Log verification for challenges?

[cezanne]

I am wondering how log verification is intended to work for the new challenges. Until listening to the PodCast interview on this page http://www.podcacher.com/

I thought that the creator of a challenge will have some control on that, but apparently that's not the case. I can well imagine how the community can make sure that inappropriate challenges disappear, but how will this work for logs? For photo actions the system could at least check whether there is some photo at at all, but not what is shown on the photo. For action challenges I am wondering which way of proof will be used. Take e.g. the challenge to walk along some hiking trail. One could provide the GPS-track, but as the creator of a challenge is not involved at this stage any longer (if I understood it correctly), then verification methods of that type are not possible at all.

 

I am not bothered about occasional cheating logs, but if there is no mechanism at all, someone could e.g. simply log all challenges by some automatic procedure. Clearly such a person would not be among those that win a contest for the most creative way of meeting a challenge, but I do not think that mass loggers will miss something.

 

If mobile applications are used, a verification method for challenges that take place at a single location (not a hiking trail e.g.) would be of course logging directly from the site and sending the coordinates along, but that would exclude a large group of cachers, and it appears that logging directly at the location will be an option, but not mandatory.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 18, 2011 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

The same thought occurred to me when I listened to the podcast. If the challenge creator cannot delete logs, then who will verify them? I don't think Groundspeak will assume this huge burden. Maybe the geocaching community will be able to "vote" on which logs are bogus, but I can see problems with that too. Or maybe Groundspeak has simply given up trying to control armchair caching.

 

I guess we'll find out soon.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The same thought occurred to me when I listened to the podcast. If the challenge creator cannot delete logs, then who will verify them? I don't think Groundspeak will assume this huge burden. Maybe the geocaching community will be able to "vote" on which logs are bogus, but I can see problems with that too. Or maybe Groundspeak has simply given up trying to control armchair caching.

 

I guess we'll find out soon.

 

I suspect this might have something to do with the arm twisting that Jeremy described when the community and other lackeys convinced him to include completed challenges in the overall find count. We went into a bit of detail on how stats will be rendered and even described a scenario where one might look at the find count of another geocacher, see that they have 5000 "finds" but 95% of them are Challenges. He also commented on the communities ability to "vote", not so much on the bogosity of a log, but on the creativity used to complete the challenge. For "traditional" geocaches, the logs aren't supposed to be used for discussion even to post a note that someone might have "arm chair logged" the cache. However, for Challenges is sounds like a lot more interaction will be encouraged.

[+CanadianRockies]

For "traditional" geocaches, the logs aren't supposed to be used for discussion even to post a note that someone might have "arm chair logged" the cache. However, for Challenges is sounds like a lot more interaction will be encouraged.

Yes, I think there will be much more "discussion" in the challenge logs. But how will this eliminate armchair logging? If more than 50 percent of the loggers vote that a particular log is bogus, then will it be automatically deleted? At least we don't have to wait too long to get an answer.

[+St.Matthew]

And is there a consequence for the challenges that have too many thumbs down? For example, let's say someone wants to be boring and creates a photo challenge for every light post in a shopping area. Who cares if it has 0 thumbs up and 7641 thumbs down, people will still find it to up their find count.

 

However, if it were to disappear if it has a 51% thumbs down ratio...

[+CanadianRockies]

And is there a consequence for the challenges that have too many thumbs down? For example, let's say someone wants to be boring and creates a photo challenge for every light post in a shopping area. Who cares if it has 0 thumbs up and 7641 thumbs down, people will still find it to up their find count.

 

However, if it were to disappear if it has a 51% thumbs down ratio...

From what I've read elsewhere, the challenges that receive "too many" thumbs down indeed will disappear. I don't have any idea what the threshold will be.

[cezanne]

We went into a bit of detail on how stats will be rendered and even described a scenario where one might look at the find count of another geocacher, see that they have 5000 "finds" but 95% of them are Challenges.

