Jump to content

Challenges: Now that they are released


NYPaddleCacher
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

Did you sign a logbook when you did your 3 virtuals and 16 earthcaches?

No?

I assume you'll be deleting those finds, right?

No?

Looks a little hypocritical from here in the cheap seats. Just sayin'... :rolleyes:

 

 

Don't see this as hypocritical at all. The person completed those activities, why shouldn't they log them, even if they want them separated from their geocaches? I think it's a tired argument (which I've seen repeated over and over when you don't even know the poster's complete intention for all the different type of virtual activities they've logged) against anyone that wants geocaching in one place, and other activities elsewhere. So I geocache, am I not allowed have an opinion on how things should be set up and recorded if I also do waymarks, challenges, virtuals, etc.?

 

It is arguably inconsistent to say "I refuse to do challenges as long as they count as finds" when one willingly does virtuals which count as finds. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy, and to go around insulting other geocachers with the latter word is more than a little childish and offensive.

 

 

Link to comment

Did you sign a logbook when you did your 3 virtuals and 16 earthcaches?

No?

I assume you'll be deleting those finds, right?

No?

Looks a little hypocritical from here in the cheap seats. Just sayin'... :rolleyes:

 

 

Don't see this as hypocritical at all. The person completed those activities, why shouldn't they log them, even if they want them separated from their geocaches? I think it's a tired argument (which I've seen repeated over and over when you don't even know the poster's complete intention for all the different type of virtual activities they've logged) against anyone that wants geocaching in one place, and other activities elsewhere. So I geocache, am I not allowed have an opinion on how things should be set up and recorded if I also do waymarks, challenges, virtuals, etc.?

 

It is arguably inconsistent to say "I refuse to do challenges as long as they count as finds" when one willingly does virtuals which count as finds. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy, and to go around insulting other geocachers with the latter word is more than a little childish and offensive.

 

Then you can say that I'm inconsistent. It still doesn't change the fact that I don't want my challenges (or my virtuals, webcams, etc) lumped in with my geocaches. Just like I don't want my trackables lumped in with my geocaches. It doesn't mean I'm not going to log every cache I find, challenge I complete, virtual I complete, or trackable I find. I find that the model of consistency, I log everything.

Link to comment
Or "puritan". :ph34r:

Say, has anyone compared challenges to ice cream yet?

No, but they are a lot like the ice cream you buy from the back of a former postal truck that drives through the neighborhood playing that inane music.

So... you're saying that even if you don't buy any, the music still irritates the heck out of you? :lol:

Link to comment

It is arguably inconsistent to say "I refuse to do challenges as long as they count as finds" when one willingly does virtuals which count as finds. But inconsistency is not hypocrisy, and to go around insulting other geocachers with the latter word is more than a little childish and offensive.

 

Then you can say that I'm inconsistent. It still doesn't change the fact that I don't want my challenges (or my virtuals, webcams, etc) lumped in with my geocaches. Just like I don't want my trackables lumped in with my geocaches. It doesn't mean I'm not going to log every cache I find, challenge I complete, virtual I complete, or trackable I find. I find that the model of consistency, I log everything.

 

Nothing inconsistent about that. Nor is it such a bad thing to be inconsistent.

 

"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" — Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

 

To be a hypocrite, though, is to condemn others for behavior that is the same as or better than one's own, and I have yet to see an excuse for slinging that insult around here as some have done.

Link to comment

Glad to see they removed a bogus log on one of my Challenges....if I can't delete them, at least someone will. They're gonna have to hire some extra people to read all these flagged Challenges and flagged logs........wow.

I don't know the internal workings, but I doubt that anyone reads the flagged logs at all. I'm pretty sure that it's just an algorithm that automatically deletes the log after it is flagged a certain number of times.

Link to comment
It doesn't mean I'm not going to log every cache I find, challenge I complete, virtual I complete, or trackable I find.

