The obscure hiding guidelines strike again!

[AZcachemeister]

Another cacher in my area recently placed a challenge cache based on Favorite points (and now there are actually two).

The challenge is to have found five (or ten) caches with five (or ten) or more favorites points.

 

Great!

 

What about rewarding the cachers who placed all those wonderful caches?

 

I decided a couple of challenge caches requiring ownership of caches with five (or ten) favorites points were in order, and over last weekend I placed and submitted them. I made sure they complied with the

 

Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines

 

The caches were published in due course, but then a cacher posted a note (and apparently complained to the reviewer) that the caches did not comply to

 

these listing requirements

 

that state that a challenge cache may not require the hiding of caches, nor even the ownership of caches.

 

How many places must I look to be certain my cache is in compliance?

 

I understand that there were ALR caches that required a finder to hide a seed from a 'seed cache' within a specified time to retain their log on the 'seed cache', and that forcing cachers to hide caches is not a good idea.

 

My caches were intended to reward those who have already hidden those high quality caches, and to encourage those who would be hiding in the future to consider the quality of the caches they hide (if they choose to hide any).

 

Anyway, my caches have been retracted for now, and I am looking to the community for support of my concept.

 

Thanks for reading.

[+Max and 99]

Can you include the text on your cache page, so we can give the feedback you request?

[+Max and 99]

A new challenge cache was recently published in my area, and I see now that it clearly violates two of the nine listed guidelines!

 

# Using a challenge cache to promote one's own caches will likely prevent the cache from being published.

# The cache's true coordinates must appear on the cache page; the cacher need not email the cache owner for coordinates.

[AZcachemeister]

A Challenge cache, not a puzzle.

 

A pretty simple challenge, really.

The cache IS at the listed co-ordinates.

All you need to do is hide a few QUALITY caches and wait for others to enjoy them!

 

After finding another challenge cache with a similar name I got the idea for this one, so here it is. It seemed rather easy to me for cachers to go out and FIND a minimum of five caches with five or more favorites points each.

LOGGING REQUIREMENTS

 

1. Be the owner of at least five (5) caches (of any type, and in any state) that have at least five (5) favorites points each.

 

2. The date in your log at the cache may NOT precede your online log by more than one (1) week (this is to allow for vacation finds).

 

2b. You MAY NOT find the cache and sign the log, hoping to qualify at some later date. You MUST meet the requirements on the date you sign the logbook in the cache.

 

3. Your log in the logbook MUST include the date of your find to facilitate verification of 2b (this should be obvious). Yes, I will be checking if I suspect there have been any shenanigans.

 

There is no need to make a list or create a bookmark list (I know how to check for myself) unless you want to point out your personal favorites.

[+lamoracke]

Well, I like the idea in theory, but it sounds to me an extra incentive for folks to add "favorites" to caches they might not have, just to qualify for the challenge. I am not sure about any guidelines broken, but I think its a slippery slope a bit.

[GOF and Bacall]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

[AZcachemeister]

I can certainly edit the portion that seems to suggest that new caches should be hidden, but I don't think I can remove the requirement of cache ownership and retain the spirit of the cache.

 

Can we have a challenge based on a minimum number of forum posts?

[+narcissa]

I don't think the caches should be published.

 

I know it's frustrating that you can't always predict when a cache is going to raise a red flag for the reviewer, but it's important that reviewers have the discretion to go beyond the guidelines when a geocache idea is clearly problematic.

 

Using contests or challenge caches to motivate hiders has been frowned upon by Groundspeak for some time. I'm not sure why this hasn't been explicitly stated in the guidelines, but it's not anything new.

 

As for the particulars of your challenge as you've described it, I think it would be pretty easy for a group of friends to trade favorite points in order to meet the criteria for a challenge cache like this. With a favorite point for every 10 finds, many of us have points to spare. I have more than 30 other geocachers on Facebook, and I'm pretty sure I could get a bunch of them to make a deal. We can also remove points, so it wouldn't be too hard to get people to give points on a temporary basis until the challenge has been fulfilled.

