Jump to content

Challenges


cb82
Followers 9

Recommended Posts

I find some challenges unfair by their restrictions. I also agree that they are nothing more that ALS's which have been allowed by using the puzzle/unknown icon and including the word challenge. I owned two of my own and archived them be cause I came to believe that they were indeed not fair to everyone which caching should be. As for finding the cache, signing the log book, and not being able to claim a find because of someone's over restrictive rules, I would love to see challenges moved to their own area and treat existing ones as what they really are, another cache with ALR. This way any cache that show's up on the radar is there for all to find.

Normal caches are inherently unfair. Some require equipment or physical skills that not all posses. Should these be archived to bring the denominator down? Some require electronics that not everyone owns. Should these be archived as not being fair? Some require puzzle solving skills that not all posses. Should these be archived because they are not fair? Why single out the conventional challenge caches?

 

Exactly

 

I don't own a boat, so boating caches are unfair.

 

Sure, I could rent a boat, but my Geocaching membership and battery purchases leave no available funds for that.

 

Heck, with a wife and 3 kids I can't even afford a pair of shoes so any cache that I can not log from my sofa should be archived.

 

Sheesh, why don't people just find the thousands of caches they can instead of bitching about the few they can't?

Link to comment

I've probably missed a thread somewhere, but can someone point me in the direction where this proposal for Challenges is tied in with the proposal to bring back Virtuals? When I first saw this, I thought it was limited to just Challenge caches.

 

The return of Virtuals Will you be able to adopt the old ones?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=269023&st=50&p=4783350&

 

 

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

 

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

 

Some points:

 

  • It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  • Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  • It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  • We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

 

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

 

i still don't see where it says challenge caches are the new virtuals :blink:

Link to comment

I've probably missed a thread somewhere, but can someone point me in the direction where this proposal for Challenges is tied in with the proposal to bring back Virtuals? When I first saw this, I thought it was limited to just Challenge caches.

 

The return of Virtuals Will you be able to adopt the old ones?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=269023&st=50&p=4783350&

 

 

In the UserVoice updates I never said that virtuals were coming back in their previous form, but instead something would be available that should capture the interest in virtuals without the baggage (such as the subjective review process).

 

To me, this is the most exciting project that we've worked on in years, but it will take some time to iterate through the idea and I know we'll get some things wrong, but the framework is solid. We'll be investing a substantial amount of effort with this project moving forward.

 

Some points:

 

  • It will be on Geocaching.com, not a new web site. It will be a separate section in the beta, but I expect it to be integrated into a joined search at some point.
  • Currently they will not go towards your find count, but it might at some point. It won't at the beginning though.
  • It will be a visible statistic, so you will see them on the profile, on the logs, etc.
  • We'll be hopefully launching with mobile applications to compliment the activity. I expect that the majority of participants will be using smartphones, but we will have components (Pocket Queries, GPX file downloads, etc) for traditional GPS devices.

 

For the comments that we should involve the community more, we do. We don't have a public discussion about it, instead working with a smaller sampling of geocachers.

 

i still don't see where it says challenge caches are the new virtuals :blink:

 

Exactly.

 

The premise was that the virtuals were being "replaced" by Challenges.

 

I can't find any connection between the new Challenges and the old Challenge Caches, except for names.

 

I can't find anywhere except this thread where the idea of Challenge Caches being "rolled into" the Challenges.

 

It would be mighty nice if an official clarification were posted, wouldn't it?

 

It's pretty silly not to just tell us what's going on, since "Challenges" are supposed to be rolled out in 12 days.

Link to comment

I find some challenges unfair by their restrictions. I also agree that they are nothing more that ALS's which have been allowed by using the puzzle/unknown icon and including the word challenge. I owned two of my own and archived them be cause I came to believe that they were indeed not fair to everyone which caching should be. As for finding the cache, signing the log book, and not being able to claim a find because of someone's over restrictive rules, I would love to see challenges moved to their own area and treat existing ones as what they really are, another cache with ALR. This way any cache that show's up on the radar is there for all to find.

Well then you would think that a puzzle cache that requires a metal detector and the skill to properly use it so that you can acquire the coords would be unfair.

Or one that requires the knowledge for making a plastic key.

How about instead of a cache that requires you to find 101 caches in a day it requires you to find letters in 101 specific caches and arrange them in the correct order?

Instead of logging a cache that requires you to find 1 of any cache you want in every county of Michigan it requires you to find a number in a specific cache in every county then do a complex mathematical calculation and all 83 just happen to be 5/5.