But you've already stated that you will not log Challenges. Period. Didn't you? The reason you gave for refusing to log Challenges is because they count toward your finds, though they are not caches. The hypocritical aspect (Yeah, Doctroid, I know. You don't see it as hypocritical. I get that. But I, along with Daniel Webster, do see it as hypocritical) of that ideology is that you have logged other things which, according to your later definition, are also not caches, and you claim that you'd do so again.

 

Here's the feed we see from you, so far;

Virtuals are not caches.

Earthcaches are not caches.

Challenges are not caches.

(I'm with you so far...) B)

I will log virtuals.

I will log earthcaches.

I will not log Challeges, because they aren't caches.

(See where you lose me?) :blink:

 

I'm OK with you logging them or not logging them, as you see fit. It's entirely up to you. I simply take umbrage at you utilizing such a contradictory reason for not doing so, if that's the direction you choose to take. B)

Link to comment

There's an App for that! Yeah! :grin:

 

I grabbed the free official "Challenges" Android app today. It's very basic, but addresses the ability to find challenges -- it updates for location.

 

I won't log a "find" on the "photo of you" ones, just like I didn't on the Earthcache, but I'll still at least make a note if I do one. And there aren't any challenges around here. So whether I'd do those or not is purely hypothetical. But just like when I saw no caches within 60 miles on that Other Leading Cache Site, I do feel the need to make a Challenge here. But it would have to be a GREAT one.

Link to comment

I guess I want to know why they spent so much money developing something new (and not as good) to replace virtuals (and locationless caches) when they could have just re-enabled them and spend very little making it so you could only make x amount a day. Spend the rest of the money drawing up detailed criteria of what GS defines as wow. That way it is not subjective, it fits the GS defination or not. If the cache does not fit that then the reviewer can say no. if the persona does not like it they can appeal to GS for a final no (or yes). I know many reviewers did not want to approved virtual caches but it really is not their say. The can always resign if they want, there are 100s of people more than willing to take their spot. This really could have taken like a month but instead it has dragged on for nearly a year with no input from the user base. When i voted to bring back virtual I thought id be getting a ghost icon not a man in a cape and i thought it would be for using my gps not kissing a frog.

Edited by releasethedogs
Link to comment

But you've already stated that you will not log Challenges. Period. Didn't you? The reason you gave for refusing to log Challenges is because they count toward your finds, though they are not caches. The hypocritical aspect (Yeah, Doctroid, I know. You don't see it as hypocritical. I get that. But I, along with Daniel Webster, do see it as hypocritical) of that ideology is that you have logged other things which, according to your later definition, are also not caches, and you claim that you'd do so again.

 

I never said that I wouldn't do or log a challenge(I haven't personally done one yet). I think that presumed assumption is the crux of the problem of your tired argument. It's applied to everyone regardless and without reading their post/response. My reasoning is I didn't want them to be lumped in with caches, so as to avoid confusion for park superintendents, and I would lose my leverage(and years of convincing) in trying to get real caches in parks like the NPS.

 

Here's the feed we see from you, so far;

Virtuals are not caches.

Earthcaches are not caches.

Challenges are not caches.

(I'm with you so far...) B)

I will log virtuals.

I will log earthcaches.

I will not log Challeges, because they aren't caches.

(See where you lose me?) :blink:

 

I wish they would be separated as well, but that ship has long past. I've complained about that in the past, but there's not enough community support for that idea. Oh by the way, I log moving caches(some of them up to 20 times) too, am I not allowed to complain if they add trackables into the cache section?

 

I'm OK with you logging them or not logging them, as you see fit. It's entirely up to you. I simply take umbrage at you utilizing such a contradictory reason for not doing so, if that's the direction you choose to take. B)

 

Still no contradictory reason that I see. Quite simply, I log everything, and I want caches with caches, virtuals with virtuals, and trackables with trackables. I can't control Groundspeak, but I can bitch and complain, and during the introduction of challenges, I get the biggest bang for my complaining buck.

Link to comment
...during the introduction of challenges, I get the biggest bang for my complaining buck.