 

Such a split does not say anything about whether the challenge logs are legitimate. For example, for many challenges no GPS-device seems to be necessary. (The Eiffel tower can be found without GPS-r, a tricky nano somewhere in the nowhere might be very hard to find even for people like edscott.)

 

He also commented on the communities ability to "vote", not so much on the bogosity of a log, but on the creativity used to complete the challenge. For "traditional" geocaches, the logs aren't supposed to be used for discussion even to post a note that someone might have "arm chair logged" the cache. However, for Challenges is sounds like a lot more interaction will be encouraged.

 

For photo challenges I can imagine that such a procedure works, but how for action challenges? How can the community check whether I e.g. really walked along a hiking trail?

 

Moreover, I am a bit worried about unmoderated debates about the manner people have accomplished a challenge.

So consider the following hypothetical examples (it might well be that they cannot implemented into challenges anyway - they are just used as examples to explain my point).

 

Example 1: One has to climb up a tree and sing a song there. I would not like to have negative comments on those who use a tool (say a ladder to do the jobs from sportive guys who think that only climbing up without tools is ok.

 

Example 2: Suppose the task is to go to location X and perform a headstand there. I would not like discussions on whose handstand is the best and negative comments about those who are not talented athlethes.

 

Cezanne

[+Coldgears]

I'm listening to the podcast now, and he just said that they will present the information in a way that works for everyone. It will tell you if he, for example, found 5 caches, and 2500 challenges, then its up to you to decide what that means.

 

Whether or not this means that it will say "2505 found", or "2500 challenges and 5 geocaches found" was not said.

 

IMHO, I will look at them like benchmarks, utterly useless.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Coldgears

[+Panther&Pine]

IMHO, I will look at them like benchmarks, utterly useless uninteresting to me.

Fixed it for you.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We went into a bit of detail on how stats will be rendered and even described a scenario where one might look at the find count of another geocacher, see that they have 5000 "finds" but 95% of them are Challenges.

 

Such a split does not say anything about whether the challenge logs are legitimate. For example, for many challenges no GPS-device seems to be necessary. (The Eiffel tower can be found without GPS-r, a tricky nano somewhere in the nowhere might be very hard to find even for people like edscott.)

 

He also commented on the communities ability to "vote", not so much on the bogosity of a log, but on the creativity used to complete the challenge. For "traditional" geocaches, the logs aren't supposed to be used for discussion even to post a note that someone might have "arm chair logged" the cache. However, for Challenges is sounds like a lot more interaction will be encouraged.

 

For photo challenges I can imagine that such a procedure works, but how for action challenges? How can the community check whether I e.g. really walked along a hiking trail?

 

Moreover, I am a bit worried about unmoderated debates about the manner people have accomplished a challenge.

So consider the following hypothetical examples (it might well be that they cannot implemented into challenges anyway - they are just used as examples to explain my point).

 

Example 1: One has to climb up a tree and sing a song there. I would not like to have negative comments on those who use a tool (say a ladder to do the jobs from sportive guys who think that only climbing up without tools is ok.

 

Example 2: Suppose the task is to go to location X and perform a headstand there. I would not like discussions on whose handstand is the best and negative comments about those who are not talented athlethes.

 

Cezanne

 

Jeremy did talk a bit about how the accuracy of coordinates will less important for Challenges. He used the example of a challenge of going to Groundspeak HQ and taking a picture of a picture taken in a photo booth that's located there. They'll be location based but not necessarily require the precision of a GPS receiver. I don't recall hearing anything regarding D/T ratings for challenges but clearly some challenges *will* be more difficult than others. Getting a photo of the Eiffel Tower is one thing (I took one from about a mile away when I was in Paris). For someone with acrophobia, getting a photo from the top of Eiffel tower will be a lot more difficult.

 

I'm not going to comment any more on how the stats will display until I see what they've done.

 

I'm also concerned about the unmoderated debates regarding challenges. If Challenges fail, it will almost certainly be because there will be a segment of geocachers that just can't behave.