OH oh I got a good one. To get the coords you have to find 10 TBs each with a part of the coords. Only problem if for each one of those TBs 5 with the TB number but not the coord info have also been released as decoys.

:rolleyes: Sure seems less unfair than caching 50 days in a row even though it should take a huluva lot longer. :rolleyes:

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

Wow some many replies to respond to. I will reply to them all with one post.

 

I didn't say challenge caches should be archived. I said that I find some of them unfair by their restrictions. These restrictions are nothing more than an ALR with an exemption. The biggest difference between an challenge cache and any other cache is that anyone can log a find on a cache as long as the cache does not have an ALR. Currently only challenge, virtual, and earth caches have the ALR exemption. Earth and virtual caches are open to anyone because for the most part you just have to go there and answer some questions or post a picture to prove you where there. If I go with my family or a team, one person can answer the question for all. A challenge on the other hand is so different. Only people that have completed the requirements can claim a find. if one member of a group has a boat and invites others to join him to visit a 5/5 traditional cache, then they all get a find. Not true for challenges.

 

The statement that there are plenty of other caches out there does not negate the fact that in my opinion some challenges are not fair to everyone. Any challenge that uses a date restriction for example has an impact that affects different cachers. I can understand the date restriction is to prevent "cheating". That restricting impacts newer cachers because they can't find an archived cached that old cachers may have found. Looking at 81 combinations of difficulty and terrain as an example. If the restriction is to prevent cheating then the assumption is that any new cache can not be trusted because it is only being placed to help people get the challenge and may be rated incorrectly. The flaw in this is that the difficulty and terrain is subjective. To claim that any new placement is any more or less accurate than ones placed before the date is assuming that all caches before the date have been rated correctly. If any are to be excluded that that is the opinion of the challenge owner and may not be agreed by others seeking the challenge, the owner of the excluded cache, or previous finders of the excluded cache.

 

These subjective issues are one of the reason ALR's were gotten rid of. As I said before. If challenges are moving to an new area and existing challenges have their ALR exemption revoked, I would love to see that. I will have to wait and see what happens.

 

This is of course all guessing as we have to wait and see what this is all about.

Edited by Keith Watson
Link to comment
I can't find any connection between the new Challenges and the old Challenge Caches, except for names.

 

I can't find anywhere except this thread where the idea of Challenge Caches being "rolled into" the Challenges.

 

Correct. But if you think about it, the name is exactly what suggests that some concepts of challenge caches might get integrated into the new challenges. Or they might just as well not be (in which case it's just a poor choice of naming), we don't know. Pure speculation.

Link to comment

Comparing a puzzle to a challenge is not exactly a fair comparison though. You can bribe someone to give you the coordinates to a puzzle. You can stumble across a puzzle while searching for an area to hide a cache. You can be caching with someone else who has solved the puzzle. In all of those cases, if you sign the log you can claim your "Found it".

So you don't like challenges because there's no way for you to do the least amount of work possible to get your smiley? :huh:

 

Being the puritan that I am :rolleyes: I feel if I find a cache and sign the log I should get credit for it.

Why must you find every cache?

Link to comment

I find some challenges unfair by their restrictions.

Most people can accept the fact that if they show up late to the game they may have missed some aspect of it. I can't get the locationless icon and the APE icon will take me a lot more money and time that people who started geocaching before me but I don't complain about it.

 

It's the same thing for certain challenge caches that have hard to obtain qualifications if you started late.

Link to comment

A challenge on the other hand is so different. Only people that have completed the requirements can claim a find. if one member of a group has a boat and invites others to join him to visit a 5/5 traditional cache, then they all get a find. Not true for challenges.

But what if someone doesn't know anyone with a boat? Is that 5/5 traditional fair to them? They have to now rent a boat, take a safety course and get their operator card to be able to find that cache.

 

Or how about a cache that involves mountain climbing. Not everyone can physically do that. Is that fair to them?

 

I don't know how to scuba. Are scuba caches fair to me?

 

I still don't understand while people think that every cache must be doable by everyone.

 

The statement that there are plenty of other caches out there does not negate the fact that in my opinion some challenges are not fair to everyone.

So why must all cache be fair to everyone? As I wrote above there are plenty of non challenge caches that are not "fair" to everyone.

 

If challenges are moving to an new area and existing challenges have their ALR exemption revoked, I would love to see that. I will have to wait and see what happens.