Gotta agree with that. If you want change, you gotta let those who control things know about your wants. I saw a post somewhere saying Groundspeak has moved Challenges out of our caches found stat, though since I haven't logged any, I can't verify this. If so, I'd say the axiom of grease and squeaky wheels has some merit.

Link to comment

I guess I want to know why they spent so much money developing something new (and not as good) to replace virtuals (and locationless caches) when they could have just re-enabled them and spend very little making it so you could only make x amount a day. Spend the rest of the money drawing up detailed criteria of what GS defines as wow. That way it is not subjective, it fits the GS defination or not. If the cache does not fit that then the reviewer can say no. if the persona does not like it they can appeal to GS for a final no (or yes). I know many reviewers did not want to approved virtual caches but it really is not their say. The can always resign if they want, there are 100s of people more than willing to take their spot. This really could have taken like a month but instead it has dragged on for nearly a year with no input from the user base. When i voted to bring back virtual I thought id be getting a ghost icon not a man in a cape and i thought it would be for using my gps not kissing a frog.

Would you believe that when there were virtuals and particularly when the "wow" guideline was introduce, there were discussions in this forum that make today's threads about challenges look tame?

 

It is not an as easy as waving your hands and declaring what is "wow" or finding volunteers willing to take the heat when someone disagrees with their decision. EarthCache may work because they deal with a very narrow area of Earth science and have specific requirements that the task to complete must be educational. But even here, you can look in the EarthCaching forums to see the angst caused because the EarthCache reviewers said you couldn't ask for a picture to prove the finder was at the EarthCache, or when they declared that no more Springs or Waterfalls could be submitted. Or read how a proflic hider of EarthCaches got banned and his caches archived because of disputes over logging his EarthCaches.

 

Groundspeak knows very well the problems caused by the old virtuals and tried very much to come up with solutions in the past that involve "clarifying" the guidelines. Then they tried Waymarking as a solution and that didn't work. Challenges are another experiment. It will not satisfy everyone, but it does seem to address the desires of many who wanted to have the option for listing containerless challenges. How much GPS will be involved and how much it will be "frog kissing", will be determined by the community. Both by what they submit as challenges and by how they flag and rate the challenges others submit.

Link to comment
How much GPS will be involved and how much it will be "frog kissing", will be determined by the community. Both by what they submit as challenges and by how they flag and rate the challenges others submit.

 

The major flaw I see with the system is that it requires community education to work. How many cachers do you think will actually flag a challenge that's not location-based? Not a whole lot, because they don't know that they're not supposed to be locationless, or they don't care. It's about proportional to the number of cachers who will actually hit SBA on a cache that's clearly against the guidelines. The community needs to get to a point where it can effectively work as a collective reviewing entity. Right now, it's not there, yet.

Link to comment

 

The major flaw I see with the system is that it requires community education to work. How many cachers do you think will actually flag a challenge that's not location-based? Not a whole lot, because they don't know that they're not supposed to be locationless, or they don't care. It's about proportional to the number of cachers who will actually hit SBA on a cache that's clearly against the guidelines.

 

I think that there are many more cachers who flag challenges than who post need archived logs. As flagging challenges can be done by just clicking somewhere and without having to be confronted with furious and often insulting reactions of those who want the cache under consideration to stay, this is not surprising at all.

 

With the current system, it is however not that easy to become aware of new challenges that are not worldwide ones. It would be much easier if one could search for them by state/country.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I posted this to another thread and am also posting it here. I'm trying to define challenges. They don't seem to be anything new, just a rehashing of things Groundspeak said no to like ALRs and virtuals. Seems that between Waymarking and geocaching.com you can already find all these challenges without the need for a separate category.

 

Challenges

1.Perform an activity- maybe take a picture of you doing it, locationless so no coordinates to locate, no cache to find, nothing to sign, log online. This is geocaching? (I think these challenges can only be made by Groundspeak?)

 

2.Find a location- find the coordinates, maybe take a picture of it, no cache to find or log to sign, log online. Sounds like virtuals/Waymarking to me. Groundspeak didn't want virtuals. .

