New "Geocaching Challenges" caches

[+NattyBooshka]

As for the rest... I think it's a pity that within the first hour of the Challenges being released some cachers were already throwing out the Challenge equivalent of the film pot in the bush.

But it's hardly surprising, is it, given what dross Groundspeak offered as the prime example of a challenge?

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Well... I don't think they said it was a prime example, did they? As I said, I imagine it was just put out as something amusing that cachers anywhere in the world could try, just for fun, just to see how the whole "Challenge thing" works.

Prime: First.

 

Yes it was THE prime example.

[team tisri]

As for the rest... I think it's a pity that within the first hour of the Challenges being released some cachers were already throwing out the Challenge equivalent of the film pot in the bush.

But it's hardly surprising, is it, given what dross Groundspeak offered as the prime example of a challenge?

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Well... I don't think they said it was a prime example, did they? As I said, I imagine it was just put out as something amusing that cachers anywhere in the world could try, just for fun, just to see how the whole "Challenge thing" works.

 

They might not have intended it to be a shining star of just how good a challenge could theoretically be although I'd have hoped that as the very first example of a challenge they'd want to set a standard that might inspire people to set good challenges rather than provoking hostility at performing such utterly useless actions.

 

As someone already said if you were setting the very first geocache to show people how much fun it could be to find them would you hide an ammo can under a fallen tree in a forest at the end of a beautiful walk, or a film pot behind a post somewhere among the discarded beer cans and dog poo?

[+figures]

I find I have 5 minutes spare, load up the app on my phone and see there's a challenge just round the corner. I should be able to go there, see something cool / iconic / informative, and complete the challenge with minimum of fuss ... If it's too hard people won't do it

So are you saying that ideally challenges should NOT be challenging? Maybe they should have called them something else?

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Well, challenging is unquantifiable. What's challenging to one, isn't to another. I honestly think that with challenges they were trying to go for a cross between virtuals and the likes of FB places / 4square / gowalla. With those you just "check in" (although some have game mechanisms). I've tried them and found them a little dull for my liking but millions of people play it. So for those people, going to a place and having to take a picture or actually DO something is a bit more of a challenge.

[+MazdaRoy]

An interesting twist on Challenges would be something like they do on www.wuwi.com, have a look and see what you think

[Neath Worthies]

An interesting twist on Challenges would be something like they do on www.wuwi.com, have a look and see what you think

I've no idea what that is and when I look on their website I can't see anything until I create an account. However the graphics give me a strong impression I won't like it! I'll stick with Munzees as an alternative to proper caches thanks.

[+Amberel]

I find I have 5 minutes spare, load up the app on my phone and see there's a challenge just round the corner. I should be able to go there, see something cool / iconic / informative, and complete the challenge with minimum of fuss ... If it's too hard people won't do it

So are you saying that ideally challenges should NOT be challenging? Maybe they should have called them something else?

 

Well, challenging is unquantifiable.

Well, yes and no. The first definition I found said "testing one's ability or endurance". I would say that "If it's too hard people won't do it" and "I should be able to go there, see something cool / iconic / informative, and complete the challenge with minimum of fuss" doesn't sound very much like testing ability or endurance?

 

But I can't think of another name for it that doesn't sound very anaemic, and I guess Groundspeak had the same problem.

 

Rgds, Andy

[Alan White]

But I can't think of another name for it that doesn't sound very anaemic

How about "virtual cache" for the location-specific ones and "locationless cache" for those which can be done anywhere?

[+Fianccetto]

But I can't think of another name for it that doesn't sound very anaemic

How about "virtual cache" for the location-specific ones and "locationless cache" for those which can be done anywhere?

 

Or, since they are not caches, how about "virtual challenge" for the location-specific ones (they're virtually challenges, just not quite) and "locationless virtuals" for those which can be done anywhere?

