Challenges

6.8k · August 13, 2011

I think the new virt's will be similar to the scavanger hunts on Waymarking.

You might be right. At least it appears that there will be also be a time factor involved and somehow a kind of competition.

It does not sound like the type of virtual I am interested into. My idea about scavenger hunts is also quite different from Waymarking's concept of scavenger hunts.

Cezanne

2.5k · August 14, 2011

Limiting your search to caches with "challenge" in the name will skip over quite a few challenge caches. Frogcooke, you might check out this bookmark.
how is that when all "challenges" must have the word "challenge" in the title?...unless is misspelled

Regardless of what the guidelines say, if you look at that bookmark, you will find you are missing out on challenges if you only search for the word "challenge." Perhaps those challenges that don't have the word in the title predate that rule?

4.2k · August 14, 2011

Limiting your search to caches with "challenge" in the name will skip over quite a few challenge caches. Frogcooke, you might check out this bookmark.
how is that when all "challenges" must have the word "challenge" in the title?...unless is misspelled
Regardless of what the guidelines say, if you look at that bookmark, you will find you are missing out on challenges if you only search for the word "challenge." Perhaps those challenges that don't have the word in the title predate that rule?

i found one misspelled and one missing the word "challenge" in four pages, hardly a reason to dismiss searching by that key word

i also found some that are ridiculously against the the guidelines, i wonder how those got published

August 14, 2011

Regardless of what the guidelines say, if you look at that bookmark, you will find you are missing out on challenges if you only search for the word "challenge." Perhaps those challenges that don't have the word in the title predate that rule?

Good point, there was at about 20 caches that don't have it in the title on that bookmark alone, but are still challenge caches.

2.5k · August 14, 2011

Limiting your search to caches with "challenge" in the name will skip over quite a few challenge caches. Frogcooke, you might check out this bookmark.
how is that when all "challenges" must have the word "challenge" in the title?...unless is misspelled
Regardless of what the guidelines say, if you look at that bookmark, you will find you are missing out on challenges if you only search for the word "challenge." Perhaps those challenges that don't have the word in the title predate that rule?
i found one misspelled and one missing the word "challenge" in four pages, hardly a reason to dismiss searching by that key word

i also found some that are ridiculously against the the guidelines, i wonder how those got published

I'm not dismissing using the keyword, but if that's the only method they use to search, they will miss out on some of the challenges. After finding 5 w/out the word in the title and still being a short distance through the list, I decided to go straight to the Massachusetts section, since the question was originally raised for challenges in that state. Out of 22 listed MA challenges, 4 didn't contain the word. So, if you live in MA and rely on searching by the word "challenge" you will miss 1 in every 6 caches.

As to the guidelines, I am not a reviewer, and neither are you.

August 14, 2011

These are the ones from the bookmark that I found:

So I stand corrected, there is about 36 on that bookmark. Which translates to 4.8% of those listed. That is 1 in 20. Admittedly a bunch more than I ever thought considering it is part of the guidelines. Lesson learned: Don't only search for challenge caches by searching the word "Challenge" or any of its derivations.

2k · August 14, 2011

there are many "challenge caches" out there without the word challenge in the title.

There are many caches with the word challenge in the title that are not "challenge caches" at all.

There are probably at least 5 in Washington that do not have that magic word. They are probably doing a better job going forward on this new rule.

Course, this topic is about the new virtual picture or whatever that is which will be called "challenges", not to be confused.

as a fyi, I went 700 miles to work on a "challenge cache" today that did not have the word challenge in it, but either way you sliced it or renamed it, it was still a "Jasmer Challenge" in my book.

Edited August 14, 2011 by lamoracke

6.8k · August 14, 2011

i also found some that are ridiculously against the the guidelines, i wonder how those got published

I do not know the cache you talk about, but what I know is that before the guidelines have been restructured in the knowledge book format, not that much was said about challenge caches in the guidelines. The fact that the term challenge should be in the cache name was not mentioned there. This was what the guidelines used to state about challenge caches:

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. 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.