 

3.Find a location and perform an activity - find the coordinates, maybe take a picture of it, maybe find something and log online. Sounds like an ALR to me. Groundspeak didn't want ALRs, but caches with a suggested activity are allowed as long as the activity is voluntary- not required in order to log the cache.

 

4.Find caches relevant to a challenge- find all the caches required to meet the challenge, find the coordinates, find caches, maybe take a picture, sign logs, log online.

 

Did I get these right? Any I forgot?

 

People liked virtuals, but I guess the reviewers were having time dealing with them. People liked ARLs although others felt that finding the cache and signing log should be enough to log a find. People liked traveling caches. Groundspeak didn't want traveling caches . Think those can be tweaked to apply as a challenge?

Link to comment
I'm trying to define challenges.

I've come up with a few comparisons that helped me understand where Challenges fit in the overall scheme of things. While there could be a few nits in my comparisons, (and I have little doubt someone will dive in with their pickers activated), they mostly work:

 

Virtual Cache = Go to a specific spot as defined by GPS cordinates. Perform a task as defined by the Virtual creator. (answer a question/take a picture/etc) Post a log describing your adventure.

 

User Created Challenge = Go to a specific spot as defined by GPS cordinates. Perform a task as defined by the Challenge creator. (climb a lamp post/take a picture/etc) Post a log describing your adventure.

 

Locationless Cache = Go to a spot not predefined by GPS Coordinates, where an object defined by the Locationless creator is located. (street sign bearing your last name/yellow Jeep/etc) Perform a task. (grab coords & take a picture) Post a log describing your adventure.

 

Worldwide Challenge = Go to a spot not predefined by GPS Coordinates, where an object/situation defined by the Challenge creator is located. (stuffed frog/litter along a trail/etc) Perform a task. (kiss a frog/pick up litter & take a picture) Post a log describing your adventure.

Link to comment

While there could be a few nits in my comparisons, (and I have little doubt someone will dive in with their pickers activated), they mostly work:

Let me guess, I was on the top of your list? :P

 

I think your definitions are quite good. My only observation is that the emphasis/essence of Virtuals and Locationless was the location while the emphasis/essence of User Created Challenges and Worldwide Challenges is the action.

Link to comment

While there could be a few nits in my comparisons, (and I have little doubt someone will dive in with their pickers activated), they mostly work:

Let me guess, I was on the top of your list? :P

 

I think your definitions are quite good. My only observation is that the emphasis/essence of Virtuals and Locationless was the location while the emphasis/essence of User Created Challenges and Worldwide Challenges is the action.

 

It all depends on the person who submits it. If someone wants to emphasize the location, they are free to. I've submitted several location based challenges that are all about the location. All you need to complete them is a photo of you or your GPS at the location. That is similar to how many virtuals work.

 

I also have one that is mostly about the location, but you need to pose holding a US flag. It is still about the location. The goal is to bring people to the summit of a mountain with a gorgeous view, but it adds a fun little element as well.

 

Challenges, like caches, will only be as good as the people who submit them. There will be lame challenges just like there are lame caches and there will be outstanding challenges. One person in my area has already submitted several outstanding challenges that are 100 percent about the location.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I posted this to another thread and am also posting it here. I'm trying to define challenges. They don't seem to be anything new, just a rehashing of things Groundspeak said no to like ALRs and virtuals. Seems that between Waymarking and geocaching.com you can already find all these challenges without the need for a separate category.

You certainly can do everything you can do with the new challenges using Waymarking (and possibly with Gowalla or Foursquare). But what Grounspeak chose to do was create a new activity on Geocaching.com that they belived

1. complemented the existing geocaching activities, and

2. would provide an alternative to virtual and locationless caches which are not longer listed on Geocaching.com.

 

Virtual and locationless caches were an attempt in the early years of geocaching to deal with a lack of physical caches in many areas. The virtual caches allowed people to go find an existing object instead of a geocache in an area where a physical cache could not be hidden. The locationless caches allowed people to find any object anywhere and use the GPS to record the location of it.