 

Regarding your examples:

 

In example #1, I got the impression that comments on how one met a challenge was going to be encouraged, especially if the completion of the challenge was performed with creativity. For example, if someone used a trampoline to get up into the tree it would get a favorable review. I understand the concern about having community judge how others complete the challenge, especially any sort of physical challenge where the "judge" has no knowledge of the physical limitations of someone attempting the challenge.

 

I'll get back to the other examples...the site is back up (http://www.geocaching.com/Challenges/)

[+CanadianRockies]

Now we know. From the FAQ:

 

Challenges run on the honor system. Say you completed it? We believe you. After all, you're only cheating yourself!

[+CanadianRockies]

And is there a consequence for the challenges that have too many thumbs down? For example, let's say someone wants to be boring and creates a photo challenge for every light post in a shopping area. Who cares if it has 0 thumbs up and 7641 thumbs down, people will still find it to up their find count.

 

However, if it were to disappear if it has a 51% thumbs down ratio...

From what I've read elsewhere, the challenges that receive "too many" thumbs down indeed will disappear. I don't have any idea what the threshold will be.

It looks like they have scrapped the idea of letting poorly rated challenges drop off the site. From the FAQ, it looks like only "inappropriate" challenges will be eliminated:

 

On each Challenge page there is a link to flag the Challenge as spam, unplayable or for offensive or prohibited content. If a Challenge is flagged enough times it becomes permanently unavailable.

[+sword fern]

I'm listening to the podcast now, and he just said that they will present the information in a way that works for everyone. It will tell you if he, for example, found 5 caches, and 2500 challenges, then its up to you to decide what that means.

 

Whether or not this means that it will say "2505 found", or "2500 challenges and 5 geocaches found" was not said.

 

IMHO, I will look at them like benchmarks, utterly useless.

 

So that means you only care about the numbers?

[+Coldgears]

I'm listening to the podcast now, and he just said that they will present the information in a way that works for everyone. It will tell you if he, for example, found 5 caches, and 2500 challenges, then its up to you to decide what that means.

 

Whether or not this means that it will say "2505 found", or "2500 challenges and 5 geocaches found" was not said.

 

IMHO, I will look at them like benchmarks, utterly useless.

 

So that means you only care about the numbers?

Nope, I just don't consider Benchmarking to have anything to do with geocaching. So if I see someone with 1,000 benchmarks, I don't consider that. I also don't think Challenges have anything to do with geocaching either. Sounds like a completely different sport. And that DOES count towards your find count.

[cezanne]

 

Regarding your examples:

 

In example #1, I got the impression that comments on how one met a challenge was going to be encouraged, especially if the completion of the challenge was performed with creativity. For example, if someone used a trampoline to get up into the tree it would get a favorable review.

 

It depends on how the challenge is formulated and where it is located. If the visitor were asked to climb up the tree and if that happened in my area, I am almost sure that negative comments would arrive for logs using some tool.

I understood Jeremy's comment about creativity just as his personal hope that creativity will come into the play, not that the comments of cachers are restricted to judging the creativity.

 

I understand the concern about having community judge how others complete the challenge, especially any sort of physical challenge where the "judge" has no knowledge of the physical limitations of someone attempting the challenge.

 

Exactly. As every single log for a challenge can be commented by everyone, I am quite sure that such incidents will happen.

In some limited form it even happens in cache logs (e.g. I know a multi cache where the first stage is only reachable via a difficult via ferrata of difficulty class C, but there exist only three choices for the final coordinates and some visitors complained about cachers who logged the T=5* cache even though they did not visit the first stage and the ferrata), but in the case of caches it is not possible to comment logs directly.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Now we know. From the FAQ:

 

Challenges run on the honor system. Say you completed it? We believe you. After all, you're only cheating yourself!

 

Thanks for posting this. That's very disappointing and unfortunate with respect to action challenges. The situation is a bit better for photo challenges or challenges where photo proofs can be posted as then one can at least see that some visitors have really completed the challenge and the idea is not just to make fun about Groundspeak or about challenges.

 

The cheating themselves aspect is just one aspect. I care more about the "noise" that is created in that way.