[Staddonites]

What the heck? They deleted my challenge without any explanation. And there are no guidelines for me to refer to that might help me understand the reason. Perhaps it wasn't sufficiently location-specific (go to Crickley Hill Country Park, find a particular set of five walking-trail signposts), but I've no way of knowing that.

 

I had CX6, too

I don't know what a CX6 is, but I accepted your Crickley Hill challenge. I was looking forward to doing that with the family at the Glorious Gloucestershire event. Did you have a set of coordinates attached to it somewhere, making it location specific? It's odd how your challenge has been archived but walk tall's hasn't, there doesn't seem to be any logic to their archiving process. Mind you, I am starting to consider which water purification process to use on the water to complete walk tall's challenge (if it lasts that long.)

CX6 = sixth Challenge to be published. First in the UK, second outside of the US. *weeps into his coffee*

 

It was location-specific, with the coords taking you to the walking-trails information board. I've appealed. I really hope GS see fit to reinstate it: I put a fair amount of work into that in the lead-up to Challenges being introduced

 

Currently you can do the Challenge, just not get credit for it. The bingo card is still here.

I hope they reinstate it too.

I wonder if it is because it required a composite photo and so people couldn't show they had completed the challenge using the app, in the field.

Another vote to reinstate CX6 'Crickley Hill Bingo'. 3 Geocaching families had a fun day Saturday completing the challenge, but now find we can't log it. Even if a challege does not meet certain criteria, it should still be possible to accept and complete it.

[+Yorkie30]

Just had an email stating:

 

"We are working on splitting out cache finds and challenge completion counts. Both will be displayed on the logs unless you have not found a Challenge. In that case the statistics for Challenges won't be shown. This should be done by the end of the week (August 26) (30517)"

 

Jeremy

Admin, Geocaching

[+Fianccetto]

Thanks for the update, Yorkie.

[+The Blorenges]

Just had an email stating:

 

"We are working on splitting out cache finds and challenge completion counts. Both will be displayed on the logs unless you have not found a Challenge. In that case the statistics for Challenges won't be shown. This should be done by the end of the week (August 26) (30517)"

 

Jeremy

Admin, Geocaching

 

Hopefully that'll take effect before some people arrive at total baldness from tearing their hair out.

 

MrsB

[+Lime Candy]

Just had an email stating:

 

"We are working on splitting out cache finds and challenge completion counts. Both will be displayed on the logs unless you have not found a Challenge. In that case the statistics for Challenges won't be shown. This should be done by the end of the week (August 26) (30517)"

 

Jeremy

Admin, Geocaching

 

Can't wait for August 26! I just hope that 30517 isn't the year?

[+The HERB5]

As I understand it a Challenge is available until it's archived.

Whereas a Cache isn't available until it's Published.

 

If you Complete a Challenge which then get's archived, do you keep the completion ?

 

If as I suspect the answer is YES, then this reduces somewhat the credibilty of Challenges.

[+The HERB5]

A DECLINED Feedback entry confirms my suspicions...

 

Social pressure will force cachers to delete their unearned logs...

[+drdick&vick]

I must ask, has anybody who is against these challenges on the grounds that there is no box at the end claimed a find(s) on the YOSM as there is no box there either?

[+dfx]

A DECLINED Feedback entry confirms my suspicions...

 

Social pressure will force cachers to delete their unearned logs...

 

The problem is that as of now, it's not possible to delete one's log from an archived challenge

[jadenrich2101]

If it spilts my finds by the end of the week then i will be happy because im so close to reaching my 100 (93 caches) and i did a challenge and its moved up to 94 and im not happy with that at all, i wanna reach my 100th cache at the weekend so will now have to go to 101 to be able to place my TB in there and crack out the champers and party poppers

 

Id be happy with the split because then people that are interested will do both caching and the challenges where as the people that aint interested will just have a count of 0 or 1 challenges and then there caching count can continue to rise without a problem! Hope that makes sence

[+Hawkins2.5]