Cezanne

Edited August 14, 2011 by cezanne

4.2k · August 15, 2011

i also found some that are ridiculously against the the guidelines, i wonder how those got published

I do not know the cache you talk about, but what I know is that before the guidelines have been restructured in the knowledge book format, not that much was said about challenge caches in the guidelines. The fact that the term challenge should be in the cache name was not mentioned there. This was what the guidelines used to state about challenge caches:

Cezanne

Challenge of the Century: DNF

Southern Indiana Challenge of the Century-DNF's

4.A challenge cache based on one or more non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will likely not be published.

Give it your all Challenge

5.Challenge caches may not require the publication of a new cache as a logging requirement. Challenges must be achievable by those who do not own caches.

The Indy 6 month FTF Challenge

Early Bird Challenge

7.An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers. A challenge is supposed to recognize the completion of an achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge based on "First to Finds" is dependent on the actions of other cachers, is a competition, and cannot be verified, so would likely not be published.

Breaks Geocaching Challenge

8.Requiring cachers to find an explicit list of caches (rather than a broader category of caches) will likely prevent the cache from being published.

here are the guidelines for Challenge Caches

and don't tell me some where published before the guidelines were made/changed, so were a lot of Earthcaches and owners have been asked to change their listings

in any case some of those challenge caches were published last year when the guidelines were already in place

of course they all contain the "will likely prevent the cache from being published" clause which leaves the door wide open for the reviewer to do as they please, however that is highly unfair to those that happen to have a reviewer that disregards such option and follows the guidelines to the letter, as we have recently seen in the sore subject and unfair action taken randomly in Ontario in regards to commercial caches

22.1k · August 15, 2011

and don't tell me some where published before the guidelines were made/changed, so were a lot of Earthcaches and owners have been asked to change their listings

OK, I won't tell you that. I will instead tell you that ALL of the linked caches represent the local reviewer's best efforts to interpret the listing guidelines as they existed at that time. The reason there are more definitive guidelines about challenge caches now is because of caches like the ones you've highlighted.

Sometimes when there is a guideline change, listings are grandfathered (you can still use "email for coordinates" for old DeLorme Challenges) and sometimes they are not grandfathered (such as "Additional Logging Requirements").

In any event this thread is about the new Challenges, not the existing Challenge Caches.

4.2k · August 15, 2011

and don't tell me some where published before the guidelines were made/changed, so were a lot of Earthcaches and owners have been asked to change their listings

OK, I won't tell you that. I will instead tell you that ALL of the linked caches represent the local reviewer's best efforts to interpret the listing guidelines as they existed at that time. The reason there are more definitive guidelines about challenge caches now is because of caches like the ones you've highlighted.

Sometimes when there is a guideline change, listings are grandfathered (you can still use "email for coordinates" for old DeLorme Challenges) and sometimes they are not grandfathered (such as "Additional Logging Requirements").

In any event this thread is about the new Challenges, not the existing Challenge Caches.

not ALL, two of those have been published August 2010 and November 2010, respectively, when the Guidelines where clearly spelled out in the current form

regardless of the situation, i honestly don't care either way, i just answered Cezanne's post with some examples

as for the direction of this thread, i think it deviated and blended the two long time ago, somewhere on page 8 :lol:

tbh not a hard thing to do when a term we've come accustomed to mean something it all of a sudden takes a different shape

August 15, 2011

Just checking the staging site again, it looks like the new challenges are being kept completely out of the regular listings. It's a separate menu choice next to trackables.

Edited August 15, 2011 by cb82

6.8k · August 15, 2011

and don't tell me some where published before the guidelines were made/changed, so were a lot of Earthcaches and owners have been asked to change their listings

But in the case of Earthcaches the guideline change has been announced which is not the case for challenge caches.

When they moved over to the knowledge book version, a lot details have been added that hardly any cacher will have taken notice of.

Moreover, for many guideline changes at gc.com grandfathering applies.

in any case some of those challenge caches were published last year when the guidelines were already in place

Are you absolutely sure? When knowledge book articles change, it is hard to take notice of.