I like to read about the experiences of people who have visited a place. Those not having been there or not having completed the

challenge, clutter up the result. Consider e.g. a challenge to walk from Munich to Venice (btw: there exists a physical cache along this route, but this does not play a role here). I'd like to encounter just the experiences of those who tried to meet this challenge.

 

Cezanne

[+dfx]

Nope, I just don't consider Benchmarking to have anything to do with geocaching. So if I see someone with 1,000 benchmarks, I don't consider that. I also don't think Challenges have anything to do with geocaching either. Sounds like a completely different sport. And that DOES count towards your find count.

 

Earthcaches and virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching either and also count towards your find count. The find count hasn't been a true find count in a loooong time. (Even though I agree that the future abundance of challenges will have the potential to skew somebody's find count a great deal.)

[+Coldgears]

Nope, I just don't consider Benchmarking to have anything to do with geocaching. So if I see someone with 1,000 benchmarks, I don't consider that. I also don't think Challenges have anything to do with geocaching either. Sounds like a completely different sport. And that DOES count towards your find count.

 

Earthcaches and virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching either and also count towards your find count. The find count hasn't been a true find count in a loooong time. (Even though I agree that the future abundance of challenges will have the potential to skew somebody's find count a great deal.)

You forgot Events. Unless you have a hard time "finding" the restaurant/pavilion.

[+dfx]

Nope, I just don't consider Benchmarking to have anything to do with geocaching. So if I see someone with 1,000 benchmarks, I don't consider that. I also don't think Challenges have anything to do with geocaching either. Sounds like a completely different sport. And that DOES count towards your find count.

 

Earthcaches and virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching either and also count towards your find count. The find count hasn't been a true find count in a loooong time. (Even though I agree that the future abundance of challenges will have the potential to skew somebody's find count a great deal.)

You forgot Events. Unless you have a hard time "finding" the restaurant/pavilion.

 

I purposely left them out because they're events for geocachers and in that sense "geocaching-related". But yeah, they're not caches, going to one ain't caching, and they shouldn't count to your find count.

[+sword fern]

Nope, I just don't consider Benchmarking to have anything to do with geocaching. So if I see someone with 1,000 benchmarks, I don't consider that. I also don't think Challenges have anything to do with geocaching either. Sounds like a completely different sport. And that DOES count towards your find count.

 

Earthcaches and virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching either and also count towards your find count. The find count hasn't been a true find count in a loooong time. (Even though I agree that the future abundance of challenges will have the potential to skew somebody's find count a great deal.)

You forgot Events. Unless you have a hard time "finding" the restaurant/pavilion.

 

I purposely left them out because they're events for geocachers and in that sense "geocaching-related". But yeah, they're not caches, going to one ain't caching, and they shouldn't count to your find count.

What if there was a guest book?

[+dfx]

Nope, I just don't consider Benchmarking to have anything to do with geocaching. So if I see someone with 1,000 benchmarks, I don't consider that. I also don't think Challenges have anything to do with geocaching either. Sounds like a completely different sport. And that DOES count towards your find count.

 

Earthcaches and virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching either and also count towards your find count. The find count hasn't been a true find count in a loooong time. (Even though I agree that the future abundance of challenges will have the potential to skew somebody's find count a great deal.)

You forgot Events. Unless you have a hard time "finding" the restaurant/pavilion.

 

I purposely left them out because they're events for geocachers and in that sense "geocaching-related". But yeah, they're not caches, going to one ain't caching, and they shouldn't count to your find count.

What if there was a guest book?

Then it was an event with a guest book.

[+Ike 13]

 

Earthcaches and virtuals have nothing to do with geocaching either and also count towards your find count. The find count hasn't been a true find count in a loooong time. (Even though I agree that the future abundance of challenges will have the potential to skew somebody's find count a great deal.)

But at least they take you somewhere! And you do have to find something (a piece of information).

 

Please let's not turn this into a debate of what is and isn't caching.

Edited August 18, 2011 by IkeHurley13

[+northernpenguin]

I am wondering how log verification is intended to work for the new challenges. Until listening to the PodCast interview on this page http://www.podcacher.com/

I thought that the creator of a challenge will have some control on that, but apparently that's not the case. I can well imagine how the community can make sure that inappropriate challenges disappear, but how will this work for logs? For photo actions the system could at least check whether there is some photo at at all, but not what is shown on the photo. For action challenges I am wondering which way of proof will be used. Take e.g. the challenge to walk along some hiking trail. One could provide the GPS-track, but as the creator of a challenge is not involved at this stage any longer (if I understood it correctly), then verification methods of that type are not possible at all.

 

I am not bothered about occasional cheating logs, but if there is no mechanism at all, someone could e.g. simply log all challenges by some automatic procedure. Clearly such a person would not be among those that win a contest for the most creative way of meeting a challenge, but I do not think that mass loggers will miss something.

 

If mobile applications are used, a verification method for challenges that take place at a single location (not a hiking trail e.g.) would be of course logging directly from the site and sending the coordinates along, but that would exclude a large group of cachers, and it appears that logging directly at the location will be an option, but not mandatory.

 

Cezanne

 

According to the release notes the log verification feature is coming:

 

Challenges is a work in progress! We are planing several hotfixes in the next couple weeks to address bugs and feature requests. Some ideas for the next phases include:

 

Highly rated Challenges displayed in geocache search results

Pocket Queries for Challenges (and GPX downloads)

Mapping tools

New Challenge Types

Support for verification questions

[+dfx]

According to the release notes the log verification feature is coming:

 

Challenges is a work in progress! We are planing several hotfixes in the next couple weeks to address bugs and feature requests. Some ideas for the next phases include:

 

Highly rated Challenges displayed in geocache search results

Pocket Queries for Challenges (and GPX downloads)

Mapping tools

New Challenge Types

Support for verification questions

 

From what was explained in the podcast, verification questions will be part of a new challenge type ("discovery" or some such). Kinda like virtuals work over on that other site.

[+northernpenguin]

According to the release notes the log verification feature is coming:

 

Challenges is a work in progress! We are planing several hotfixes in the next couple weeks to address bugs and feature requests. Some ideas for the next phases include:

 

Highly rated Challenges displayed in geocache search results

Pocket Queries for Challenges (and GPX downloads)

Mapping tools

New Challenge Types

Support for verification questions

 

From what was explained in the podcast, verification questions will be part of a new challenge type ("discovery" or some such). Kinda like virtuals work over on that other site.

 

Well, that should work for those that want the answer a question experience. Frankly I'd be happy if I could just get an email when someone logs my challenge (haven't seen anything yet ....)

[+dfx]

Well, that should work for those that want the answer a question experience. Frankly I'd be happy if I could just get an email when someone logs my challenge (haven't seen anything yet ....)

 

I don't think that happens, because it's not "your" challenge. You created it, but beyond that it's out of your hands.

[+northernpenguin]

Well, that should work for those that want the answer a question experience. Frankly I'd be happy if I could just get an email when someone logs my challenge (haven't seen anything yet ....)

 

I don't think that happens, because it's not "your" challenge. You created it, but beyond that it's out of your hands.

 

I understand that, but sometimes it's nice to put a watch on that thing you created. I know I'm interested in seeing how people respond to a challenge I create.

Also, it's not /totally/ out of my hands - I get an "archive challenge" button if I want to detonate it later.

[+fuzziebear3]

I think ownership is important for quality control.

 

I really think the creator of a challenge should be listed. I furthermore think that they should be able to delete logs of those that didn't fulfill the challenge. Just like a cache owner and deleting bogus logs.

[cezanne]

 

According to the release notes the log verification feature is coming:

 

Challenges is a work in progress! We are planing several hotfixes in the next couple weeks to address bugs and feature requests. Some ideas for the next phases include:

 

Highly rated Challenges displayed in geocache search results

Pocket Queries for Challenges (and GPX downloads)

Mapping tools

New Challenge Types

Support for verification questions

 

I rather understood this as a possible option, but not mandatory.