I'd bet most challenge cache owners would archive their challenges rather than turn them into traditionals. So what would that have accomplished?

Link to comment

But if you think about it, the name is exactly what suggests that some concepts of challenge caches might get integrated into the new challenges. Or they might just as well not be (in which case it's just a poor choice of naming), we don't know. Pure speculation.

I'm just wondering how they're going to control how many challenges get created. If it's all online then what stops everyone from creating dozens of challenges? That could potentially create a list of thousands of challenges to choose from which I believe would make the whole thing pointless as there would be very few people working on the same challenge. But like you said, pure speculation.

 

I like the fact that challenges are tied to caches as that puts a slight "barrier to entry" for those putting them out. That and it gets the same group of local cachers working on the same challenge which I think makes it more fun.

Link to comment

Here's a idea. Those of you who dislike/hate challenge caches tell me what you think.

 

What if Groundspeak made challenge caches their own type with a different icon. If you found the cache and logged a "Found It" it would count in your stats as a traditional. But if you met the requirements of the challenge you'd log a new "Found and Completed" log type which would give you the new icon in your stats instead.

 

Would that make everyone happy?

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment
I can't find any connection between the new Challenges and the old Challenge Caches, except for names.

 

I can't find anywhere except this thread where the idea of Challenge Caches being "rolled into" the Challenges.

 

Correct. But if you think about it, the name is exactly what suggests that some concepts of challenge caches might get integrated into the new challenges. Or they might just as well not be (in which case it's just a poor choice of naming), we don't know. Pure speculation.

 

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." The use of "challenge" is appropriate in the context of the replacement for virtuals, so that's what it is. It is my belief that the large majority of geocachers don't even know what a challenge cache is.

 

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. This needs to be dealt with, but shouldn't be in the context of this new activity, and it won't be restricted at the same time this new activity is launched, or because this new activity is launched.

Link to comment

A challenge on the other hand is so different. Only people that have completed the requirements can claim a find. if one member of a group has a boat and invites others to join him to visit a 5/5 traditional cache, then they all get a find. Not true for challenges.

But what if someone doesn't know anyone with a boat? Is that 5/5 traditional fair to them? They have to now rent a boat, take a safety course and get their operator card to be able to find that cache.

 

Or how about a cache that involves mountain climbing. Not everyone can physically do that. Is that fair to them?

 

I don't know how to scuba. Are scuba caches fair to me?

 

I still don't understand while people think that every cache must be doable by everyone.

 

The statement that there are plenty of other caches out there does not negate the fact that in my opinion some challenges are not fair to everyone.

So why must all cache be fair to everyone? As I wrote above there are plenty of non challenge caches that are not "fair" to everyone.

 

If challenges are moving to an new area and existing challenges have their ALR exemption revoked, I would love to see that. I will have to wait and see what happens.

I'd bet most challenge cache owners would archive their challenges rather than turn them into traditionals. So what would that have accomplished?

 

Still not the same thing, you are clouding the point I was trying to make with other unrelated examples. Another example would be a cache that previously had an ALR that you had to climb a tree to claim a find. No proof, no find. After the ALR's were revoke for most caches this requirement was no longer binding. After that a group of cachers go out and one team member climb the tree and signs everyone's name in while the rest sit on the ground and watch. Only one cacher fulfilled the requirements for the cache yet all the others get credit for it. That is basically the same as a single cacher walking up to the bottom of the tree, seeing the cache, and claiming it as a find with the only difference being in the first case someone else signed their name. Is that fair to everyone, no.

 

Now take that step one further. A cacher decides they need a cache for a challenge and it is up a tree. They bring their friends along and one of the friends climbs the tree while the cacher that needs the find for a challenge stands on the ground and watches. They get their smiley and then goes on to claim a find on the challenge. I don;t think that is fair to ohers that have completed every required cache for the challenge as they were intended to be completed. That would also be the same a walking across a golf course to get a cache that is meant to found by boat and using that to complete a challenge.

Link to comment

The statement that there are plenty of other caches out there does not negate the fact that in my opinion some challenges are not fair to everyone.

So why must all cache be fair to everyone? As I wrote above there are plenty of non challenge caches that are not "fair" to everyone.

 

IMO, the difference comes from natural/physical requirements vs. made-up, artificial, virtual requirements.

 

A cache that's at the bottom of the ocean is at the bottom of the ocean. It just is what it is. If you can get to it somehow and sign in, then you found it, or if you can get someone else to sign you in or whatever. But we are, after all, geocaching, so it's all about the cache and its location. If it's down there, then it's down there.

