Jump to content

Challenges


cb82

Recommended Posts

Again, they are all pieces of what is known as a "cache". A mystery cache can contain a puzzle. The puzzle is part of the cache. That doesn't mean that removing the puzzle results in it no longer being a cache. The same goes for multis. The intermediary waypoints are part of the cache. That doesn't mean that all caches must have them. The same goes for virtuals. Taking away the container doesn't mean it is no longer a cache. Taking away one particular piece of the whole doesn't mean it's no longer a cache.

So what is it then that makes a cache a cache? :unsure: If you can take away the container, the listing, anything as you say, you'd have nothing left and it would still be a cache? :huh: There's gotta be some defining factor that makes you say "that's a cache" - what is it?

 

A physical container OR a listing OR both.

Link to comment
A physical container OR a listing OR both.

See, and I only agree with the first part. Benchmarks also have listings, and they're not caches, right?

 

Milk has a physical container, and that's not a cache either, right?

 

Right, but according to you, if I made a listing for it, it would be.

Link to comment

 

I never claimed the listing IS the cache, but is is part of it. You can have a cache without a container(virtual). You can have a cache without a listing(wouldn't get found much, but you could do it). They are parts of the whole.

 

well you just did :lol:

 

Again, they are all pieces of what is known as a "cache". A mystery cache can contain a puzzle. The puzzle is part of the cache. That doesn't mean that removing the puzzle results in it no longer being a cache. The same goes for multis. The intermediary waypoints are part of the cache. That doesn't mean that all caches must have them. The same goes for virtuals. Taking away the container doesn't mean it is no longer a cache. Taking away one particular piece of the whole doesn't mean it's no longer a cache.

So what is it then that makes a cache a cache? :unsure: If you can take away the container, the listing, anything as you say, you'd have nothing left and it would still be a cache? :huh:There's gotta be some defining factor that makes you say "that's a cache" - what is it?

 

A physical container OR a listing OR both.

Link to comment
A physical container OR a listing OR both.

See, and I only agree with the first part. Benchmarks also have listings, and they're not caches, right?

 

Milk has a physical container, and that's not a cache either, right?

 

Right, but according to you, if I made a listing for it, it would be.

 

Sure. Hide a milk jug in the woods and post the coordinates for it in a listing. Poor choice of container, but still a cache.

Link to comment

 

I never claimed the listing IS the cache, but is is part of it. You can have a cache without a container(virtual). You can have a cache without a listing(wouldn't get found much, but you could do it). They are parts of the whole.

 

well you just did :lol:

 

Again, they are all pieces of what is known as a "cache". A mystery cache can contain a puzzle. The puzzle is part of the cache. That doesn't mean that removing the puzzle results in it no longer being a cache. The same goes for multis. The intermediary waypoints are part of the cache. That doesn't mean that all caches must have them. The same goes for virtuals. Taking away the container doesn't mean it is no longer a cache. Taking away one particular piece of the whole doesn't mean it's no longer a cache.

So what is it then that makes a cache a cache? :unsure: If you can take away the container, the listing, anything as you say, you'd have nothing left and it would still be a cache? :huh:There's gotta be some defining factor that makes you say "that's a cache" - what is it?

 

A physical container OR a listing OR both.

 

I never said that the listing IS the cache. I said it CAN be. It could also be the physical container with no listing. Or it could be the physical container in combination with the listing.

Link to comment
A physical container OR a listing OR both.

See, and I only agree with the first part. Benchmarks also have listings, and they're not caches, right?

 

Milk has a physical container, and that's not a cache either, right?

 

Right, but according to you, if I made a listing for it, it would be.

 

Sure. Hide a milk jug in the woods and post the coordinates for it in a listing. Poor choice of container, but still a cache.

 

Of course. It doesn't make "milk" a cache though - the jug is the cache. Assuming it's got a log inside. So yeah, a cache doesn't "have" a container, a cache is a container, a physical object.

Link to comment
A physical container OR a listing OR both.

See, and I only agree with the first part. Benchmarks also have listings, and they're not caches, right?

 

Milk has a physical container, and that's not a cache either, right?

 

Right, but according to you, if I made a listing for it, it would be.

 

Sure. Hide a milk jug in the woods and post the coordinates for it in a listing. Poor choice of container, but still a cache.

 

Of course. It doesn't make "milk" a cache though - the jug is the cache. Assuming it's got a log inside. So yeah, a cache doesn't "have" a container, a cache is a container, a physical object.

 

In that situation, the cache is a combination of a container and a listing. Just because that particular situation has a container does not mean that all caches have to.

Link to comment
In that situation, the cache is a combination of a container and a listing. Just because that particular situation has a container does not mean that all caches have to.

 

So I ask you again: what is it that makes a cache a cache? Why aren't benchmarks caches? They fulfill all your requirements (has a listing).

Link to comment
A physical container OR a listing OR both.

See, and I only agree with the first part. Benchmarks also have listings, and they're not caches, right?

 

Milk has a physical container, and that's not a cache either, right?

 

Right, but according to you, if I made a listing for it, it would be.

 

Sure. Hide a milk jug in the woods and post the coordinates for it in a listing. Poor choice of container, but still a cache.

 

Of course. It doesn't make "milk" a cache though - the jug is the cache. Assuming it's got a log inside. So yeah, a cache doesn't "have" a container, a cache is a container, a physical object.

 

In that situation, the cache is a combination of a container and a listing. Just because that particular situation has a container does not mean that all caches have to.

 

Should you guys get a room?

Link to comment
In that situation, the cache is a combination of a container and a listing. Just because that particular situation has a container does not mean that all caches have to.

 

So I ask you again: what is it that makes a cache a cache? Why aren't benchmarks caches? They fulfill all your requirements (has a listing).

 

I'll ask you again: Why aren't coffee mugs caches? The fulfill all your requirements (has a container).

Link to comment

I'll ask you again: Why aren't coffee mugs caches? The fulfill all your requirements (has a container).

You know better than that. A geocache is a special case of a container. Put it somewhere, put a log in, take coordinates. Voila, geocache, even if it's a coffee mug. Not all containers are geocaches, but all geocaches are containers. Quite simple. Your turn.

Link to comment
A physical container OR a listing OR both.

See, and I only agree with the first part. Benchmarks also have listings, and they're not caches, right?

 

Milk has a physical container, and that's not a cache either, right?

 

Right, but according to you, if I made a listing for it, it would be.

 

Sure. Hide a milk jug in the woods and post the coordinates for it in a listing. Poor choice of container, but still a cache.

 

Of course. It doesn't make "milk" a cache though - the jug is the cache. Assuming it's got a log inside. So yeah, a cache doesn't "have" a container, a cache is a container, a physical object.

 

In that situation, the cache is a combination of a container and a listing. Just because that particular situation has a container does not mean that all caches have to.

 

Should you guys get a room?

I really think they should.

 

6. Private discussions: Sometimes, a discussion thread strays off into a friendly dialogue or a heated debate among a very small number of users. For these exchanges, we ask that you please use the Private Message feature that is provided through the Groundspeak forums, or the Geocaching.com e-mail system. Public forum posts should be reserved for matters of interest to the general geocaching community.
Link to comment

Coordinates from a listing with no physical container can also be a cache. Not all listings are caches, but they can be. I am not arguing that the listing IS the cache in all situations. But neither is the container.

Edited by cb82
Link to comment

Coordinates from a listing with no physical container can also be a cache. Not all listings are caches, but they can be. I am not arguing that the listing IS the cache in all situations. But neither is the container.

So which listings are caches then, and which ones aren't? Let me guess: if it says "virtual cache" or "earthcache" and if it counts towards your find count, then it is, otherwise it isn't. Right? :rolleyes:

 

I rest my case.

Link to comment

Coordinates from a listing with no physical container can also be a cache. Not all listings are caches, but they can be. I am not arguing that the listing IS the cache in all situations. But neither is the container.

So which listings are caches then, and which ones aren't? Let me guess: if it says "virtual cache" or "earthcache" and if it counts towards your find count, then it is, otherwise it isn't. Right? :rolleyes:

 

I rest my case.

 

Great. You two should switch to a private conversation from here then.

Link to comment

Coordinates from a listing with no physical container can also be a cache. Not all listings are caches, but they can be. I am not arguing that the listing IS the cache in all situations. But neither is the container.

So which listings are caches then, and which ones aren't? Let me guess: if it says "virtual cache" or "earthcache" and if it counts towards your find count, then it is, otherwise it isn't. Right? :rolleyes:

 

I rest my case.

 

You are absolutely correct. Things that you log as finds on this site are indeed all caches (including virtuals and earthcaches).

Link to comment

Coordinates from a listing with no physical container can also be a cache. Not all listings are caches, but they can be. I am not arguing that the listing IS the cache in all situations. But neither is the container.

So which listings are caches then, and which ones aren't? Let me guess: if it says "virtual cache" or "earthcache" and if it counts towards your find count, then it is, otherwise it isn't. Right? :rolleyes:

 

I rest my case.

 

Great. You two should switch to a private conversation from here then.

 

I think this conversation has gone about as far as its going to anyways. Thanks for the update on the challenges, looking forward to trying them out.

Link to comment

Well, that's what a virtual is, isn't it? Take a [physical] cache with an ALR. Remove the cache [container] from the equation. What you get is a virtual. Seems right to me.

There's more than one kind of ALR. Physical caches usually had Do An Action ALRs while virtuals had Answer Questions ALRs and/or Take A Picture ALRs.

 

That's why I don't think I'll like Action Challenges. I hated Do An Action ALRs when they were attached to a physical cache so that's not going to change when there is no physical cache.

 

Photo Challenges sound like fun however. That I am looking forward to.

 

Hopefully Answer Questions Challenges will be added in the next phase. They can take the form of an multiple choice quiz, either on the website or on a mobile phone, that the challenge owner sets up when listing the challenge. That's one of the aspects of Virtuals I really enjoyed, searching the area for the answers to the questions.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment

 

Hopefully Answer Questions Challenges will be added in the next phase. They can take the form of an multiple choice quiz, either on the website or on a mobile phone, that the challenge owner sets up when listing the challenge. That's one of the aspects of Virtuals I really enjoyed, searching the area for the answers to the questions.

 

Answer questions would appeal more to me than taking photos or performing actions, but I do not like multiple choice - this can be guessed too easily.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

Should you guys get a room?

 

I sure hope they are on vacation.

 

I would hate to think they are at work wasting company IT resources.

 

Or worse yet. They work for some poor company with a stock at a 52 week low and about to get squashed by the competition.

 

+1

 

Tequila, can I now borrow season 2 of Seinfeld?

Link to comment

 

Should you guys get a room?

 

I sure hope they are on vacation.

 

I would hate to think they are at work wasting company IT resources.

 

Or worse yet. They work for some poor company with a stock at a 52 week low and about to get squashed by the competition.

 

+1

 

Tequila, can I now borrow season 2 of Seinfeld?

 

You sure can. I have moved on to classic episodes of The Twilight Zone. :)

 

.

Link to comment

To increase the chance and hope, I am happy to offer you a free annual premium membership so you can show us an interesting challenge that everyone can enjoy. Deal?

 

First of all, thanks for your kind offer even though I am not sure whether it is a real offer or rather a sarcastic comment because you misunderstood what I wrote (because I was not clear enough).

As the cost of a PM-ship is not at all my reason for not being a PM, it does however play no role how your offer is meant.

 

 

The offer was given because you will need a Premium Membership, at least initially, to submit a challenge.