 

Consider a challenge like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/view.aspx?cx=CX6FD

 

One is asked to cry out loudly "There is not enough water in the Chemnitz" during daylight.

In a reply to a feedback request Jeremy wrote that they might consider providing cachers with the possibility to vote on the integrity of a log, but this is not possible for such challenges as no form of proof exists. Even if a video would be required, there is no option to upload one on gc.com.

 

Cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

Now we know. From the FAQ:

 

Challenges run on the honor system. Say you completed it? We believe you. After all, you're only cheating yourself!

 

Well, they certainly never believed armchair "greetings from Germany" loggers, why start now?

 

I came to this thread because I looked at the basic Niagara Falls Challenge, (which was created by a guy local to me, who is a very active forum participant) and the first thing that popped out at me was that at least half the logs in the first 24 hours are "been there before" logs. Looks like you can log this with any old pic of the Falls you find on the internet, and say that you've been there, done that. So this is seriously going to be an unmoderated armchair logging free for all that counts in your find totals?

 

Consider this my first official "Nope, don't like 'em" post. Hey, I waited almost 24 hours.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+Kesj-Sjeng]

Now we know. From the FAQ:

 

Challenges run on the honor system. Say you completed it? We believe you. After all, you're only cheating yourself!

 

Honor system??? Apparently there are a LOT of people who have never even heard of such a thing!!! I keep seeing log entries and pictures that do NOT match the description of the challenge and should be deleted immediately. But the owner can't do that and there are not enough people at Groundspeak to check every log entry made...

 

I am now, since 2 days, the 'owner' of a challenge. Well... 'Owner'??? I don't own anything apparently!!! Unlike geocaches, you can only CREATE a challenge, but not control it... And I am now already DYING to delete several log entries, that do NOT match the challenge at hand... And I can't do anything, but write in a comment my apathy against the entry...

 

I hope Groundspeak comes up with the feature to DELETE log entries by the owner/creator of the challenge...

 

Groundspeak? Please??? For the quality of the challenges???

Edited August 22, 2011 by Kesj-Sjeng

[+GeoGeeBee]

Thinking seriously about archiving my challenge, since I can't control it anyway... Unless Groundspeak comes up with the feature to DELETE log entries by the owner/creator of the challenge...

 

You can't archive it. Once someone has accepted and completed the challenge, it belongs to the community, not to you.

 

You can, however, flag any logs that appear to be bogus.

[+Kesj-Sjeng]

Thinking seriously about archiving my challenge, since I can't control it anyway... Unless Groundspeak comes up with the feature to DELETE log entries by the owner/creator of the challenge...

 

You can't archive it. Once someone has accepted and completed the challenge, it belongs to the community, not to you.

 

You can, however, flag any logs that appear to be bogus.

 

True... I just discovered it myself. I have altered my post up here accordingly...

 

So, it's even worse! You can't even delete what you created! Once it's online and accepted by someone, it's totally out of your hands!!! I am surely NOT making any more challenges then!!! I want to be able to check and control the 'quality' of the challenge (and log entries), just like my geocaches...

 

Btw, as what should I flag any "bogus logs"??? You now can only choose between "Prohibited", "Offensive" and "Spam"... Somebody who makes an entry that does not (totally) match the challenge description should be marked as "incorrect" or "incomplete" or something like that... But there's nothing like that. And how long does it take for somebody to react to the "flag"???

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I'm listening to the podcast now, and he just said that they will present the information in a way that works for everyone. It will tell you if he, for example, found 5 caches, and 2500 challenges, then its up to you to decide what that means.

 

Whether or not this means that it will say "2505 found", or "2500 challenges and 5 geocaches found" was not said.

 

IMHO, I will look at them like benchmarks, utterly useless.

 

So that means you only care about the numbers?

Nope, I just don't consider Benchmarking to have anything to do with geocaching. So if I see someone with 1,000 benchmarks, I don't consider that. I also don't think Challenges have anything to do with geocaching either. Sounds like a completely different sport. And that DOES count towards your find count.