E.g. some months I encountered by chance the paragraphs about cache size and noticed that in the knowledge book

it is suggested that containers with more than 0.7 l are regular while the guideline version before the the knowledge book version set this limit to 1.0 l.

Cezanne

7k · August 15, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-com-action-challenges-a-sneak-peek/

1.2k · August 16, 2011

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.

POST of the Century!!!!

1.2k · August 16, 2011

A cache without a container is a cache without a container. It isn't a non-cache. What does it mean then, in the context of this thread, when referring to "a cache without a cache"?

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

No... not in the case of virtuals or Earth Caches. In those situations, the "cache" is the cache page, the GC# if you will. The container is the physical part of other cache types, and I think that by referring to them as such, that this discussion will be much easier to follow.

agree!

1.2k · August 16, 2011

A traditional is a cache (or geocache... same thing, for our purposes) with a container. A virtual is a cache without a container. What is so confusing about that?

It is not confusing...

Because the cache is the container, so when you have no container, you have no cache. Is also what I said before.

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.

*****************************

I am excited to start completing and creating challenges! Let 'em begin Jeremy - I am ready - my geocaching juices flowing again after a six month break.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Frank Broughton

1.2k · August 16, 2011

but as some have already said, it won't really take off until they "count" somehow, maybe a third rating on our profiles [finds/hides/"new virtuals"]!

(Unfortunately) is has been said that they will count towards your find count (does that make them geocaches? ). With no review process in place, people can (and probably will) create hundreds or thousands of them. From the information available so far, I'd estimate that the number and density of those "challenges" will quickly surpass the number and density of caches. The find count will become even more meaningless than it already is.

So, what is the big deal? You do what you do and let others do what they do... no biggy ('cept for us forum bums haha - this is an attempt at humor!)

2.7k · August 16, 2011

Time will tell.

I'm wondering when the useless point of you should have found so many challenges before you can create one.

August 16, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-com-action-challenges-a-sneak-peek/

The challenge is time-bounded. Okay, that makes it more interesting. These "action challenges" could end up being almost miniature "events". I understand now, for action challenges, you don't need anything other than a temporary disposable listing.

6.8k · August 16, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-com-action-challenges-a-sneak-peek/

The challenge is time-bounded. Okay, that makes it more interesting. These "action challenges" could end up being almost miniature "events". I understand now, for action challenges, you don't need anything other than a temporary disposable listing.

On the contrary, for me the time aspect makes them even less interesting.

Cezanne

August 16, 2011

On the contrary, for me the time aspect makes them even less interesting.

I was working on the premise that they would be unreviewed non-listings, so unlikely to have any long-term interest/value. Recognising this by making the challenge disposable is great! It means I can meet other cachers whinging about how rubbish the new challenges are!

6.8k · August 16, 2011

On the contrary, for me the time aspect makes them even less interesting.

I was working on the premise that they would be unreviewed non-listings, so unlikely to have any long-term interest/value. Recognising this by making the challenge disposable is great! It means I can meet other cachers whinging about how rubbish the new challenges are!

Well, now I understand your perspective better. A few weeks ago I still had some hope that it would at least be possible to come across some interesting challenges (even if it would be only with a 1:1000 chance), but the new announcements have made my hope disappear. It is hard for me to understand how one can advertise these challenges as exciting evolution in geocaching.

Cezanne

August 16, 2011

I guess adding the time dimension is exciting for its potential, notwithstanding the unexciting example given in the video (but, hey, it's early days).

6.8k · August 16, 2011

I guess adding the time dimension is exciting for its potential, notwithstanding the unexciting example given in the video (but, hey, it's early days).

I agree that the time aspect will make it exciting for a group of people, but not for me. I am neither interested into any sort of competition nor into miniature events which are increasing the chance to meet other cachers.

Cezanne

6.7k · August 16, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-com-action-challenges-a-sneak-peek/

I haven't really been following this very close but let me see if I understand this. Groundspeaks idea of a replacement for virtuals is reinstatement of ALRs?