 

Overtime, these activities began to interfere with the core activity of hiding and finding physical geocaches. Guidelines changes were made to limit the number of virtual and locationless caches and to ensure "quality" of the ones that were published. A moratorium was put on locationless caches altogether, and the reviewers published so few virtuals that essentially there was a moratorium on them as well. Groundspeak decided that these would be better served as another game separate from geocaching. In designing that game (Waymarking), they noticed that often people submitted locations as virtual caches that were not so much about finding an object but about sharing a special place like a park, a beach, or a trail. Waymarking was designed to allow these locations as well as specific items like a funny sign, an historic marker, or the grave of a famous person.

 

In the end this did not satisfy the geocachers who felt that virtual caches and locationless complemented their geocaching and should be brought back to Geoaching.com. Even in areas where there were plenty of physical geocaches to find, some geocachers were dissapointed that so few of these geocaches were in interesting places. They enjoyed finding the grandfathered virtual caches - especially those that were reviewed for the "wow" factor. So despite the fact that you could list and find these places on Waymarking, people continued to clamor for way to list place on Geocaching.com without having to hide a cache there.

 

Groundspeak appears to have used the lessons from the original virtual and locationless caches and from Waymarking, as well as observing how others implemented location based activities, to come up with Challenges. They seem to have found a way to list these challenges on the Geocaching.com website without interefering with the core activity of finding physical geocaches, and present them in a way to complement the core activity for when people don't feel like looking for a cache or simply want an interesting thing to do while out looking for caches. They can easily be ignored if you don't like them. By providing a smartphone app, Groundspeak is taking aim at Gowalla and Foursquare and moving into a market of people who don't what to have to find a container in order to visit a new location (or find it frustrating to visit a location and come up with a DNF).

Link to comment

It all depends on the person who submits it. If someone wants to emphasize the location, they are free to. I've submitted several location based challenges that are all about the location. All you need to complete them is a photo of you or your GPS at the location. That is similar to how many virtuals work.

Yes, photo challenges are close to how many virtuals work. As long as they're not mislabeled action challenges.

 

I also have one that is mostly about the location, but you need to pose holding a US flag. It is still about the location. The goal is to bring people to the summit of a mountain with a gorgeous view, but it adds a fun little element as well.

No, it's about the action. If I'm down south in the US and I see that challenge I'll pass it up as I don't have a US flag. The action requirement prevents me from completing it therefore it's about the action. It just happens to be at a nice location which I'm not going to visit.

 

Yes, it's a strange point of view but I've never been quite normal. :P

 

Challenges, like caches, will only be as good as the people who submit them. There will be lame challenges just like there are lame caches and there will be outstanding challenges. One person in my area has already submitted several outstanding challenges that are 100 percent about the location.

That's good to hear.

 

I just wish I could ignore the ones I don't like so they won't appear in my searches.

Link to comment
My only observation is that the emphasis/essence of Virtuals and Locationless was the location while the emphasis/essence of User Created Challenges and Worldwide Challenges is the action.

That seems to be mostly due to a misunderstanding. As an intended replacement for virtuals, the examples created by Groundspeak were quite poor, and so is the wording of the whole concept ("do something"). Monkey see monkey do, so that's what everybody started creating. Or maybe that's even what Groundspeak wanted them to be, but obviously many cachers don't like that. But if/when the users realize that the challenges should really be about the location and its features (locationless challenges obviously exempted), I think they can work quite well. There's already quite a few challenges out there that are just what they should be.

 

I just wish I could ignore the ones I don't like so they won't appear in my searches.

Yup, filtering should be one of the first things they add.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
...during the introduction of challenges, I get the biggest bang for my complaining buck.

Gotta agree with that. If you want change, you gotta let those who control things know about your wants. I saw a post somewhere saying Groundspeak has moved Challenges out of our caches found stat, though since I haven't logged any, I can't verify this. If so, I'd say the axiom of grease and squeaky wheels has some merit.

 

Doesn't hurt that Jeremy didn't want them included in the count in the first place.

 

I think they could do better by removing the count entirely.