 

Challenge caches on the other hand have some made-up requirements attached to them that have nothing to do with the cache itself. Sure, they're geocaching-related, and in most cases will make you go find some caches (if you choose to play along), but other than that they're purely arbitrary and so is the connection between them and the cache. Kinda like virtual caches, purely made-up stuff that doesn't really exist. (See? On-topic! :anitongue:)

 

Not that I have a problem with challenge caches, some of them can be fun to do (while other are pretty stupid). I can see the point though.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
I can't find any connection between the new Challenges and the old Challenge Caches, except for names.

 

I can't find anywhere except this thread where the idea of Challenge Caches being "rolled into" the Challenges.

 

Correct. But if you think about it, the name is exactly what suggests that some concepts of challenge caches might get integrated into the new challenges. Or they might just as well not be (in which case it's just a poor choice of naming), we don't know. Pure speculation.

 

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." The use of "challenge" is appropriate in the context of the replacement for virtuals, so that's what it is. It is my belief that the large majority of geocachers don't even know what a challenge cache is.

 

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. This needs to be dealt with, but shouldn't be in the context of this new activity, and it won't be restricted at the same time this new activity is launched, or because this new activity is launched.

 

Cool, thanks for the information.

Link to comment

Still not the same thing, you are clouding the point I was trying to make with other unrelated examples. Another example would be a cache that previously had an ALR that you had to climb a tree to claim a find. No proof, no find. After the ALR's were revoke for most caches this requirement was no longer binding. After that a group of cachers go out and one team member climb the tree and signs everyone's name in while the rest sit on the ground and watch. Only one cacher fulfilled the requirements for the cache yet all the others get credit for it. That is basically the same as a single cacher walking up to the bottom of the tree, seeing the cache, and claiming it as a find with the only difference being in the first case someone else signed their name. Is that fair to everyone, no.

 

Now take that step one further. A cacher decides they need a cache for a challenge and it is up a tree. They bring their friends along and one of the friends climbs the tree while the cacher that needs the find for a challenge stands on the ground and watches. They get their smiley and then goes on to claim a find on the challenge. I don;t think that is fair to ohers that have completed every required cache for the challenge as they were intended to be completed. That would also be the same a walking across a golf course to get a cache that is meant to found by boat and using that to complete a challenge.

I think you are clouding your own point. How is an individual or group attempting to cheat their way around a challenge the fault of the CO?

How does that effect you?

How does it make it unfair to everyone else?

A challenge cache is no more unfair than say a transatlantic multi.

I'll tell you that there is only one cache that is unfair. A cache that is changed to pander to the lowest.

Link to comment

How is an individual or group attempting to cheat their way around a challenge the fault of the CO?

 

I didn't say it was the fault of the owner. It is the ALR on the challenge that can be unfair.

 

How does that effect you?

How does it make it unfair to everyone else?

 

Simple. Person A does not climb a tree for a qualifying cache because they are afraid of heights. Person A can't claim a find on the challenge. Person B who is also afraid of heights gets his buddy to climb for him. Person B gets to claim a find on the challenge. That doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Anyways, Jeremy gave me what I was looking for, so I'm satisfied.

Link to comment

Being the puritan that I am :rolleyes: I feel if I find a cache and sign the log I should get credit for it.

Why must you find every cache?

That's not what I said. I said that if I find a cache and sign the log, I should be allowed to log a find online for the cache. Tying the online find log to some silly requirement is silly. Finding a cache means going out and finding a container (and for puritans signing the log). The idea of a geocaching challenge seems like a nice extension to geocaching. Those who are not interested in these challenges can ignore them, while those who like them can track them and get some kind of credit when completing them. Given the current setup, it's the ability to log the cache that you get for completing the challenge. If there was a separate way to track the challenges you have completed, then you wouldn't need to have challenge caches and you would need to prevent people who find a cache from logging it online.

Link to comment

How is an individual or group attempting to cheat their way around a challenge the fault of the CO?

I didn't say it was the fault of the owner. It is the ALR on the challenge that can be unfair.

The CO placed the ALR so yes you did in fact say it is the fault of the CO.

How does that effect you?

How does it make it unfair to everyone else?

 

Simple. Person A does not climb a tree for a qualifying cache because they are afraid of heights. Person A can't claim a find on the challenge. Person B who is also afraid of heights gets his buddy to climb for him. Person B gets to claim a find on the challenge. That doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Anyways, Jeremy gave me what I was looking for, so I'm satisfied.