 

I wouldn't actually do this because challenge caches are rubbish anyway, but it would be easy enough to do.

Edited January 19, 2011 by narcissa

[AZcachemeister]

Well, I like the idea in theory, but it sounds to me an extra incentive for folks to add "favorites" to caches they might not have, just to qualify for the challenge. I am not sure about any guidelines broken, but I think its a slippery slope a bit.

 

You cannot 'favorite' a cache you have not found.

Certainly there are ways to boost the favorites count on your own cache, but let's not get into that here.

[AZcachemeister]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

Those are basically to reduce unnecessary traffic to the cache sites.

No need for 'Joe dumpster-cache hider' to visit the site until he has cleaned up his act.

[+Sioneva]

 

I wouldn't actually do this because challenge caches are rubbish anyway, but it would be easy enough to do.

 

Fortunately, that's just your opinion.

[GOF and Bacall]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

Those are basically to reduce unnecessary traffic to the cache sites.

No need for 'Joe dumpster-cache hider' to visit the site until he has cleaned up his act.

 

No, they are additional logging requirements. It seems like you are just trying to make this cache as hard to log as possible. I don't think it should be published. I will agree that the guidelines linked from the hide and seek a cache page should be updated.

[+Bhob]

I have been told that one of the reasons for not allowing hides to be a requirement for a challenge geocache is to discourage the placing of "junk" geocaches, just to meet a requirement

 

this would obviously not apply in your case (since who would cast a "favorite" vote for a junk geocache)

 

but rules are rules, and it is difficult to write rules that allow an adrimable thing, without someone else with less lofty goals trying to take advantage of it

[+hydnsek]

Well, I like the idea in theory, but it sounds to me an extra incentive for folks to add "favorites" to caches they might not have, just to qualify for the challenge. I am not sure about any guidelines broken, but I think its a slippery slope a bit.

 

You cannot 'favorite' a cache you have not found.

Certainly there are ways to boost the favorites count on your own cache, but let's not get into that here.

I believe what lamoracke meant was that it might be incentive for folks to get favorites points added to caches that don't have them (or enough of them) in order to qualify for the challenge. This is similar to the point Narcissa made above, and I agree with both and with the guideline.

[AZcachemeister]

I don't think the caches should be published.

 

I know it's frustrating that you can't always predict when a cache is going to raise a red flag for the reviewer, but it's important that reviewers have the discretion to go beyond the guidelines when a geocache idea is clearly problematic.

 

Using contests or challenge caches to motivate hiders has been frowned upon by Groundspeak for some time. I'm not sure why this hasn't been explicitly stated in the guidelines, but it's not anything new.

 

As for the particulars of your challenge as you've described it, I think it would be pretty easy for a group of friends to trade favorite points in order to meet the criteria for a challenge cache like this. With a favorite point for every 10 finds, many of us have points to spare. I have more than 30 other geocachers on Facebook, and I'm pretty sure I could get a bunch of them to make a deal. We can also remove points, so it wouldn't be too hard to get people to give points on a temporary basis until the challenge has been fulfilled.

 

I wouldn't actually do this because challenge caches are rubbish anyway, but it would be easy enough to do.

 

Isn't the favorites feature at least partially designed to motivate hiders?

 

Do you not think the trading of favorites points among friends is not already going on? It's a weakness of the feature that I saw well before it was even implemented.

If it's so important to someone to sink that low, let them have the log. Certainly I could check again a few weeks later and question their qualification.

 

I disagree with your assessment that 'challenge caches are rubbish anyway', but I respect your right to your own opinion.

[AZcachemeister]

 

I believe what lamoracke meant was that it might be incentive for folks to get favorites points added to caches that don't have them (or enough of them) in order to qualify for the challenge. This is similar to the point Narcissa made above, and I agree with both and with the guideline.

 

Yup, plenty of folks out there soliciting finders to favorite their caches.