Link to comment

It all depends on the person who submits it. If someone wants to emphasize the location, they are free to. I've submitted several location based challenges that are all about the location. All you need to complete them is a photo of you or your GPS at the location. That is similar to how many virtuals work.

 

Agreed apart from the fact that I am aware of many virtuals where no photo is required at all (rather an answer sent by mail which I prefer) or where at least one has the option of just taking a photo of one's GPS-r.

 

I also have one that is mostly about the location, but you need to pose holding a US flag. It is still about the location. The goal is to bring people to the summit of a mountain with a gorgeous view, but it adds a fun little element as well.

 

I guess whether one regards this as a fun element is subjective. I never ever would go to some place with a flag of my country or another country (it does not depend).

Your challenge is ok, however - it just does not suit my preferences.

 

Challenges, like caches, will only be as good as the people who submit them. There will be lame challenges just like there are lame caches and there will be outstanding challenges.

 

Certainly the outcome depends on what is submitted, but also on the options provided. At the moment there is not that much flexibility available for those who do not enjoy photo challenges. Moreover, I feel that challenges are not good in providing a framework for tasks of the type where you first need to find out where to go and then go there and are not told the coordinates of the location to go to. (There can be some GPS-involvement in the second phase, in the same way as in many ?-caches.)

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I also have one that is mostly about the location, but you need to pose holding a US flag. It is still about the location. The goal is to bring people to the summit of a mountain with a gorgeous view, but it adds a fun little element as well.

No, it's about the action. If I'm down south in the US and I see that challenge I'll pass it up as I don't have a US flag. The action requirement prevents me from completing it therefore it's about the action. It just happens to be at a nice location which I'm not going to visit.

 

Yes, it's a strange point of view but I've never been quite normal. :P

It is a strange point of view, since there is no verification of the challenge, you could easily visit the location, hold a Canadian flag, and claim you completed it. I suppose in a photo challenge someone will say "Hey, that's a Canadian flag not an American flag" and flag your log. But hopefully, people will realize the spirit of the challenge is to have fun and accept creative ways to meet the challenge.

 

If someone were get to the summit of briansnat's mountain and didn't have an American flag, I would think they would do like a cacher who got there and didn't have a pen to sign the log. Some will be puritans and will not log the challenge. Some will find some creative way to meet the challenge (equivalent to signing the log with mud or tearing the corner of the page), and some will log the challenge and explain why they didn't have a flag (just as some will log the find online without signing the log). Hopefully, community policing of the logs will not be puritanical.

 

Perhaps, for the puritan challenge taker, there needs to be a not completed log. If you visit a location where you feel you can't complete the challenge you could log 'not completed'. So you can still go to these locations and enjoy them.

Link to comment

With the latest web site changes and the new challenges apps it looks like GS will hit a home run with challenges, We have a good group here in the Buffalo / Erie PA / Rochester NY area, who have some awesome geocache placements and I am looking forward to some quality challenges from them, Already they are coming to fruition. :)

 

I love your optimism Frank. But GS doesn't have that great a track record over the last few attempts at expanding the product line. I'll cross my fingers and hope they stick with this one.

Link to comment

I suppose in a photo challenge someone will say "Hey, that's a Canadian flag not an American flag" and flag your log. But hopefully, people will realize the spirit of the challenge is to have fun and accept creative ways to meet the challenge.

 

What you wrote above brings up another reason why I prefer the concept of virtuals to the concept of challenges. While I would not flag a log showing a Canadian flag, it never ever would come to my mind to do something else than what is required and I would not associate such a behaviour with having fun. I also do not like the "be creative" aspect that is mentioned many times in connection with challenges, both as thinking up actions and ways to complete a challenge are regarded. It simply does not match with my approach to geocaching and life in general.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It is a strange point of view, since there is no verification of the challenge, you could easily visit the location, hold a Canadian flag, and claim you completed it. I suppose in a photo challenge someone will say "Hey, that's a Canadian flag not an American flag" and flag your log.