If it spilts my finds by the end of the week then i will be happy because im so close to reaching my 100 (93 caches) and i did a challenge and its moved up to 94 and im not happy with that at all, i wanna reach my 100th cache at the weekend so will now have to go to 101 to be able to place my TB in there and crack out the champers and party poppers

 

Id be happy with the split because then people that are interested will do both caching and the challenges where as the people that aint interested will just have a count of 0 or 1 challenges and then there caching count can continue to rise without a problem! Hope that makes sence

 

Yeah, I completely agree. I've avoided posting about challenges up to now because I wanted to give them a chance and see how they would work. I have no objection to the challenges and will probably take part in them because I have seen some good ones. However, they are NOT caches and I certainly do not want them showing up as a cache find. Two separate things so two separate scores. If they stay on the geocaching site, that's fine with me as long as the distinction is clear. I can see why other people feel they should have their own site and that too would be fine with me.

 

I also think that creators should be able to delete challenge logs as I have already seen people claiming they have completed the challenge but have clearly not done what was asked of them! Particularly on photo challenges that ask for a pic of 'you' at the place, or a pic containing GPS. Some people have just posted what looks like a generic photo which is clearly not the idea here.

[jadenrich2101]

Ive done one photo challenge but that was because i knew id be going there and could complete it. Alot will be armchair photoshopped....but like people say....those people will only be cheating themselves so it doesnt really effect us.....But again thats why i believe they should be two seperate tallys.....then people can cheat as much as they like on the challenges but us cachers wont really give a flying monkey !!!

[+The Blorenges]

I'll just casually mention here that there are some cachers who believe that Events, Earthcaches and Virtuals are not "real" caches either so perhaps those should also be deducted from any total Finds number.

 

Or maybe the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything Related To Caching Numbers would be for Groundspeak to just split all the "Things" into individual totals and then each member can call their Total whatever they want it to be.

 

(If they care enough.)

 

MrsB

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

I set some challenges in London, just to see how it went.

 

So far there have been more claims of completion that are exceedingly dubious than ones that have done what has actually been asked.

 

I think there are several problems; it still could work but needs some tweaking.

 

For example, a challenge looks really popular with lots of completions, but in fact most are fake completions, and there is no way to delete this fake logs. I simply do not understand the mentality of these folks, are they cheating themselves and the community at geocaching too?

 

Edit for typos; right arm still in splint!

Edited August 24, 2011 by Dorsetgal & GeoDog

[+Team Noodles]

I'll just casually mention here that there are some cachers who believe that Events, Earthcaches and Virtuals are not "real" caches either so perhaps those should also be deducted from any total Finds number.

 

Or maybe the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything Related To Caching Numbers would be for Groundspeak to just split all the "Things" into individual totals and then each member can call their Total whatever they want it to be.

 

(If they care enough.)

 

MrsB

Can you please stop making so much sense, it'll just confuse a lot of people.

 

this post was brought to you from sunny Holland, now excuse me whilst I go dancing in the rain!

 

Alex

[+mcwomble]

I'll just casually mention here that there are some cachers who believe that Events, Earthcaches and Virtuals are not "real" caches either so perhaps those should also be deducted from any total Finds number.

 

I'm with you on the Earthcaches, Virtuals & Webcams, but for events there's usually a logbook to "sign" or otherwise indicate that you were there. (Some flashmobs I know have you sign a slip and place it in the bucket!)

 

As you can guess I only count 6 types of caches (trad, multi, unknown, Wherigo, LBH & events)

[+agentmancuso]

I'll just casually mention here that there are some cachers who believe that Events, Earthcaches and Virtuals are not "real" caches either so perhaps those should also be deducted from any total Finds number.

 

Or maybe the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything Related To Caching Numbers would be for Groundspeak to just split all the "Things" into individual totals and then each member can call their Total whatever they want it to be.