 

Would you do it if asked?

 

I certainly won't.

My morals may be questionable, but I'm not a w*o*e.

[+t4e]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

not even close to being ALR's, they are actually pretty standard requirements in challenge caches

 

Fortunately, that's just your opinion.

 

Amen!

 

is perfectly fine to dislike something, but so totally different to go a step further and trash it, got really tired of that sort of attitude, too bad i can still see the quoted posts

Edited January 19, 2011 by t4e

[+benh57]

this would obviously not apply in your case (since who would cast a "favorite" vote for a junk geocache)

 

 

Why, the friends of someone who wanted to qualify for this 'challenge' cache would, of course.

 

No support from me to OP here. I don't want to hide caches or be forced to hide caches to log any challenge. Right now, i feel like i can do any challenge if i spend enough time or money on it. But being required to hide a cache is quite a bigger step to take.

[AZcachemeister]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

Those are basically to reduce unnecessary traffic to the cache sites.

No need for 'Joe dumpster-cache hider' to visit the site until he has cleaned up his act.

 

No, they are additional logging requirements. It seems like you are just trying to make this cache as hard to log as possible. I don't think it should be published. I will agree that the guidelines linked from the hide and seek a cache page should be updated.

 

I could certainly loose those bits if I thought (or was told) it would make a difference.

If someone wants to climb that hill to post a note for a cache they will probably never qualify to log a find on, who am I to deny them their futility?

[GOF and Bacall]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

not even close to being ALR's, they are actually pretty standard requirements in challenge caches

 

Really? I haven't looked at many challenges but they sure sound like ALRs to me. If my sig is in the log book and I have met the requirements of the challenge I see no reason for the rest.

[+dfx]

Really? I haven't looked at many challenges but they sure sound like ALRs to me. If my sig is in the log book and I have met the requirements of the challenge I see no reason for the rest.

 

the requirement to meet the challenge is an ALR too, so why shouldn't there be any others?

[+baloo&bd]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

not even close to being ALR's, they are actually pretty standard requirements in challenge caches

 

Really? I haven't looked at many challenges but they sure sound like ALRs to me. If my sig is in the log book and I have met the requirements of the challenge I see no reason for the rest.

 

They are ALR's. Also, the premise of the challenge encourages hiding caches (no matter the quality) which has been a long standing reason for not listing a cache. Nothing new or obscure.

 

At issue also, and a reviewer is more than welcome to verify or correct this, is that the requirements must be reasonable for any cacher to find. Asking someone to hide a cache alone would be contrary to this, however then having them dependent on something as subjective and flawed as favorites would be unreasonable. I can also confirm that people would put favorites on a cache to help someone, LPC included, since I would do it for someone if asked.

[+tozainamboku]

I agree that if there are clarification to a guideline in the knowledge books there should at least be a link to them in the guidelines. I was actually about to post this link in the old thread someone just resurrected to ask why a challenge wasn't an ALR.

 

That said, there are good reasons why Groundspeak has decided that challenge caches may not require the publication of a new cache as a logging requirement and challenges must be achievable by those who do not own caches. People shouldn't be encouraged to put out caches they aren't capable of maintaining, even if the challenge is to get the cache on lots of favorite list. People also shouldn't be forced to modify the style of their hides just to meet a challenge. While many of my caches have gotten favorited, the most favorited cache that I own has four favorite votes. They just aren't found often enough for five of them to get five favorites each. I would have start hiding more urban style caches, perhaps even P&G caches that have some catch to make them memorable. I prefer to continue to hide caches that are difficult to get to.

 

I believe your challenge also violates "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers." This section is used to prohibit challenges invovling FTF but I think it would apply as well to favorites. I'm not sure how challenges to find caches with high favorites counts are getting approved either, since this depends on other cacher's favoriting the cache. However, there are several lonely cache challenges to find caches that haven't been found for some period of time and these seem to be allowed. Perhaps these are dependent on the inaction of other cachers and not the action of other cachers.