That isn't unfair. That's like saying that it is unfair that a person cant be a fireperson because they fear fire so they should be hired anyway.

Or it is unfair that a person with a heart condition is to afraid to enter a haunted house so haunted houses should be banned.

 

Using the example of unfair you gave me on traditional caches:

Scuba caches are unfair because some people are afraid of water.

Cliff face caches are unfair because some people are afraid of heights.

Off trail caches are unfair because some people fear leaving the trail.

LPCs are unfair because some people fear stinging insects.

Caches located in Detroit are unfair because many, and I do mean MANY people fear Detroit.

 

But I am sure that if you reread your example you will see that what you are saying is...

It isn't the CO or their ALR that is unfair, it is the cacher that cheats the ALR that is unfair.

The problem is they are not being unfair to anyone but the CO by their deceptive practices.

I'll concede that they are being unfair to other cachers but only if all parties involved are knowingly in competition with each other.

Besides Person A can always find someone to go up that tree. Unless they are anthropophobic.

 

Let me guess, all the event types are unfair to people with anthropophobia.

Link to comment

Only people that have completed the requirements can claim a find. if one member of a group has a boat and invites others to join him to visit a 5/5 traditional cache, then they all get a find. Not true for challenges.

Some people know someone who has a boat and can claim a find.

Some people don't know someone who has a boat and don't have one themselves and can't claim a find.

You have no problem with this.

 

Simple. Person A does not climb a tree for a qualifying cache because they are afraid of heights. Person A can't claim a find on the challenge. Person B who is also afraid of heights gets his buddy to climb for him. Person B gets to claim a find on the challenge. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Some people know someone who can climb a tree and can claim a find.

Some people don't know someone who can climb a tree and can't climb it themselves and can't claim a find.

You have a problem with this.

 

What if your boat example was a prerequisite as well. Does that now make it unfair? What I'm saying is that if a challenge with a prerequisite that a person can't get is unfair it means that the prerequisite is unfair as well.

 

Ironically, the banned ALRs would have prevented your tree climbing unfairness (ie post a picture with you up in the tree to claim a find).

Link to comment

Sadly the point is getting lost in all the dissections. I don't need to prove what others already know and accept. I happen to think that Jeremy summed it up quite nicely and will wait to see what precipitates from that.

Jeremy only seemed to sum up the fact that it is unfair to me as the CO that I can not make it easy for someone on the other side of the world to get credit for completing my challenge.

 

Maybe I should be allowed to own a virtual where 101 caches in 24 hours is the logging requirement so that there is nothing at the location to find and it does not interfere with the placement of another cache.

 

I honestly believe that what Groundspeak should do is create a "Task Cache" type that will allow the CO one of two options.

Option 1 for non location specific tasks, no container needed. Example: 101 find in 24 hours or less.

Option 2 for location specific tasks, coords are only revealed after claimant verification. Example: minimum 1 find in every county of the caches home state.

 

I don't do challenge caches because that would require me to log caches, and it wouldn't pain me to see mine gone, but I think there is a place for having to complete a task before logging a cache. Even if it is technically only a virtual extension.

Link to comment

What gets lost in the debate over ALRs is that challenge caches add a different dimension to the game. So, while my knickers are not in a twist...perhaps Groundspeak can address how challenges can be implemented, instead of opining as to how they shouldn't have been?

 

Several suggestions surrounding Challenges have been suggested on the feedback forums. My feeling from the opinions expressed here is that you, at HQ aren't in fact figuring out how to best implement challenges, but rather are of the opinion that you need to fix an issue. Shame...seems like an opportunity wasted.

Link to comment

It gets so much easier to get over "Challenge Caches" when a cacher ceases to be a "Radius Slave". I find the most angst comes when some cacher has a challenge they cannot (or will not) qualify for as their closest unfound.

 

Thanks to the ridiculous one-upmanship of ridiculous challenge caches that has exploded across my local caching area I dropped the radius slave aspect years ago. If I like a challenge, I go for it. If I don't like it, I don't bother with it. But I'm not about to go ranting in the forums that challenge X should never have been published because of some perceived unfairness quotient. I have blasted CO's for placing a film canister to find at the end, but I've also had sit down discussions with them and understand their point (it was a micro so people wouldn't drop a TB in there to be trapped).

 

Like so many others, I don't SCUBA. I'm not willing to drive to California for one smiley, or book a flight to Brazil for one icon. I just find some other interesting cache and visit it.