2.8k · August 16, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-com-action-challenges-a-sneak-peek/

The challenge is time-bounded. Okay, that makes it more interesting. These "action challenges" could end up being almost miniature "events". I understand now, for action challenges, you don't need anything other than a temporary disposable listing.

I must be missing something...where doe sit say they are time-bounded?

6.8k · August 16, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-com-action-challenges-a-sneak-peek/

The challenge is time-bounded. Okay, that makes it more interesting. These "action challenges" could end up being almost miniature "events". I understand now, for action challenges, you don't need anything other than a temporary disposable listing.

I must be missing something...where doe sit say they are time-bounded?

At least there is date for accepting a challenge and accordingly an action for accepting a challenge. So it appears that the time it takes to finish the challenge will play a role.

http://www.geocaching.com/my/challenges.aspx

14k · August 16, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-com-action-challenges-a-sneak-peek/

The challenge is time-bounded. Okay, that makes it more interesting. These "action challenges" could end up being almost miniature "events". I understand now, for action challenges, you don't need anything other than a temporary disposable listing.

On the contrary, for me the time aspect makes them even less interesting.

Cezanne

I wouldn't say that time-bounding would make them less interesting, but it could effectively produce a lot of challenges which only locals could complete. I can understand that *some* challenges might be time bounded (i.e. playing chess with Signal, since he can't be at that location forever) and that others might have time restrictions (if it involves entering a location with open/closed hours). I *hope* that time-bounding isn't mandatory as I could see a lot of traditions turned into challenges. For example, throwing three coins over your shoulder into Trevia fountain is said to ensure that you'll visit Rome again. I imagine "kissing the blarney stone" is not time bounded.

A bit more speculative, but I wonder how far the commercialization of challenges will go. I suspect most would not object to "drink a pint" a some famous pub, but a Mercedes Dealership creating a "come in for a test drive" challenge (or even buy a car from us challenge) might not be so popular.

4.2k · August 16, 2011

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

and don't tell me some where published before the guidelines were made/changed, so were a lot of Earthcaches and owners have been asked to change their listings

But in the case of Earthcaches the guideline change has been announced which is not the case for challenge caches.

When they moved over to the knowledge book version, a lot details have been added that hardly any cacher will have taken notice of.

Moreover, for many guideline changes at gc.com grandfathering applies.

in any case some of those challenge caches were published last year when the guidelines were already in place

Are you absolutely sure? When knowledge book articles change, it is hard to take notice of.

E.g. some months I encountered by chance the paragraphs about cache size and noticed that in the knowledge book

it is suggested that containers with more than 0.7 l are regular while the guideline version before the the knowledge book version set this limit to 1.0 l.

Cezanne

i am sure they were in place at least as of November last year, hence why i limited my comment to the two published in November and December respectively

as for being hard to notice, yes, its been one of my beefs about the changes, GC refuses to add a "last updated on" date as it is common practice on any guideline/rule updates

thus making it hard for everyone else, except those in the know, to see exactly from what point in time the grandfathering applies

Edited August 16, 2011 by t4e

August 16, 2011

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

Because you haven't signed the log...

6.8k · August 16, 2011

i am sure they were in place at least as of November last year, hence why i limited my comment to the two published in November and December respectively

The new guideline version is from February 2011. The gc.com version from December 5, 2010 in the webarchive has still the old guidelines.

It might be that the knowledge book contained earlier more detailed comments on challenges, but this was not part of the guidelines back then.

Cezanne

7k · August 16, 2011

Posted on the blog today: http://blog.geocachi...s-a-sneak-peek/

I haven't really been following this very close but let me see if I understand this. Groundspeaks idea of a replacement for virtuals is reinstatement of ALRs?

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.

7k · August 16, 2011

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

Because you haven't signed the log...

But he said "the cache is the listing". If I look at the listing, then I've found the listing. Since the listing is the cache, I've found the cache. So I could post a "found it" log.

9.4k · August 16, 2011

On the contrary, for me the time aspect makes them even less interesting.

I was working on the premise that they would be unreviewed non-listings, so unlikely to have any long-term interest/value. Recognising this by making the challenge disposable is great! It means I can meet other cachers whinging about how rubbish the new challenges are!