 

The details of your logging requirements - particularly the requirement to post your online log with a certain number of days of your find seems to be and ALR meant to be an excuse to delete logs. I understand that you want to make sure that the finder did in fact own the required favorited caches on the date they log your challenge and it would be easy if some own 5 favorited caches but later had to archive one or had one where votes were removed so it no longer qualified, might predate their log back to the date when their caches were active. There might not be a way for you to verify that this was the case, so having them log online within a few days may mean it is more likely you will be able to check their hides and see if they qualify. But my attitude is that any challenge that is that hard to check shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

"Importantly, cache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the challenge has been met. The logging requirements on the cache page must reflect this consideration, and must be logistically viable. "

[+narcissa]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

not even close to being ALR's, they are actually pretty standard requirements in challenge caches

 

Fortunately, that's just your opinion.

 

Amen!

 

is perfectly fine to dislike something, but so totally different to go a step further and trash it, got really tired of that sort of attitude, too bad i can still see the quoted posts

 

It's cute how you keep commenting everywhere to tell me you're ignoring me.

[AZcachemeister]

What do rules 2 2b and 3 have to do with the challenge? They look like ALRs to me.

 

not even close to being ALR's, they are actually pretty standard requirements in challenge caches

 

Fortunately, that's just your opinion.

 

Amen!

 

is perfectly fine to dislike something, but so totally different to go a step further and trash it, got really tired of that sort of attitude, too bad i can still see the quoted posts

 

It's cute how you keep commenting everywhere to tell me you're ignoring me.

 

Could you possibly stay on-topic, and leave the personality conflicts out of it?

[+narcissa]

 

Could you possibly stay on-topic, and leave the personality conflicts out of it?

 

Oh, possibly.

 

Don't take the rubbish comment personally. All challenge caches are rubbish, not yours specifically.

[Clan Riffster]

I once proposed a challenge cache where, to log a find, you must own at least one active cache of each currently publishable cache type. I was told "No", so I moved on. I think my Reviewer recognized that this was just a desperate attempt, by me, to get more Wherigo hides in my area.

[+narcissa]

I once proposed a challenge cache where, to log a find, you must own at least one active cache of each currently publishable cache type. I was told "No", so I moved on. I think my Reviewer recognized that this was just a desperate attempt, by me, to get more Wherigo hides in my area.

 

Someone held an event a couple of years ago that put you into a draw for hiding caches - the caveat being that you could only get into the draw five times, and you had to hide a different cache type for each entry. We got quite a few Letterboxes and Wherigos out of that.

 

Of course, this was done by word of mouth, and not on the cache page.

[+Sioneva]

 

Could you possibly stay on-topic, and leave the personality conflicts out of it?

 

Oh, possibly.

 

Don't take the rubbish comment personally. All challenge caches are rubbish, not yours specifically.

 

Fortunately, that is just your opinion... Look, we get it, you don't like challenge caches. Now can you find a new talking point?

 

Thanks.

[+narcissa]

Fortunately, that is just your opinion...

 

As evidenced by the fact that it was my account, and not somebody else's, who posted it. Fascinating observation.

[+Sioneva]

Fortunately, that is just your opinion...

 

As evidenced by the fact that it was my account, and not somebody else's, who posted it. Fascinating observation.

 

THank you. Next show's at 8.

[AZcachemeister]

OK, discussion over.

Please close this thread.

[+WRASTRO]

One more vote for an interesting challenge idea that won't likely work well since cachers will be enticed to hide and vote for less than great caches to meet the requirements.

[+M 5]

 

Could you possibly stay on-topic, and leave the personality conflicts out of it?

 

Oh, possibly.

 

Don't take the rubbish comment personally. All challenge caches are rubbish, not yours specifically.