Groundspeak provides ample filtering methods to find a cache you may enjoy, just go out and visit it.

 

I for one am intrigued by this new Challenge/Virtual concept, and I'm looking forward to kicking the tires after Groundspeak's "Block Party".

Link to comment

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

 

This should be 'stickied' and posted as a thread on its own.

Link to comment

Comparing a puzzle to a challenge is not exactly a fair comparison though. You can bribe someone to give you the coordinates to a puzzle. You can stumble across a puzzle while searching for an area to hide a cache. You can be caching with someone else who has solved the puzzle. In all of those cases, if you sign the log you can claim your "Found it".

So you don't like challenges because there's no way for you to do the least amount of work possible to get your smiley? :huh:

Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with work, it has to do with the fair and equal application of the fundamentals of geocaching that says if you sign the log you have, indeed, found the cache. It has to do with the fact that Groundspeak themselves banned ALRs yet left this challenge cache exemption. The amount of work done to meet any challenge is the same.

Being the puritan that I am :rolleyes: I feel if I find a cache and sign the log I should get credit for it.

Why must you find every cache?

I know this wasn't my quote you responded to, but since I agree with Toz I'll reply anyway.

 

No one is advocating the finding of every cache. Whenever the subject of challenge caches comes up, people like to draw comparisons to high Terrain caches such as mountain tops or underwater caches and say not everyone needs to find every cache.

 

Fundamentally I agree -- not every cache can be found by everyone. However, a challenge cache is the equivalent of saying "You found my underwater cache by using SCUBA, I'm deleting your log because you didn't hold your breath and dive for it unaided." or "You rented a helicopter and got my cache on the summit so you didn't find it the way I wanted you to."

 

No one yet can explain to me why, if you hide a box and I find it and sign the log I should not be allowed to claim it as a Find.

Link to comment
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. This needs to be dealt with, but shouldn't be in the context of this new activity, and it won't be restricted at the same time this new activity is launched, or because this new activity is launched.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

OK, this has never happened to me on the forums before, but since this is coming from the man himself...

 

"I think that answer is acceptable and I have nothing else I could possibly add to it. I'm going back to just lurking in this thread." :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

No one yet can explain to me why, if you hide a box and I find it and sign the log I should not be allowed to claim it as a Find.

Personal fortitude and complying with the wishes of the cache owner perhaps?

 

CO puts out a cache as a little something extra or reward for people who have met a certain criteria. If the CO wanted their cache to be simply a traditional cache that was for any and all cachers they probably would have simply put out a traditional cache. But they didn't and their intent and wishes about who this cache is for and who they are hoping will log it are quite clear.

 

Some people however don't seem to care what the wishes are of the CO. I don't know if it is a sense of entitlement or they are just self-centered or what exactly drives them to disregard the wishes of the person who put the cache in play. But they don't seem to care and are only concerned with getting their 'smiley'.

 

Along these same lines, sometimes a cache will be placed on the property of the CO. The CO asks that people do not seek this cache between the hours of 9pm and 6am. But sadly people again will disregard the clear wishes of the CO and search for the cache at 1am.

 

Be it a request to have accomplished a challenge or a request to only visit a location at a certain time of day the only polite response to me would be to either comply with the simple request of the CO or simply choose a different cache to try and find.

Link to comment

Quite a few challenge caches that I have seen have two components to the qualification that I see. The first is the basic qualification. The second is an additional qualification that dictates how the first qualification must be met. An example would be 81 combinations.

 

1) To claim a find on this cache, you will need to first find at least one cache of every difficulty/terrain combination (81 unique combinations/caches).

2) must be on caches that were published before this cache (to avoid 'dummy qualifying caches' being listed just to meet the requirements)

3) The only exceptions are CITO or EVENT caches with a D/T of 2/2 or less. Because these are short-lived you may log these after the published date to earn the qualifying icons.

 

I can understand the first as this is the challenge. It makes perfect sense.

 

The third part is the one I don't think should be allowed. Why are some cache types exempt from the date restriction yet limited to specific d/t ranges?

 

As for the date restriction, who cares when the caches were published. Does the date a cache place guarantee it is rated correctly? I don't think so.

 

I my opinion if someone find all 81 combinations they qualify. The rest is imposed by the owner to control what caches can be used and even more what d/t ratings can be used for specific cache types. Why is someone else given the power to tell someone that the caches they find are lass worthy than caches someone else has found.