Well, now I understand your perspective better. A few weeks ago I still had some hope that it would at least be possible to come across some interesting challenges (even if it would be only with a 1:1000 chance), but the new announcements have made my hope disappear. It is hard for me to understand how one can advertise these challenges as exciting evolution in geocaching.

Cezanne

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?

2.1k · August 16, 2011

Looking forward to a new caching type.

I just hope these are going to be regulated somehow, e.g you have to garner a certain # of favorite points in a certain time. Otherwise we are back into either the 1. frustrating reviewer-decided "wow" factor 2. or ridiculous ALR situations again.

August 16, 2011

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

Because you haven't signed the log...

But he said "the cache is the listing". If I look at the listing, then I've found the listing. Since the listing is the cache, I've found the cache. So I could post a "found it" log.

And the CO can delete your "found it" log for not signing the physical log...

August 16, 2011

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?

I guess that is the sound of a guantlet respectfully being placed on the ground with authority.

7k · August 16, 2011

And the CO can delete your "found it" log for not signing the physical log...

Right, so clearly the "cache" isn't just the "listing". But what if it's a virtual?

Edited August 16, 2011 by dfx

August 16, 2011

And the CO can delete your "found it" log for not signing the physical log...

What if it's a virtual?

Then a cache owner can't delete your find for not signing the log because there isn't one. Why are we debating common sense here?

4.2k · August 16, 2011

Looking forward to a new caching type.

I just hope these are going to be regulated somehow, e.g you have to garner a certain # of favorite points in a certain time. Otherwise we are back into either the 1. frustrating reviewer-decided "wow" factor 2. or ridiculous ALR situations again.

i thought i have seen somewhere that those will not be go through any reviewing process

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

Because you haven't signed the log...

But he said "the cache is the listing". If I look at the listing, then I've found the listing. Since the listing is the cache, I've found the cache. So I could post a "found it" log.

And the CO can delete your "found it" log for not signing the physical log...

i think you should have read all the posts to get the context before replying

7k · August 16, 2011

And the CO can delete your "found it" log for not signing the physical log...

What if it's a virtual?

Then a cache owner can't delete your find for not signing the log because there isn't one. Why are we debating common sense here?

Because "cache = listing" goes against common sense.

Edited August 16, 2011 by dfx

August 16, 2011

Looking forward to a new caching type.

I just hope these are going to be regulated somehow, e.g you have to garner a certain # of favorite points in a certain time. Otherwise we are back into either the 1. frustrating reviewer-decided "wow" factor 2. or ridiculous ALR situations again.

i thought i have seen somewhere that those will not be go through any reviewing process

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

Because you haven't signed the log...

But he said "the cache is the listing". If I look at the listing, then I've found the listing. Since the listing is the cache, I've found the cache. So I could post a "found it" log.

And the CO can delete your "found it" log for not signing the physical log...

i think you should have read all the posts to get the context before replying

I read the posts. I just think that this is stupid topic to argue over. Nobody is going to log a find for "finding" the listing. That doesn't mean the listing isn't a part of what a "cache" is.

August 16, 2011

And the CO can delete your "found it" log for not signing the physical log...

What if it's a virtual?

Then a cache owner can't delete your find for not signing the log because there isn't one. Why are we debating common sense here?

Because "cache = listing" goes against common sense.

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.

6.8k · August 16, 2011

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.

In any case I feel that I need to put several things into the right perspective.

I am convinced that it is impossible to come up with a cache or a challenge or new dish or whatever that everyone will like. Likewise, I am convinced that with whatever Groundspeak will come up with respect to virtuals, there will be people who do not like the outcome. That's unavoidable and does not mean that the outcome is of bad quality.

Moreover, I am sure that the type of challenge you come up with will appeal to more cachers than the type of virtual caches that I personally would enjoy. (They are not like the typical US virtuals in the early times.)

I do know that I am belonging to a minority group as geocaching is concerned (and also with respect to many other aspects, but that's off-topic here).