 

I agree that challenge caches can be a slippery slope, because the caching community always seems to take things to far. That being said, I enjoy the challenge caches I consider good. To each his own, but I like some of them. I'm very goal oriented, and I use geocaching to challenge myself and enjoy completing certain challenges, that I consider more as goals. I always see on here, where people say geocaing isn't competative, it's just for fun. While that is true. Competition can be very fun and geocaching can be competative. I compete with my circle of friends onr many different aspects of geocaching and we have a blast with it.

[AZcachemeister]

The real point is why doesn't the link on the hide-a-cache page take us to a complete and concise discussion of what can and what cannot be done?

Why is there no alert to tell us the rules have changed?

Why is there no link to the 'additional listing requirements'?

[+WRASTRO]

I can understand your frustration regarding the guidelines as you read them. I still vote that your challenge idea is one that should not be implemented as I believe it would encourage others to game the system. Find a better way to build your mousetrap.

[+RIclimber]

A Challenge cache, not a puzzle.

 

A pretty simple challenge, really.

The cache IS at the listed co-ordinates.

All you need to do is hide a few QUALITY caches and wait for others to enjoy them!

 

After finding another challenge cache with a similar name I got the idea for this one, so here it is. It seemed rather easy to me for cachers to go out and FIND a minimum of five caches with five or more favorites points each.

LOGGING REQUIREMENTS

 

1. Be the owner of at least five (5) caches (of any type, and in any state) that have at least five (5) favorites points each.

 

I just want to point out, in my State, there are only 22 caches with five or more favorite points. Only one person in my state has at least five on that list, (with 12 of 22!!)

If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

One geocacher out of 500+ is NOT a "substantial number of other geocachers"

[+narcissa]

The real point is why doesn't the link on the hide-a-cache page take us to a complete and concise discussion of what can and what cannot be done?

Why is there no alert to tell us the rules have changed?

Why is there no link to the 'additional listing requirements'?

 

I fully agree with you that this shouldn't have been tucked away in the knowledge books. It only leads to confusion and frustration - you did follow the guidelines, and they didn't give you the information you needed.

[+TerraViators]

The real point is why doesn't the link on the hide-a-cache page take us to a complete and concise discussion of what can and what cannot be done?

Why is there no alert to tell us the rules have changed?

Why is there no link to the 'additional listing requirements'?

 

I fully agree with you that this shouldn't have been tucked away in the knowledge books. It only leads to confusion and frustration - you did follow the guidelines, and they didn't give you the information you needed.

a robust +1

[+G & C]

I've pretty much given up on trying to come up with new and cool twists on puzzle caches. And any other cache types, really. So many shoot from the hip, make em up as we go along rules that I can't seem to get a grasp on that keep getting the caches that I've put a lot of hard work into archived. It got tiring, so I've stopped trying.

[+Afterburned]

At the moment it is hard to get 5 caches with 5 points, but keep a cache around long enough and it will get 5 points. Give it a year and that will be an easy challenge.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I believe what lamoracke meant was that it might be incentive for folks to get favorites points added to caches that don't have them (or enough of them) in order to qualify for the challenge. This is similar to the point Narcissa made above, and I agree with both and with the guideline.

 

Yup, plenty of folks out there soliciting finders to favorite their caches.

 

 

Friends shouldn't ask friends to favorite their cache.

 

I'm curious how you came up with 5 hides with at least 5 favorites as the criteria. I just took a look at the results of a 20 mile radius from where I live and there are only 10 caches which have five or more favorites and no local cacher would qualify for your challenge. There's a simple reason for that. There a not a lot of geocachers in the area, thus local caches get found far less frequently, and have fewer favorites than caches in other areas. It has nothing to do with the quality of the caches in the area. Perhaps it easier for geocacher in your area to meet your criteria but that effectively means that you're targeting your cache to those in your community, or those that live somewhere else with a larger number of local geocachers. Presumably, your challenge cache was a high quality hide as well. Why not try to come up with a challenge that those visiting your area might be able to meet and find your cache?