 

I have heard now over and over that everyone doesn't "need" to find every cache. I have also heard over and over that everyone plays the game their own way. Geocaching is great that for the most part everyone can play their own way with the exceptions of some challenges. For those, cachers attempting to find them are forced to play someone else's way.

 

I know this from personal experience. I had two challenge caches that we both archived by me because I felt the ALR's on them were not fair to everyone. When I first placed them I had others voice this two me and over time I came to the conclusion that they were right. Believe what ever you want, it is your choice.

 

If anyone believes so strongly that all challenge caches are fair to everyone, give me compelling evidence that your are right. Anyone can call others names, label them, and give outrageous examples of why someone else is wrong. Here is you chance to prove you are right.

Link to comment

 

If anyone believes so strongly that all challenge caches are fair to everyone, give me compelling evidence that your are right. Anyone can call others names, label them, and give outrageous examples of why someone else is wrong. Here is you chance to prove you are right.

 

You set up an impossible argument. There are no cache types that are 100% fair to 100% of cachers.

You may enjoy caches that come closer to that '100% fairness' goal then other caches. I may enjoy caches that you feel are far from 'fair'. Is it 'fair' of you to try deny me the cache type I enjoy? I am not trying to deny you the type of caches you enjoy, I just think that there is plenty of room for all kinds of caches.

 

You don't like the requirements given for a particular challenge cache. I can't really find fault in that because I am sure there are some challenge caches that I would not agree with all the requirements either.

However you seem to be advocating that in the name of 'fairness' that your opinion on what a proper requirement for a challenge cache is should over-ride the cache owners opinion. That, to me does not seem 'fair'.

The CO is supposed to show that meeting the challenge requirements is possible (this is normally done by the CO having already met the challenge requirements) so how is it 'fair' for you not to need to meet those same requirements? Especially when you have the option to not do the cache at all.

Link to comment
You set up an impossible argument. There are no cache types that are 100% fair to 100% of cachers.

Actually, I do believe that all non-challenge caches are 100% fair to everybody. Everybody has to go through the same trouble to get each cache. Not everybody may be equally capable of doing that, but that's not a problem of the cache itself, it's a problem of each individual cacher. Somebody in a wheelchair can't do that T4 cache. That's not because that cache is unfair, it's because they just can't do it.

 

The example cited by Keith (I know which one it is) is different though. The more time passes, the more difficult it gets, because qualifying caches are continuously disappearing. Somebody who starts caching today, and who starts working on the challenge today, will have it much harder than somebody who did it 3 years ago, because there's just less caches to choose from. Eventually the last qualifying cache for a certain D/T combination will be gone, and at this point it will be impossible to complete the challenge. Clear proof that it's not fair to everybody, because somebody who hasn't completed it yet, then has no chance to ever do so. So different people have to go through different levels of trouble (and it's increasing), not because not everybody is equally capable, but only because the requirements are modeled that way. In other words, somebody has to be more capable today to finish it than somebody 3 years ago.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

well, at least we know that the new "challenges" are not going to be used in the "challenge cache" as we know them. I know many many many cachers who like challenge caches. In fact, at least in my state, I think most folks with 1000s of finds know them and like at least some if not many of them. However, I was certainly already aware that Jeremy does not care for them, and obviously his opinion matters more than mine. I seriously doubt there will EVER be a unique icon for them and to be honest, I can understand that given all the variety of challenge caches out there already and the work it would take to convert the ones that meet any definition.

 

Do I think some challenge caches are not the best? Yes. Do I think its good to throw them all out because of a few bad seeds. No, if I did that, then you could make the same argument for a few useless earth caches, many crappy traditionals, etc etc.

 

Well, anyway, this thread is about "challenges" or the new virtual thing, so will shut up about challenge caches on this thread since its been clearly stated now the two are not going to be intermixed.

Link to comment

The more time passes, the more difficult it gets, because qualifying caches are continuously disappearing. Somebody who starts caching today, and who starts working on the challenge today, will have it much harder than somebody who did it 3 years ago, because there's just less caches to choose from. Eventually the last qualifying cache for a certain D/T combination will be gone, and at this point it will be impossible to complete the challenge. Clear proof that it's not fair to everybody, because somebody who hasn't completed it yet, then has no chance to ever do so. So different people have to go through different levels of trouble (and it's increasing), not because not everybody is equally capable, but only because the requirements are modeled that way.

I understand what you are saying...but..