 

 

Virtuals, Earthcaches and YoSM generally involve using a GPSr to find something, and so are a reasonable approximation of traditional caches, even if not to everyone's taste. Events are a gathering of people interested in finding traditional caches (and maybe other things) with their GPSr.

 

Challenges have nothing to do with caches at all, beyond the fact that the business which happens to dominate the caching market thinks they are an easy way to make money.

[+Amberel]

I'll just casually mention here that there are some cachers who believe that Events, Earthcaches and Virtuals are not "real" caches either so perhaps those should also be deducted from any total Finds number.MrsB

Indeed, I would rather that was so (or rather, I would prefer that Earth"Caches" and Virtual"Caches" were not listed on geocache listing sites, which would have the same result).

 

And while I would like events to be listed, I certainly think they should not count as "cache finds". AFAIK Groundspeak is the only site that counts events as "cache finds" - opencaching.org.uk and TerraCaching list events but don't count them as finds.

 

Rgds, Andy

[team tisri]

Where things like earthcaches and virtuals are concerned some of the ones I've done have taken me to some absolutely stunning places. I did an earthcache rated 1/4.5 in Virginia which involved climbing Bearfence Mountain. The views from the top were like nothing I've seen in my life, and once at the top the GPS showed me where exactly I needed to be to answer the pertinent questions. Other virtuals were 1/1 rated and involved little more than a walk and a simple question.

 

I guess in that respect they are much like physical caches where some are trivially easy (I retrieved one cache without getting off my bike, and had another cache been a couple of feet from where it was I'd have been able to retrieve it without getting out of my car), while others are in such awkward positions they might as well be on the moon from my perspective.

 

Although a physical cache obviously has a physical container associated with it I must admit I got far more pleasure out of the climb to Bearfence Mountain than I did out of the most recent film pot behind a road sign. I know there's no rule that says I have to hunt film pots behind road signs, but then there's also no rule that says you have to hunt virtuals.

[+dfx]

but for events there's usually a logbook to "sign" or otherwise indicate that you were there.

 

I was actually considering this - you could view the whole event venue as an oversized, temporary "cache". But I think that's stretching the definition of a cache a bit, just a tiny bit

 

I think the whole "listing other things like caches" is just a kludge that was never remedied. I can well imagine how it went down in the early days... Assuming events were the first non-cache thing they started to list (I don't know if they were, but let's just assume), it would've been something like this in Groundspeak's office:

 

A: Hey, I think we should let people list events for geocachers on the website... You know, small get-togethers, meetings, just for some cachers to talk about their hobby and stuff like that.

B: Oh, that's a great idea! But how should we implement that? Should we give them a separate section on the site?

A: No no, that's too much work, and would take too long. We can just use cache listings for that. Events have a location, right? And we can just use the "date hidden" field for when it's gonna happen. Then give them their own icon so people know they're events and we're all set.

B: Hm, not a bad idea. But aren't cache listings supposed to be for, well, caches? The events would show up like caches, on the map and in the lists, people would log them as "found" and they would count towards people's find counts too. Isn't that gonna be confusing?

A: Not a problem, we're just gonna pretend that they are caches. Call them "event caches" and everybody's gonna be happy!

[+MBFace]

I'll just casually mention here that there are some cachers who believe that Events, Earthcaches and Virtuals are not "real" caches either so perhaps those should also be deducted from any total Finds number.

No problem with that argument, events in particular and especially the ‘we’re going to climb a mountain but if you meet us at the bottom you can sign the logbook’ variety, but at least these cache types were reviewed and controlled by individuals rather than the community – does anyone apart from Moun10Bike really believe that peer pressure will make people delete bogus logs?

 

I just don’t get the change in Groundspeak’s attitude with respect to various things they’ve banned in the past e.g. not allowing cache owners to request photographic evidence that people have visited a virtual location (using the privacy argument IIRC) and then bringing in photo challenges, saying that caching must involve use of a GPS and then setting the latest worldwide challenge as go out and climb a tree. No doubt there’s a commercial reason behind it all.