 

Yes, I am aware of that requirement.

 

If you are worried that the challenge won't be enjoyed by everyone,

 

Actually, I am not worried about that, I just wanted to point it out. I was worried however that what I wrote sounded like "All you are doing is bad and I can do it much better" which has not been my intention at all.

 

 

I still would like to see what kind of challenge you could submit to give me an idea of what would not disappoint you.

 

That's not an easy question as I am not sure whether your challenge idea and my idea of a virtual cache have much in common. Moreover, I think that the really

tricky part is to come up with something that is reasonably manageable for Groundspeak. The old virtuals with the currently existing number of geocachers would not work and unfortunately (from my point of view) we cannot turn back the clock.

 

The easier part is to provide examples of which type of virtual caches I would enjoy

For example, I would have liked to implement my last cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=928f7922-25d6-4550-a902-044043baf0bb

as a virtual cache without container. As no such possibility exists, I had to hide a container at a location I do not like at all just to

make the rest working. I prefer to think of what I did as cache (even if one would remove the container) than of a challenge, butfinding the right answers to the questions is some sort of challenge.

 

Along the same lines solving the puzzle in this cache and then

finding and identifying all the required trees (in the right order) in this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=dc8e2869-d48d-4aa9-b608-b1794c9e405c

is indeed a challenge. Again the cache without the container would make up a virtual (or whatever you might call the result) that I would enjoy.

This cache is a good example anyway as it shows that some cachers enormously enjoyed the challenge and others did not enjoy it at all and needed a lot of help in order to be able to eliminate the cache from their cache map. That sort of challenging tasks are a real pain for those who just want to spend say 30 minutes outdoors and do not use their brain intensively. Nothing wrong about that - there are times also in my life when I prefer not to have to answer questions.

I hate having to take compulsory photos (regardless of what they show - so no privacy concerns) - so I can well understand that others do not like answering questions or whatever.

 

I think that virtuals have some e.g. potential in urban areas to offer guided tours for people who would like to learn more about an area than what is written in the standard guide books and than what the locals learn already in primary school. Along these lines one could mix various topics, history, architecture, music, fine arts etc without having to restrict oneself to a single field like in Earthcaches and without rigid rules as the language requirement in Earthcaching.

I know that some cachers have asked for history caches. In principle, I would be interested into that concept, but would prefer having more freedom and bringing in also other topics of interest. That's also one aspect I do not like at all about Waymarking that things need to be categorised (even if one could assign several categories, it means putting things into drawers, something I do not like that much).

 

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Wrong! A cache is a single listing on the site and can be of many different types, some having containers to log and some not.

 

 

no, you're wrong...i said it before in this thread but got lost in the noise...if the cache is the listing why don't you log a find when you find the listing rather than going out and signing the log? by that theory armchair logging should be allowed to stand

 

Hardly, your reasoning makes zero sense. You log a find when you look up a cache page and follow the instructions on the page to a completion. SIMPLE - easy to follow logic. Try not to think too hard about this.... haha

 

In other words: A cache is a listing on geocaching.com and you can log it as a find when you complete the instructions of that cache page.

Edited by Frank Broughton
Link to comment

 

I would hate to think they are at work wasting company IT resources.

 

Or worse yet. They work for some poor company with a stock at a 52 week low and about to get squashed by the competition.

 

and that is any of your concern how?

 

 

Should you guys get a room?

 

I sure hope they are on vacation.

 

I would hate to think they are at work wasting company IT resources.

 

Or worse yet. They work for some poor company with a stock at a 52 week low and about to get squashed by the competition.

 

+1

 

Tequila, can I now borrow season 2 of Seinfeld?

 

 

You sure can. I have moved on to classic episodes of The Twilight Zone. :)

 

.

 

i guess it applies in more than one case

 

 

Should you guys get a room?

