meet the requirements for the cache. The only 'solution' to this problem is for the cache owner to delete the log (if the logger doesn't change it to a note).

 

If one is not willing to delete such a log, he should not own an ALR cache.

[+angevine]

You know, this is the core of people's joys and frustrations with geocaching: the reality that we cannot make others play the game the way that we want them to.

 

I too like challenge caches. I have one where people need to answer some questions and send me the answers before logging. I will delete logs of those who have not answered the questions, and have done. And the reality is that most people know, going in, that the questions/answers are part of the cache, so I expect that at some level it's a self-selected group.

 

But I sent out a travel bug with similar expectations, and that travel bug is now *gone*. So somebody clearly didn't like the idea.

 

The real problem is that for some people, defeating your efforts to control is a wonderful activity in and of itself. The more you try, the more they'll find ways around it. If it's too frustrating for you to deal with, it may be time to place a different kind of cache. You can only control what you do, how you play the game ... not what others do, or how they play. It's a tough lesson that I am learning and re-learning all the time.

 

Best of luck with it --

 

Jeannette (angevine)

[+Happy Humphrey]

It does so by causing other problems.

 

Lots of people don't like puzzle caches. We could solve this problem by simply outlawing all puzzle caches.

 

Some people are bothered by the fact that they can't find a cache that requires a boat. No problem, let's solve that problem by requiring all caches to be on dry land.

 

etc, etc, etc

 

The thing is, there is no real problem here that requires solving. A cacher chose to own an ALR cache. Another cacher chose not to meet the requirements for the cache. The only 'solution' to this problem is for the cache owner to delete the log (if the logger doesn't change it to a note).

 

If one is not willing to delete such a log, he should not own an ALR cache.

Deleting logs also causes other problems. I don't quite get your point about puzzle caches (etc): I was proposing relaxing rules not banning caches.

 

I see an ALR cache like the examples given as a rather ugly beast at the moment (no fault of the cache owner), and was suggesting something that fits with the tools we have, making it less ugly (though not perfect). It's an ALR/Traditional hybrid: you can log it how you see fit (as long as you sign the physical log book). Should you also complete the challenge, then you get extra recognition. Less ugly, because no one goes away grumbling.

That's what's actually happening, except the "Traditional" logs are causing a problem and legitimate finders are going to grumble.

 

All I'm saying is, why should we be bothered if someone logs an ALR (Challenge) cache without completing the ALR (Challenge)? OK, it's not an ALR cache to them. But really, how does it stop the next person from logging it as an ALR cache?

[+sbell111]

It does so by causing other problems.

 

Lots of people don't like puzzle caches. We could solve this problem by simply outlawing all puzzle caches.

 

Some people are bothered by the fact that they can't find a cache that requires a boat. No problem, let's solve that problem by requiring all caches to be on dry land.

 

etc, etc, etc

 

The thing is, there is no real problem here that requires solving. A cacher chose to own an ALR cache. Another cacher chose not to meet the requirements for the cache. The only 'solution' to this problem is for the cache owner to delete the log (if the logger doesn't change it to a note).

 

If one is not willing to delete such a log, he should not own an ALR cache.

Deleting logs also causes other problems. I don't quite get your point about puzzle caches (etc): I was proposing relaxing rules not banning caches.

 

I see an ALR cache like the examples given as a rather ugly beast at the moment (no fault of the cache owner), and was suggesting something that fits with the tools we have, making it less ugly (though not perfect). It's an ALR/Traditional hybrid: you can log it how you see fit (as long as you sign the physical log book). Should you also complete the challenge, then you get extra recognition. Less ugly, because no one goes away grumbling.

That's what's actually happening, except the "Traditional" logs are causing a problem and legitimate finders are going to grumble.

 

All I'm saying is, why should we be bothered if someone logs an ALR (Challenge) cache without completing the ALR (Challenge)? OK, it's not an ALR cache to them. But really, how does it stop the next person from logging it as an ALR cache?

The simple answer is that people should not log it as if it were a traditional cache, because it is not. It is an ALR cache that is not listed as a traditional cache. If people wish to only log traditional caches, they should not go after ALRs.

[+ODragon]

Someone has.

Thank you for proving my point about diluting a good challange.

 

However, back on my topic, I would delete and keep deleting the person's log if he continues to log it. If he didn't meet the requirements, it's your 'job' to police your logs and delete false finds (IMHO).

[+paleolith]

If only one specific set of caches can be used to compile the information to solve the challenge correctly then why not just have the clues or puzzle pieces in those particular caches

There's a few problems with this approach, in addition to the ownership issue already discussed.

 

First, most challenges allow seekers to qualify using finds which precede the publication of the challenge. This method would require them to go back and find the caches again. This would discourage the cachers most likely to be interested in the challenge. I'm pretty sure that with mine, there would be almost no interest in the challenge if it required revisiting numerous caches (over 50 in a few cases).

 

Second, it can require a lot of recordkeeping by the seekers. Bleah.

 

Third, it doesn't prevent people from cheating by sharing the clues, so it doesn't really solve anything. As I wrote in my cache description, "this is a game and you are basically on the honor system", and I want to keep it that way. Some challenges take themselves more seriously than others, but it's still a game. In my case, I was more interested in highlighting a lot of caches which I felt were not getting enough attention than in creating a competition.

 

Fourth, maintaining the clues would be a nightmare.

 

Fifth, mine allows some slack -- find at least 62 out of 64. I did this because one requires rock climbing, one is very difficult terrain, and one is long-term disabled. (I didn't exclude these, since they meet the history and location criteria.) If I hadn't allowed any slack, almost everyone currently interested would have written it off, and even the first two finishers might have decided they weren't interested in something so exclusive. Anyway, devising a puzzle you can solve using any 62 out of 64 clues would be considerably more difficult, though not impossible.

 

Sixth, some of the caches are virtuals, and so would require yet another method of leaving/finding a clue -- the same problem that virtuals already have with verification.

 

Seventh, I think I had another reason but I've forgotten now. (edit:) Oh yeah, now I remember. It would require that the challenge owner visit all the caches before publishing the challenge. Though some might say yeah, don't publish it if you can't find them all, none of the cachers working on my challenge have expressed such an opinion. On the contrary, they've been excited by it. And I'm still working on it myself. It would never have gotten published if I'd had to visit all the caches first, since there's one I will never be able to do. And who knows how many of these old caches might have gotten archived if I'd waited six or eight months to publish. I know one cacher has mentioned that in the past, he'd archived some caches and later replaced them in the same spot, making them ineligible for historical designation. In another case, the owner had been seriously considering archiving.

 

It's a game, folks. Yeah, as I've said before, I don't like hanging out with jerks, so I'd prefer that jerks not play in my part of the game. But sometimes even I have to just ignore them.

 

Edward

Edited June 19, 2008 by paleolith

[+Confucius' Cat]

The real problem is that for some people, defeating your efforts to control is a wonderful activity in and of itself. The more you try, the more they'll find ways around it.

So true.

 

This thread probably wouldn't exist if the cacher in question just accepted the owner's authority.

 

i doubt it is really possible that the offending cacher does not understand the requirements. Above is the only rational explanation of the events as presented.

 

Ego. (full stop)