 

And, as possible further evidence that Groundspeak are more interested in the iPhone brigade than standalone GPS users, the webpage brings up the grand total of one challenge near my location whereas an app would give me seven (two of which may indeed have coordinates but are NOT location specific – it’s OK, the community will sort that out ..... or rather just ‘find’ them because they can). Obviously they don’t think that us dinosaurs travel far!

[+Amberel]

Had an email from Groundspeak to say that as of now, the counts are separate, and if you haven't completed a challenge the challenge count is not shown on logs.

 

Of course, this doesn't address my major objection, which is the sheer embarrasment of these things being so intimately associated with geocaching.

 

But, in any case, only half of it seems to be true - they are separated out, but challenge counts are still shown on logs here, and I certainly haven't completed (or even accepted) any "geocaching challenges".

 

On the plus side, the new layout is a great deal tidier than last Thursday's effort.

 

Rgds, Andy

[jadenrich2101]

I like it now because i can concentrate on my caches n not have to think about the challenges unless im somewhere were i believe there would be a good one

 

Good move Groundspeak

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'll just casually mention here that there are some cachers who believe that Events, Earthcaches and Virtuals are not "real" caches either so perhaps those should also be deducted from any total Finds number.

 

I'm with you on the Earthcaches, Virtuals & Webcams, but for events there's usually a logbook to "sign" or otherwise indicate that you were there. (Some flashmobs I know have you sign a slip and place it in the bucket!)

 

As you can guess I only count 6 types of caches (trad, multi, unknown, Wherigo, LBH & events)

I'd rather have the physical cache side of things split out, and I don't regard events as caches either (log book or not). But Groundspeak stats are a mess. Why waymarks have to be separate when earthcaches and virtuals are included seems to defy logic. That challenges are semi-separate just makes it more messy.

 

Although the point of geocaching for many is to have an excuse to go out and visit places, the challenge of actually finding what has been deliberately hidden at the site is at the centre of the pastime; whether you take any interest in the site itself is a side effect. In my view; no hidden container = no geocache. Geocaches found = hidden containers located with log books signed.

 

Perhaps that's too purist for some, but I suspect that it would be easily accepted by the majority.

 

So your overall stats would include geocaches found (in bold!), then a second total to include all virtuals, locationless, waymarks, waymark categories, events, earthcaches, and challenges. For example; Caches found 1450, others 76.

 

If you log a geocache then your total shown against the log would only include geocaches. If you log a challenge, only the challenge total would show (etc).

[+ivanidea]

I would say anything which is reviewed by a Groundspeak representative should be included in the stats.

[Ocean67]

Ok... my 10pence worth...

 

When I first saw the challenge thing I too, like most, was horrified at the idea, "wot the hell has this got to do with caching, rant rant rant"

But have had a look at a few and some look fun and some a bit lame. In fact I have now placed one myself (a fun one for a giggle.)

 

But I agree with most of the ranters that this is not `geocaching` and I am glad it is separated from the `cache count`. I`m not a numbers player but proud of the few caches I have found, and if the challenges get separated to another website and I can understand why. But in the mean time I intend to enjoy doing a few myself as fun diversion.(as well as continuing with my serious caching addiction.)

 

But what is really p33ing me off is the fact there is someone(s) giving negative votes to challenges as soon as they are published. Throwing your toys out the pram and being a killjoy is just pathetic.

If you dont want to have anything to do with challenges, dont click the button! simples.

 

At the end of the day its just another game.

(well apart from the serious business of the tuppaware in the woods)

[+drsolly]

But what is really p33ing me off is the fact there is someone(s) giving negative votes to challenges as soon as they are published. Throwing your toys out the pram and being a killjoy is just pathetic.

If you dont want to have anything to do with challenges, dont click the button! simples.

 

At the end of the day its just another game.

(well apart from the serious business of the tuppaware in the woods)

 

I disagree.

 

One of the biggest problem with challenges, is that they aren't reviewed, which means that really really silly challenges can be set (see my Amersham Station series). It's OK to be a bit silly. But things can get too silly.

 

So, how do you measure silliness, and who says what it too silly? The answer is, geocachers. My "Amersham frog" (kiss a frog outside Amersham station) is steadily accumulating negative votes, indicating that people think it's a daft idea. Which, of course, it is (inspired by the Groundspeak "kiss a frog" challenge).

 

You don't actually have to visit Amersham station with your frog, in order to think it's a poor challenge.

 

Hopefully (or perhaps already, I don't know) you'll be able to search for challenges, and see their ratings in the search, so that you can ignore the poor ones, and only do the ones that look good.

 

Not that I'm a fan of challenges, but then, I was never keen on virtuals or earthcaches, because I always get a bit of a buzz when I find the container, and I don't get any buzz when I take a picture of a terminal morraine.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Bizarrely, my complete 5 different different geocache icons in London in a day challenge has mysteriously disappeared.

 

It was the one of my three challenges that had yielded more positive comments from fellow cachers in public and in private than any other ... I am now even more confused about what Groundspeak are trying to achieve here.

 

It would appear OK that anyone can photoshop or submit tourist photos from years gone by and complete a challenge, but complete 5 different geocache types and state what they are is a no no ...

[+drsolly]

Bizarrely, my complete 5 different different geocache icons in London in a day challenge has mysteriously disappeared.

 

It was the one of my three challenges that had yielded more positive comments from fellow cachers in public and in private than any other ... I am now even more confused about what Groundspeak are trying to achieve here.

 

It would appear OK that anyone can photoshop or submit tourist photos from years gone by and complete a challenge, but complete 5 different geocache types and state what they are is a no no ...

 

My silly "Amersham station" challenges are still up and running. Maybe your challenge wasn't silly enough?

[+CnJnA]

I completed a challege today of picking up litter, and now i can't log it! I know its no big deal, but its slightly annoying........

[team tisri]

I completed a challege today of picking up litter, and now i can't log it! I know its no big deal, but its slightly annoying........

 

Don't worry, create a new challenge to "throw 10 pieces of litter in the local park", put the litter back where you found it and claim the challenge for that instead.

[+Hawkins2.5]

Bizarrely, my complete 5 different different geocache icons in London in a day challenge has mysteriously disappeared.

 

It was the one of my three challenges that had yielded more positive comments from fellow cachers in public and in private than any other ... I am now even more confused about what Groundspeak are trying to achieve here.

 

It would appear OK that anyone can photoshop or submit tourist photos from years gone by and complete a challenge, but complete 5 different geocache types and state what they are is a no no ...

 

Could this be because it is not location based? I can't find it now so I may be wrong but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that only Groundspeak's Worldwide challenges can be locationless and that others need to have a specific place that you go to and do it. Maybe just 'London' is too vague. Shame - I liked your challenge!

Edited August 30, 2011 by Hawkins2

[+CnJnA]

I completed a challege today of picking up litter, and now i can't log it! I know its no big deal, but its slightly annoying........

 

Don't worry, create a new challenge to "throw 10 pieces of litter in the local park", put the litter back where you found it and claim the challenge for that instead.

 

[+Happy Humphrey]

Bizarrely, my complete 5 different different geocache icons in London in a day challenge has mysteriously disappeared.

 

It was the one of my three challenges that had yielded more positive comments from fellow cachers in public and in private than any other ... I am now even more confused about what Groundspeak are trying to achieve here.

 

It would appear OK that anyone can photoshop or submit tourist photos from years gone by and complete a challenge, but complete 5 different geocache types and state what they are is a no no ...

It sounds like it wasn't location-based. Also, it could be confused with a Challenge Cache, which you can find but only log if you've completed the Challenge criteria; for instance, "complete 5 different different geocache icons in London in a day". I don't know if that particular challenge would qualify as a valid challenge cache; the ones I've seen have been a bit more taxing, but it's the same in principle.

[+Pieman]

Now there are lots of challenges I wonder how Groundspeak are going to review which ones to archive? It seems to me that during the first few days some got archived immediately but now ones with high negative votes live on. I can see that this will eventually get completely out of hand (maybe it already is) and become way too big a job to police.

[+juliadream]

To give Challenges a try, I have completed one and set one.

To complete my challenge, I had to take and post a photo that proved I had visited a location where there is no chance of a physical cache. Seemed ok to me, but the logging process is a bit Noddy compared with a real cache visit - optimised for Apps I suppose.

I set a Challenge, CX1B8A, which also requires you to take a photo from a location where a physical cache would not be possible. I also ask for some additional detail to validate it. The Challenge has attracted one acceptance and 3 Thumbs Down. I think it would be helpful if there was some facility for those who disapprove of my challenge to tell me why.

What "thumbs down" to "thumbs up" ratio do I need to get my challenge archived? Can I vote too?

[+drsolly]

To give Challenges a try, I have completed one and set one.

To complete my challenge, I had to take and post a photo that proved I had visited a location where there is no chance of a physical cache. Seemed ok to me, but the logging process is a bit Noddy compared with a real cache visit - optimised for Apps I suppose.

I set a Challenge, CX1B8A, which also requires you to take a photo from a location where a physical cache would not be possible. I also ask for some additional detail to validate it. The Challenge has attracted one acceptance and 3 Thumbs Down. I think it would be helpful if there was some facility for those who disapprove of my challenge to tell me why.

What "thumbs down" to "thumbs up" ratio do I need to get my challenge archived? Can I vote too?

 

Yes, you can vote for your own challenge.

[+RogerLB]

To give Challenges a try, I have completed one and set one.

To complete my challenge, I had to take and post a photo that proved I had visited a location where there is no chance of a physical cache. Seemed ok to me, but the logging process is a bit Noddy compared with a real cache visit - optimised for Apps I suppose.

I set a Challenge, CX1B8A, which also requires you to take a photo from a location where a physical cache would not be possible. I also ask for some additional detail to validate it. The Challenge has attracted one acceptance and 3 Thumbs Down. I think it would be helpful if there was some facility for those who disapprove of my challenge to tell me why.

What "thumbs down" to "thumbs up" ratio do I need to get my challenge archived? Can I vote too?

 

Yes, you can vote for your own challenge.

[+RogerLB]

I agree here with Juliadream. I have tried, and completed two and set one to see how things go. My challenge immediately on posting recieved a thumbs down from somebody but without the benefit of me knowing why. There seems to be a lot of thumbs down on this thread from the purists but I suppose it depends on what people want from the game. I think that I would rely on my own intellegence before deciding to do, or set, one. If I dont want to do it, I wont, and that would include kissing frogs or doing silly walks. If its going to take me to a place of some interest, maybe I would. As far as the numbers are concerned, I don't care if my neigbour does 500 challenges via Photoshop and gets credited with them. The way I see it, if you don't want to do it, don't. Unless of course I'm missing some deep seated point!

RogerLB

[+MartyBartfast]

... There seems to be a lot of thumbs down on this thread from the purists but I suppose it depends on what people want from the game. ...

 

I think that question should be "what people want from THIS game", and many people thing that THIS game (Geocaching) should be about finding boxes, not taking pictures of yourself kissing frogs. Groundspeak could also add an online pool tournament to the site and give points for winning a game, or they could add a facebook like mechanism for tagging photos and give points every time you tag someone in a photo, or any one of thousands of other things (none of which have much to do with geocaching); and the whole thing would degenerate into something I couldn't be bothered with, but it could still be argued "if you don't want to play pool/tag photos/etc then dont do it".

 

All in all I've decided that the challenges thing isn't for me.