 

Since benchmarks have been on GC longer than you, a whole lot longer, I guess that means you have nothing to do with geocaching.

 

Benchmarks have been part of GC since very early on and to think that they are not part of GC doesn't quite seem rational.

 

Virtuals, locationless and now challenges are all part of GC. They maybe parts that you don't enjoy, but they are still here and part of the whole program.

 

John

[+t4e]

 

Btw, as what should I flag any "bogus logs"??? You now can only choose between "Prohibited", "Offensive" and "Spam"... Somebody who makes an entry that does not (totally) match the challenge description should be marked as "incorrect" or "incomplete" or something like that... But there's nothing like that. And how long does it take for somebody to react to the "flag"???

 

the only option that makes sense is "SPAM"

 

i wonder who the heck came up with those options lol

 

come to think of it i wonder who had the bright idea of taking away any type of control from the creator, that's just a really bad idea

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Well, that should work for those that want the answer a question experience. Frankly I'd be happy if I could just get an email when someone logs my challenge (haven't seen anything yet ....)

 

I don't think that happens, because it's not "your" challenge. You created it, but beyond that it's out of your hands.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Jeremy has posted a month ago,

 

"We're going to be releasing a new feature called Challenges. Anyone can create location-specific challenges based on taking a photo at the location or performing some sort of action. Once the Challenge has been published, you no longer own it, you can't delete bogus completed logs, and you can't archive it."

[+Coldgears]

Benchmarks have been part of GC since very early on and to think that they are not part of GC doesn't quite seem rational.

 

A benchmark is just a circle in a ground used by surveyors. Finding one has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

At all...

 

Benchmark hunting is a hobby, and is a legitimate one, might I add. But, If I was to see your Xbox Live gamerscore on Geocaching.com I wouldn't give two Zimbabwean billion dollar bills. Why, because video games have nothing to do with geocaching. Neither does benchmark hunting.

 

You could argue that benchmarking is much more Similar to geocaching, then say, video games. Now, what about metal detecting. Should there be a count of gold rings you found on the beach on geocaching.com? Should we display letterboxes? Orienteering? Mountains Scaled? Anytype of outdoor activity?

 

No... Not at all...

[+John in Valley Forge]

Benchmarks have been part of GC since very early on and to think that they are not part of GC doesn't quite seem rational.

 

A benchmark is just a circle in a ground used by surveyors. Finding one has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

At all...

 

Benchmark hunting is a hobby, and is a legitimate one, might I add. But, If I was to see your Xbox Live gamerscore on Geocaching.com I wouldn't give two Zimbabwean billion dollar bills. Why, because video games have nothing to do with geocaching. Neither does benchmark hunting.

 

You could argue that benchmarking is much more Similar to geocaching, then say, video games. Now, what about metal detecting. Should there be a count of gold rings you found on the beach on geocaching.com? Should we display letterboxes? Orienteering? Mountains Scaled? Anytype of outdoor activity?

 

No... Not at all...

 

Granted, finding a benchmark in the concrete sidewalk of an urban intersection is not very challenging.

Try finding some that are out in the wild, one that hasn't been found a dozen times last month. Maybe one without a witness post and an orange spray painted arrow.

 

oh, and the connection to geocaching? You get a set of coordinates from a website. You use your GPSr to reach those coordinates. You then find an object that has been hidden, it may be easy or it may be hard to locate. Then you log your find online.

 

Same as geocaching.

Edited August 23, 2011 by John in Valley Forge

[+Coldgears]

oh, and the connection to geocaching? You get a set of coordinates from a website. You use your GPSr to reach those coordinates. You then find an object that has been hidden, it may be easy or it may be hard to locate. Then you log your find online.

 

Same as geocaching.

You lost me here. The benchmark was never "hidden".

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Benchmarks have been part of GC since very early on and to think that they are not part of GC doesn't quite seem rational.

 

A benchmark is just a circle in a ground used by surveyors. Finding one has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

At all...