Call me a puritan then but if I can't do it properly I won't do it. It also nicely ties in with my other complaint of no challenge ownership.

 

But hopefully, people will realize the spirit of the challenge is to have fun and accept creative ways to meet the challenge.

Yes, the make up your own rules crowd. I'm not touching that argument...

 

Perhaps, for the puritan challenge taker, there needs to be a not completed log. If you visit a location where you feel you can't complete the challenge you could log 'not completed'. So you can still go to these locations and enjoy them.

If I just wanted to go to nice locations to just enjoy them I'd be subscribing to tourist magazines and not this site.

Link to comment

I'd love to do some local challenges if it would be easier to find them. apparently there is only 1 "nearby," 3 if i search "massachusetts" but more massachusetts ones pop up if i search a different city like "springfield, ma." Would be nice not to have to search by city and have to go down the list of cities i might be near.

 

Just wish it was easier to find challenges. :(

I plan on doing the rest of the worldwide ones so far.

Link to comment

By providing a smartphone app, Groundspeak is taking aim at Gowalla and Foursquare and moving into a market of people who don't what to have to find a container in order to visit a new location (or find it frustrating to visit a location and come up with a DNF).

 

Ahhhhh, I see. I suppose quite a new market has opened up with the new technology. I would suspect more people have smart phones than the old hand held GPS.

Link to comment

By providing a smartphone app, Groundspeak is taking aim at Gowalla and Foursquare and moving into a market of people who don't what to have to find a container in order to visit a new location (or find it frustrating to visit a location and come up with a DNF).

 

Ahhhhh, I see. I suppose quite a new market has opened up with the new technology. I would suspect more people have smart phones than the old hand held GPS.

 

I was excited when I first learned of GoWalla and Foursquare, they sounded really fun. Then I figured out I had to have a smartphone in order to play, I couldn't just come back online and log that I had been there. I have a handheld GPS and not a smart phone.

Link to comment

By providing a smartphone app, Groundspeak is taking aim at Gowalla and Foursquare and moving into a market of people who don't what to have to find a container in order to visit a new location (or find it frustrating to visit a location and come up with a DNF).

 

Ahhhhh, I see. I suppose quite a new market has opened up with the new technology. I would suspect more people have smart phones than the old hand held GPS.

Folks should pay attention. Jeremy has posted about his interest in Foursquare and social media on (I think it was) Facebook for quite some time. When one of the principals of any company expresses a personal interest in something it probably shouldn't be a surprise to see such features appear in the company's products.

 

I'm guessing that Challenges are designed to move the company (and thus the game) in that direction.

Link to comment
Folks should pay attention. Jeremy has posted about his interest in Foursquare and social media on (I think it was) Facebook for quite some time. When one of the principals of any company expresses a personal interest in something it probably shouldn't be a surprise to see such features appear in the company's products.

 

I'm guessing that Challenges are designed to move the company (and thus the game) in that direction.

Groundspeak can easily have this under Waymarking or even a new, separate site. I guess they want to take advantage of the larger player base at geocaching.com. A number of very vocal people objected. Ultimately it is up to Groundspeak to determine what is the best course to take.

 

I'm curious, was there a similar reaction when Earthcaches were introduced?

Link to comment
Folks should pay attention. Jeremy has posted about his interest in Foursquare and social media on (I think it was) Facebook for quite some time. When one of the principals of any company expresses a personal interest in something it probably shouldn't be a surprise to see such features appear in the company's products.

 

I'm guessing that Challenges are designed to move the company (and thus the game) in that direction.

Groundspeak can easily have this under Waymarking or even a new, separate site. I guess they want to take advantage of the larger player base at geocaching.com. A number of very vocal people objected. Ultimately it is up to Groundspeak to determine what is the best course to take.

 

It rather seems to be that they wanted to come along with something they regard as "cool" and appealing to the social media folk and I do not think that Waymarking appeals to that audience. Of course it is up to Groundspeak to determine what is the best course for them to take. This does not mean that everyone has to be happy with the course they take.