 

maybe this thread needs to take a "rest" for a while...its gone off topic long time ago and there is not much useful stuff to be learned

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Wrong! A cache is a single listing on the site and can be of many different types, some having containers to log and some not.

 

 

no, you're wrong...i said it before in this thread but got lost in the noise...if the cache is the listing why don't you log a find when you find the listing rather than going out and signing the log? by that theory armchair logging should be allowed to stand

 

Hardly, your reasoning makes zero sense. You log a find when you look up a cache page and follow the instructions on the page to a completion. SIMPLE - easy to follow logic. Try not to think too hard about this.... haha

 

In other words: A cache is a listing on geocaching.com and you can log it as a find when you complete the instructions of that cache page.

close enough

 

In simple terms geocaching.com is a website whose members post challenges to other members. When you complete the challenge as specified you can log a find (or attended or photo taken) log on the listing page. The one thing common to all the challenges that you go to the coordinates posted (or in the case of mystery caches, the coordinates that you determine from working a puzzle or by some other means). Once at the location the challenge may involve some other actions. For physical geocaches this usually includes finding a cache container and signing the physical log in it. Colloquially at least any challenge that requires you to go to some place using the GPS coordinates is called a geocache. I suspect the new challenges will be called geocaches as well. Since originally challenges all involved finding a physical geocache, it seems reasonable to divide these from the challenge that do not involve a physical cache. But I don't think playing semantic games over the word cache is necessary. It's simple enough to refer to physical geocaches and non-physical geocaches. (Non-physical caches include Events, EarthCaches, webcam caches, virtual caches, the new challenges, and others).

 

Now for a long time, Groundspeak acted purely as a listing service, they did not get involved in saying what the challenges could be. But over time they have added more and more guidelines that restrict what kinds of challenges cache owners can have.

 

When there were only traditional type physical cache, it seemed almost obvious that the challenge was to find the container and that finders could be trusted on the honor system to log a find only when they had found the container. There turned out to be two problems with this.

 

First was that any honor system on the internet will be abused sooner or later. People started logging that they found the cache when they didn't. Worse were those that logged finds when they hadn't even searched for a cache. The solution was to make the cache owner responsible for the quality of posts to the cache page. The owners were told to delete logs that were bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

This led directly to the second problem. Once cache owners could delete logs they could create all kinds of challenges beyond simply finding the container. This was good in that it opened up all kinds of non-physical geocache challenges. But it also allowed for what came to be know as additional logging requirements. With the advent of paperless geocaching, there was a demand to make physical caches that had additional logging requirements their own cache type. That way, people who had only the coordinates in their GPS wouldn't go find the container only later discover there was an additional challenge that they didn't want to do. ALR caches weren't given their own type, but the guidelines were changed to require they be listed as mystery/unknown type caches.

 

But this didn't solve the problem (and perhaps made it worse as it encourage more ALR caches). In an effort to out challenge each other a few ALRs were suggested that Groundspeak and the reviewers felt were not appropriate to the game. The reviewers did not want to be in the position of having to determine which challenges were appropriate and which weren't. So they led the charge to remove ALRs altogether. At the time, Groundspeak decided to allow a limited number of ALRs for geocaching related challenges, but to fundamentally change the guidelines so that if a challenge didn't fall in the exception of a geocaching related challenge, any additional logging requirement was nullified. Note that this change only applied to physical geocaches.

 

Challenges on non-physical caches have also been restricted over the years. Best known are some restrictions on what an EarthCache owner can ask for. For some the EarthCache guidelines are controversial because they make it difficult to get proof that a cacher actual visited the EarthCache location. The restriction on challenges for events are more subtle. By changing the event log to 'attended', it seems you only need to show up at an event to log it. I suspect there have been events where logs got deleted because the sign-in sheet wasn't signed or because a cachers didn't contribute the pot luck, but I would wager that today Groundspeak would restore these attended logs.