It is not the fault of the challenge cache that Keith decided to start it late in the caches lifecycle. It is not the challenge caches fault that qualifying caches not owned by the CO have been archived. Just like it is not the T4's fault I am too out of shape to make the 5 mile hike to find it.

 

I feel the pain of watching caches I need for various grid challenges get archived before I have gotten around to finding them. To me that doesn't make the challenge unfair but more of I missed my chance to fulfill it. But there are plenty of other challenge caches for me to work on and there is nothing 'forcing' me to get them all.

 

There can also be a certain satisfaction to completing a challenge when it has gotten more difficult.

 

However, once it becomes impossible to complete a challenge cache (due to zero qualifying caches for a particular requirement) then I think the CO should archive it.

Link to comment

Is it 'fair' of you to try deny me the cache type I enjoy? I am not trying to deny you the type of caches you enjoy,

 

However you seem to be advocating that in the name of 'fairness' that your opinion on what a proper requirement for a challenge cache is should over-ride the cache owners opinion.

 

I am not trying to deny anybody of finding caches they enjoy. I am not demanding any cache be archived. I am advocating that all caches be fair to everyone.

Link to comment
It is not the fault of the challenge cache that Keith decided to start it late in the caches lifecycle. It is not the challenge caches fault that qualifying caches not owned by the CO have been archived. Just like it is not the T4's fault I am too out of shape to make the 5 mile hike to find it.

It's the challenge cache's fault that the rules are written so that it becomes increasingly difficult to complete the challenge. And the rules are completely up to the CO, so that makes it the CO's fault.

 

The whole idea of a cache becoming undoable by certain cachers while remaining doable by other cachers, independent of those cachers' capabilities, should tell you that there's something wrong with that concept. This extends to most challenge caches. Even if it's only a simple "find 3 different icons on a single day": if a theoretical cacher has already found all caches on the planet, just never enough on the same day (or if the challenge includes a "only finds after ... count" clause), he won't be able to complete the challenge. Of course that's a totally absurd scenario, but theoretically it's possible, and the fact that it's possible means that it's not fair.

 

In other words, most challenge caches depend not on the capabilities of each individual cacher (as all other caches do), but on their caching history. Some become easier when you have found lots of caches, others become harder, and vice versa. This is where the perceived unfairness stems from.

 

I feel the pain of watching caches I need for various grid challenges get archived before I have gotten around to finding them. To me that doesn't make the challenge unfair but more of I missed my chance to fulfill it. But there are plenty of other challenge caches for me to work on and there is nothing 'forcing' me to get them all.

It's not about "getting them all", it's about the doability (is that a word?) of one single particular cache. Some people can't get that challenge cache, but it's not because they're not capable. It's because of some other, made-up reasons.

 

However, once it becomes impossible to complete a challenge cache (due to zero qualifying caches for a particular requirement) then I think the CO should archive it.

I think they will, but that's not the point. The point is that at some point, it will become undoable for some cachers, but remain doable for other cachers (those who already qualify).

Link to comment

The example cited by Keith (I know which one it is) is different though. The more time passes, the more difficult it gets, because qualifying caches are continuously disappearing. Somebody who starts caching today, and who starts working on the challenge today, will have it much harder than somebody who did it 3 years ago, because there's just less caches to choose from. Eventually the last qualifying cache for a certain D/T combination will be gone, and at this point it will be impossible to complete the challenge. Clear proof that it's not fair to everybody, because somebody who hasn't completed it yet, then has no chance to ever do so. So different people have to go through different levels of trouble (and it's increasing), not because not everybody is equally capable, but only because the requirements are modeled that way. In other words, somebody has to be more capable today to finish it than somebody 3 years ago.

 

To be completely honest I find the example that Keith brought up to be an attempt at elitism (by the CO, not KW) and very distasteful in terms of all of its rules and regulations. I am capable of going after (just about) any cache and am eager too, but that time frame seriously cripples my ability to address it. That is why I prefer something like GCPDAF, where there isn't some desire to discredit any newly published caches. I think we saw what happens when we try to be a little too ambitious with our challenges when this little chestnut got published, GC2C91R. Although it met the guidelines did it really accomplish its goal. People didn't get to enjoy the cache, it just fizzled away into the laughing stock of geohistory.

Link to comment

Life is not fair.

Caching is life.

Caching is not fair.

 

If we totally level the playing field, then the LPC in the Walmart parking lot is all that will be left.

 

Personally, I don't see that as an improvement of the game.

 

Until the day when you need to make a find and an LPC is your only option. Then we will talk, lol!

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 9
×
×
  • Create New...