 

I'm curious, was there a similar reaction when Earthcaches were introduced?

 

I have never encountered an EC comparable to the Kiss a frog challenge and other childish tasks.

EC undergo a serious review and there are quite detailed guidelines. There are many aspects where I do not share the opinions of the EC team, but their mission is much closer to my idea of geocaching and of taking care of nature and treating this treasure repsectfully than everything I read about the idea of challenges from people from Groundspeak. I kept keywords like cool, fun actions, creative, mobile apps etc in my mind and none I personally associate with geocaching.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Folks should pay attention. Jeremy has posted about his interest in Foursquare and social media on (I think it was) Facebook for quite some time. When one of the principals of any company expresses a personal interest in something it probably shouldn't be a surprise to see such features appear in the company's products.

 

I'm guessing that Challenges are designed to move the company (and thus the game) in that direction.

Groundspeak can easily have this under Waymarking or even a new, separate site. I guess they want to take advantage of the larger player base at geocaching.com. A number of very vocal people objected. Ultimately it is up to Groundspeak to determine what is the best course to take.

 

It rather seems to be that they wanted to come along with something they regard as "cool" and appealing to the social media folk and I do not think that Waymarking appeals to that audience. Of course it is up to Groundspeak to determine what is the best course for them to take. This does not mean that everyone has to be happy with the course they take.

There is nothing inherent in Waymarking that would make it "uncool" to "social media folk" (though I'm not sure what you mean by this term).

 

Groundspeak has chosen to develop only one smartphone app and that one appeals mainly to people who like to stop and visit historic markers and the like when they are driving down the road. More smartphone apps or an API that would allow others to create apps would contribute to making Waymarking a "cool" platform for creating all sorts of social, game-like experiences. Event he activity of finding another McDonald's restaurant to add to the list (or to verify that the ones on the list are really there can be given a game dynamic by awarding points to someone using a phone app.

 

There was an attempt to introduce a game dynamic with Waymarking scavenger hunts, which are challenges to visit a specific set of waymarks in an area. But without a smartphone app for it, it hasn't caught one.

 

Originally Waymarking had a section called Waymarking games. Most were equivalent to the worldwide challenges and a few were like virtual caches or location based challenges. The nice thing was that any premium member could start a group and create new games. For some reason, Groundspeak decidde to rename this section "multifarious" and use it as catchall for any waymark category that didn't fit in another section. For me, this was an indication that Groundspeak no longer intended to grow Waymarking in the direction where it could appeal to a broader market than the waymarkers who like to make lists of places. In my opinion this was a mistake.

 

I'm curious, was there a similar reaction when Earthcaches were introduced?

 

I have never encountered an EC comparable to the Kiss a frog challenge and other childish tasks.

EC undergo a serious review and there are quite detailed guidelines. There are many aspects where I do not share the opinions of the EC team, but their mission is much closer to my idea of geocaching and of taking care of nature and treating this treasure repsectfully than everything I read about the idea of challenges from people from Groundspeak. I kept keywords like cool, fun actions, creative, mobile apps etc in my mind and none I personally associate with geocaching.

 

Cezanne

When EarthCaches were added we still had virtual caches. There was a big outcry. According to some, these new EarthCache were just a way to create a virtual cache for some place that wasn't very "wow". The educational requirements were seen as just a reason to encourage more armchair logging.

 

On the other hand EarthCaching was able to get some early traction because the science and geology appealed to some of the people whom using a GPS and navigating to new places appeals to. Perhaps some confused geology with geodesy and topography and thought that there was some connection to using a GPS. EarthCaches were also helped because the GSA got the US national parks involved as a sponsor from the start and this was seen as a way to get the national parks more friendly toward geocaching.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I apologize if this has been addressed and I just can't find the answer, but.....

 

If the challenges we submit must be location-specific, than I'd really like to see a "nearest challenges" option on the cache page next to "nearest geocaches" and "nearest waymarks" and "nearest benchmarks". Maybe it's a feature that just wouldn't get enough use to warrant adding it to the options, and I understand that. Just asking........

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...