 

The new challenges seem to restore the ability of cache owners to have additional logging requirements though these will be one non-physical caches for now (or perhaps you could list a challenge co-located with a physical cache) The challenges are clearer that the original rules for virtuals in that these are challenges you do at the posted location. However, since challenge owners will enforce this rule, I'd give it one day before someone list a "locationless" challenge. I'm also curious as to what the plan is to prevent challenges that are deemed inappropriate to the game as some ALRs were. If I were cynical (and I might be in this case), I would venture that Groundspeak expects challenges to fail for the same reasons as virtuals and ALRs did. Then they can say "See we were right to ban these in the first place".

Link to comment

I think I don't get it.

 

After what I've seen so far in the challenges, they don't come near anything that has to do with geocaching. They should be done at the location specified ? What location ?

All but one I've read so far were like 'make a picture of you with this or that' not related to any specific location (except, as said, one I've encountered so far: NY ground zero)

 

Although new virtuals are not accepted anymore, nor are webcams, due to the saying: they are on Waymarking.com, they are still logged. To me, this is a sign that there's still interest for those type of caches.

Now, if you look at Waymarking.com, which is a seperate website, you'll discover that it is not that active as gc.com. No wonder, some people don't even know about it, and YET, they still have things in common: location being the most important of all.

 

Challenges could have been a thrill, if they were strictly bound to locations, which is, after my first impressions, not the case.

You don't seem even to start up your GPS to do them, chair-sitting geocaching ? Nah, thanks.

Link to comment
I think "Challenge Caches" is a poor choice in naming (or maybe a poor concept), so I don't really care if there is some initial confusion about the difference between the replacement for virtuals, called "Challenges," and the "challenge cache."

 

You really don't care? I find that very sad. Is geocaching really just a technical activity to you, and nothing to do with the people?

 

You seem to have the idea that you can redefine a word that people have been using, and that people will just drift to your meaning. In the entire history of language, attempts to control the way people use words have never worked. NEVER! Ten years from now, we will still be seeing the confusion between challenges and challenge caches (unless gc.com just decides to get rid of challenge caches to dictate how people use the word). Grammar book authors have been making rules for how words are used for centuries, and 95% of the population still ignores them; their primary legacy has been innumerable arguments over what is "right" and "wrong" in usage. You won't do any better. You started knowing you were creating a confusion but thinking that people would just learn to use the terms the way you do. You were right about the confusion but wrong about being able to make people change their language.

 

I also agree that the "challenge cache" is an abused form of the former ALR, or "additional logging requirements." It makes very little sense to restrict a cache find in this way, especially since a geocacher can accomplish many of the tasks on the opposite side of the world but could never find this particular cache.

 

The fact that challenge caches can be abused should not be used to denigrate them, as you appear to be doing. Traditional caches can be abused too -- should we avoid all traditional caches because some are abused?

 

I agree that a challenge cache should relate to its geographical area. The two challenge caches I've placed are intimately related to their location, and the prerequisites cannot be met anywhere else. One of them is even self-referential: it would be part of its own prerequisites except that would make it impossible.

 

At the same time, IN PRACTICE many caches with prerequisites which could be satisfied anywhere, in fact are mostly done locally. For example, "lonely hearts" caches (prerequisite is to find caches at 1-12 month intervals from previous finders) are in my observation generally found by people in the local area. Sure, the prerequisite could be tightened to allow qualifying finds only on caches within say 100 miles, but in practice that doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

Furthermore, some challenge caches actively support other caches. The Lonely Hearts challenge caches are a good example: they encourage people to find caches which aren't on the general radar.

 

So at least challenge caches are in practice usually location-tied. By contrast, Worldwide Challenges are by definition not location-tied at all! Yes, there was a strong desire to bring back virtual caches (not shared by yours truly, but widely shared), but I saw little interest in bringing back locationless caches. So while you decry the location-weak nature of some challenge caches, you reinstate a far less popular version of locationless caches. What's the point?

 

Edward

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...
×
×
  • Create New...