[+nanncyan]

Whenever a new Challenge cache gets published in our area I look to see if I have already qualified. If not I put them on the ignore list. The wife and I enjoy caching not wasting time on the computer making lists. We have close to 400 favorite points in the bank. I have assigned a few to some well done multis in the area. Admit it, most caches although fun to do are not memorable. I don't mind your idea for a challenge cache because the ignore list is endless. Everyone has their own idea of what makes a great cache. Our idea will differ from the next. I see no reason to get upset if a cache is posted we don't want to participate in. If a cache makes you that irritated put it on your ignore list and you won't have to see it again. There are lots of caches published we can enjoy. We have never been forced to do any cache.

[+KBfamily]

I am not up on the Challenge Cache rules, but I DO like the idea behind this Challenge Cache. Some cachers revel in racking up lots of FTF's others go after 5 star difficulty caches, while others like puzzle caches, etc. I love caching but what I really enjoy the most is hiding fun, silly, unexpected cache containers and receiving words of thanks in the logs of cachers that find them. I love the fact that I am putting a smile on some cachers face or making someone actually laugh out loud when discovering my container. So, this challenge cache would have been right up my alley. I have 18 cache hides - most have favorite points with one having 8 points (easy enough for someone to verify).

So, thank you AZCachemeister for trying to encourage cachers to raise the level of their cache hides and containers to something other than Altoids tins under a light post (I like these hides too so don't anyone yell at me about this point).

I hope AZCachemeister continues to find a way to achieve this goal within whatever rules are out there that seem to have ruffled feathers of some of our AZ cachers (all are great folks that I have come to like and enjoy!).

KBFamily

[+baloo&bd]

The real point is why doesn't the link on the hide-a-cache page take us to a complete and concise discussion of what can and what cannot be done?

Why is there no alert to tell us the rules have changed?

Why is there no link to the 'additional listing requirements'?

 

While the premise of this post may or may not be be valid, you can't use this excuse. You are active enough on the forums that you knew the ALR rule.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I would think the challenge in question would also have a problem with this part of the guidelines:

 

"If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so."

 

I can't decide to go place a cache that will get a lot of favorites. I place the best caches I can, and either they get favorites or they don't. I don't like the idea of a challenge cache that has requirements that are beyond my control.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

You cannot 'favorite' a cache you have not found.

 

Yes, you can.

 

You cannot 'favorite' a cache that you have not logged as found. It's easy enough to log a find, favorite the cache, and then delete the found log.

[+sbell111]

You attempted to hide a cache with an ALR. ALRs are only allowed for challenge caches. Your cache doesn't fit the definition of a challenge cache, so it was denied.

 

Am I missing something?

[+addisonbr]

I happen to not find the concept of challenge caches to be rubbish, although lately the new ones I've seen published have gotten increasingly silly and I ignore most. But I there are a few I enjoy watchlisting and I'll enjoy sending my log out to the other watchers, some day.

 

The real point is why doesn't the link on the hide-a-cache page take us to a complete and concise discussion of what can and what cannot be done?

Why is there no alert to tell us the rules have changed?

Why is there no link to the 'additional listing requirements'?

This is very fair.

[+JL_HSTRE]

# Using a challenge cache to promote one's own caches will likely prevent the cache from being published.

 

Interesting as I have seen many Bonus Caches or series finals (listed as a mystery) where to find the coordinates of said Bonus you might find the other 6 or so caches in the series, each of which contains one of the digits of the coordinates. Doesn't that classify as "promoting one's own caches"?

 

I guess the difference is because it's a puzzle (the cache is not at the posted coordinates so you can't find it otherwise) rather than a challenge cache (the cache IS at the posted coordinates so you could find it). All the more reason for Challenge caches to have a seperate icon...

 

Well, I like the idea in theory, but it sounds to me an extra incentive for folks to add "favorites" to caches they might not have, just to qualify for the challenge. I am not sure about any guidelines broken, but I think its a slippery slope a bit.

 

Agreed. There will be people who abuse the Favorites feature but let's try not to give them incentive.