 

Benchmark hunting is a hobby, and is a legitimate one, might I add. But, If I was to see your Xbox Live gamerscore on Geocaching.com I wouldn't give two Zimbabwean billion dollar bills. Why, because video games have nothing to do with geocaching. Neither does benchmark hunting.

 

You could argue that benchmarking is much more Similar to geocaching, then say, video games. Now, what about metal detecting. Should there be a count of gold rings you found on the beach on geocaching.com? Should we display letterboxes? Orienteering? Mountains Scaled? Anytype of outdoor activity?

 

No... Not at all...

 

Some benchmarks are just holes drilled in a rock back in 1899. Some haven't been logged since they were placed! That's over 100 years ago.

 

Benchmarking is as much a part of GC as is travel bugs, CITO, virtuals, locationless and whatever Groundspeaks wishes to add the Their site. Picking up trash is not the same as finding a container, but CITO is still part of GC. Oh, letterboxing is partly allowed as in letterbox hybrids! If Groundspeak decides to add a game involving metal detectors, then it to would become part of the caching experience.

 

Just because you don't enjoy the activity doesn't mean it is NOT a part of GC. That same attitude is rampant about the new challenges. They are now part of GC, so learn to live with it, it makes life easier.

 

Don't forget, you need to use a GPSr for benchmarks, just for caching.

 

John

[+John in Valley Forge]

oh, and the connection to geocaching? You get a set of coordinates from a website. You use your GPSr to reach those coordinates. You then find an object that has been hidden, it may be easy or it may be hard to locate. Then you log your find online.

 

Same as geocaching.

You lost me here. The benchmark was never "hidden".

 

If it is not set in a sidewalk, then believe me, it is hidden by mother nature.

[+Coldgears]

Just because you don't enjoy the activity doesn't mean it is NOT a part of GC. That same attitude is rampant about the new challenges. They are now part of GC, so learn to live with it, it makes life easier.

 

Part of the geocaching.com website sure, obviously a part of it.

 

Part of the activity called geocaching it is not.

 

 

Benchmark hunting is an old hobby, and is just listed here to provide an easy way to access them.

 

I really think true letterboxes should be listed here, they should work a deal with Atlas Quest to place them hear. No find count just like Benchmarking.

 

Honestly, though? Letterboxing is more of a geocaching activity then Bench Mark Hunting, Letterboxing is what got me into geocaching.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Benchmarks have been part of GC since very early on and to think that they are not part of GC doesn't quite seem rational.

 

A benchmark is just a circle in a ground used by surveyors. Finding one has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

At all...

 

Benchmark hunting is a hobby, and is a legitimate one, might I add. But, If I was to see your Xbox Live gamerscore on Geocaching.com I wouldn't give two Zimbabwean billion dollar bills. Why, because video games have nothing to do with geocaching. Neither does benchmark hunting.

 

You could argue that benchmarking is much more Similar to geocaching, then say, video games. Now, what about metal detecting. Should there be a count of gold rings you found on the beach on geocaching.com? Should we display letterboxes? Orienteering? Mountains Scaled? Anytype of outdoor activity?

 

No... Not at all...

 

Granted, finding a benchmark in the concrete sidewalk of an urban intersection is not very challenging.

Try finding some that are out in the wild, one that hasn't been found a dozen times last month. Maybe one without a witness post and an orange spray painted arrow.

 

oh, and the connection to geocaching? You get a set of coordinates from a website. You use your GPSr to reach those coordinates. You then find an object that has been hidden, it may be easy or it may be hard to locate. Then you log your find online.

 

Same as geocaching.

Except that some of them are buried.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think the whole thing wiith the tie-in to benchmarks was that the USGS had no way over time to accurately track their benchmarks. Many had been lost. Then comes geocaching where a whole bunch of people with GPS receivers who liked to look for things are out and about in the world. It was a godsend to the USGS - let geocachers find and update our database! Plus it gave geocachers who didn't have a lot of caches around them a chance to get out and find things. A win for geocaching.com and the USGS.