To provide you with an example

This cache is a well done multi cache (unfortunately the description is only available in German, but my log is in English)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=14515ae9-5e4c-41c4-ba00-b1e2fb8508e3

The cache container is hidden outside of the cemetary - the stages are inside and provide a nice tour through the area which will appeal to the majority of geocachers. My own way of setting up a cache at that location, would have been much more intellectual based (not a very good term, but I cannot find a better one) that would provide information that appeals to about 5% of the cachers in the area while the cache in the way it is done appeals to about 95%.

I know much more cachers who are e.g. thrilled by playing games (not only computer games) than people who like combining intellectual learning with geocaching elements.

I fully respect the preferences of this group of cachers. My own preferences are however different and for a while I had a small hope that the new virtuals would allow for a few virtual caches of the type I enjoy and that the new cvirtuals might offer a solution for areas where the placement of cache containers is a bad idea for several reasons (among other environmental reasons and troubles with residents).

To conclude, it has not been my intent to criticize your work, I just wanted to express my personal disappointment.

I fear that in particular my statement that I find it hard to understand that the new challenges are advertised as exciting evolution in geocaching has been misinterpreted by you. Before having seen any challenges, no one can make a statement about their quality. I just felt that "exciting evolution in geocaching" somehow does not fit for the new challenges. For some people challenges will be no caches at all and those who will regard them as caches, will probably not regard them as geocaching evolution.

Cezanne

Edited August 16, 2011 by cezanne

9.4k · August 16, 2011

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. If you are worried that the challenge won't be enjoyed by everyone, I still would like to see what kind of challenge you could submit to give me an idea of what would not disappoint you. It was not sarcastically given. I genuinely want your input.

7k · August 16, 2011

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, how does that work? If there's a cache without container, then the cache is the listing (or something else?). If there's a cache without listing, then the cache is the container. You can't have both, so which one is it?

2.4k · August 16, 2011

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.

In any case I feel that I need to put several things into the right perspective.

I am convinced that it is impossible to come up with a cache or a challenge or new dish or whatever that everyone will like. Likewise, I am convinced that with whatever Groundspeak will come up with respect to virtuals, there will be people who do not like the outcome. That's unavoidable and does not mean that the outcome is of bad quality.

Moreover, I am sure that the type of challenge you come up with will appeal to more cachers than the type of virtual caches that I personally would enjoy. (They are not like the typical US virtuals in the early times.)

I do know that I am belonging to a minority group as geocaching is concerned (and also with respect to many other aspects, but that's off-topic here).

To provide you with an example

This cache is a well done multi cache (unfortunately the description is only available in German, but my log is in English)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=14515ae9-5e4c-41c4-ba00-b1e2fb8508e3

The cache container is hidden outside of the cemetary - the stages are inside and provide a nice tour through the area which will appeal to the majority of geocachers. My own way of setting up a cache at that location, would have been much more intellectual based (not a very good term, but I cannot find a better one) that would provide information that appeals to about 5% of the cachers in the area while the cache in the way it is done appeals to about 95%.

I know much more cachers who are e.g. thrilled by playing games (not only computer games) than people who like combining intellectual learning with geocaching elements.

I fully respect the preferences of this group of cachers. My own preferences are however different and for a while I had a small hope that the new virtuals would allow for a few virtual caches of the type I enjoy and that the new cvirtuals might offer a solution for areas where the placement of cache containers is a bad idea for several reasons (among other environmental reasons and troubles with residents).

To conclude, it has not been my intent to criticize your work, I just wanted to express my personal disappointment.

Cezanne

Gee. What an incredibly positive attitude. <_<

So let me get this straight.

You say you don't like the same caches everyone else likes, that the type of caches you like will only appeal to 5% of the caching population,

yet you are taking up a whole lot of public forum space to complain about these caches not being to your liking???

I'm not sure what you want or are hoping to accomplish with your posts.

August 16, 2011

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, how does that work? If there's a cache without container, then the cache is the listing (or something else?). If there's a cache without listing, then the cache is the container. You can't have both, so which one is it?

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.

Edited August 16, 2011 by cb82

7k · August 16, 2011

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?

Challenges

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment