Jump to content

Challenges: Now that they are released


NYPaddleCacher
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

Groundspeak at some point decided to move virtuals / locationless caches to another site. It's not clear to me why a request to move challenges to another site would be considered so inappropriate that the thread be curtly locked, and a couple of hours later, deleted entirely.

Perhaps it is considered inappropriate because the entire point to the challenge concept is to satisfy those who wanted virts and LCs brought back to GC.com.

I can understand disagreement and discussion on that point better than I can understand the reply, lockdown and thread deletion within hours. Surely there is room for discussion about this.

 

If you keep something secret until it's been unveiled, and squash all negative opinions after it's been unveiled, it's not clear to me when the feedback would be expected or appropriate. Or allowed.

Link to comment
No. A GC listing page would allow CO's to retain ownership, delete bogus logs, create a better listing page. They would appear in the existing PQ/search function and on the map. The logs would download in my my finds. I could put them in a bookmark list, put watches one them and get notifies.

 

We have nothing like that now.

 

And those things are your only complaint? Big deal, mostly things they can still implement. Ownership and control over the logs is the only big difference I can see, and my gut feeling is that they chose to do it that way because a lot of those challenges will sooner or later become effectively ownerless, as it happened with a lot of the virtuals. So as a preventive measure, their solution was to not let the owners have any control to begin with. Maybe not a good solution, but worth a shot.

The more I think about this, the more I like it.

 

We, the users of this site, can take control. Flag the Challenges that don't require a visit to a specific location. Flag the logs that are obviously bogus. Create challenges that duplicate the "Virtual Cache" experience. Log good challenges, and ignore bad ones. Be the change!

 

My initial reaction to Challenges was "meh." But now that I see the really bad ones being flagged and archived, I am starting to get interested.

Link to comment

Yes, people can lie. They can post pics found on the net and say that completes the Challenge, or Photoshop themselves in. Who cares? What have they accomplished? More importantly, how does their cheating affect you? It doesn't, of course....

 

If someone does post a completion and I see that they have not found the requisite challenge cache I can flag it and write a comment like "You haven't found it, why claim that you have? That's seriously lame!". I suspect that the bogus logger will then right quickly delete their completion log.

First, why go to the trouble of leaving such a comment. As you noted, "Who cares?"

 

Second, even if you did leave a comment, I doubt the logger will ever see it.

Link to comment

 

...Ownership and control over the logs is the only big difference I can see...

 

 

I see the absence of D/T ratings as a subtle, yet fairly significant difference as well.

 

It means that your frog-kissing exploits are not in any way differentiated from that day you went climbing mountains.

 

Frog-kissing - a clear example of a 1/1 challenge if ever there was one - means that this kind of thing will swamp (excuse the pun) all the other more worthy things, simply because its easy and attracts the arm-chair loggers.

 

Frog-kissing "accept" numbers will be high and it will look to be an apparently popular pursuit, it will look like it is what the community wants challenges to be ... but all the time it will add nothing to what Geocaching really is about.

 

MTCW

Link to comment
If you keep something secret until it's been unveiled, and squash all negative opinions after it's been unveiled, it's not clear to me when the feedback would be expected or appropriate. Or allowed.
Squash all negative opinions? The forums are smoking hot with negative opinions about this new feature.
Link to comment

Yes, people can lie. They can post pics found on the net and say that completes the Challenge, or Photoshop themselves in. Who cares? What have they accomplished? More importantly, how does their cheating affect you? It doesn't, of course....

 

If someone does post a completion and I see that they have not found the requisite challenge cache I can flag it and write a comment like "You haven't found it, why claim that you have? That's seriously lame!". I suspect that the bogus logger will then right quickly delete their completion log.

First, why go to the trouble of leaving such a comment. As you noted, "Who cares?"

 

Second, even if you did leave a comment, I doubt the logger will ever see it.

Perhaps, but others might see it and learn by example.
Link to comment
Frog-kissing - a clear example of a 1/1 challenge if ever there was one

 

I'd even call that a 1/0 :laughing:

T ratings would be nice to have, yeah. D ratings I'm not sure - there's nothing to "find", so no difficulty. Of course you could take the D rating to mean something else.

But personally I'm glad Groundspeak didn't choose to abuse cache listings for this. At least that way, people don't think that they're caches :rolleyes: (even though some still do...)

Link to comment
If you keep something secret until it's been unveiled, and squash all negative opinions after it's been unveiled, it's not clear to me when the feedback would be expected or appropriate. Or allowed.
Squash all negative opinions? The forums are smoking hot with negative opinions about this new feature.

On the Feedback site I'm talking about. Except for vulgarity and sock-puppet-ish identity theft, I've never seen Feedback threads completely deleted before as if they never happened. Let alone what I believe the most popular suggestion in the history of the site (I think it was 1000+ votes in a couple of hours).

Link to comment

Yes, people can lie. They can post pics found on the net and say that completes the Challenge, or Photoshop themselves in. Who cares? What have they accomplished? More importantly, how does their cheating affect you? It doesn't, of course....

 

If someone does post a completion and I see that they have not found the requisite challenge cache I can flag it and write a comment like "You haven't found it, why claim that you have? That's seriously lame!". I suspect that the bogus logger will then right quickly delete their completion log.

First, why go to the trouble of leaving such a comment. As you noted, "Who cares?"

 

Second, even if you did leave a comment, I doubt the logger will ever see it.

Perhaps, but others might see it and learn by example.

"Who cares?"

Link to comment

Ownership and control over the logs is the only big difference I can see, and my gut feeling is that they chose to do it that way because a lot of those challenges will sooner or later become effectively ownerless, as it happened with a lot of the virtuals. So as a preventive measure, their solution was to not let the owners have any control to begin with. Maybe not a good solution, but worth a shot.

If you want to prevent Challenges from becoming ownerless, then you don't make them ownerless to begin with.

Link to comment

Ownership and control over the logs is the only big difference I can see, and my gut feeling is that they chose to do it that way because a lot of those challenges will sooner or later become effectively ownerless, as it happened with a lot of the virtuals. So as a preventive measure, their solution was to not let the owners have any control to begin with. Maybe not a good solution, but worth a shot.

If you want to prevent Challenges from becoming ownerless, then you don't make them ownerless to begin with.

No - if they have a single owner in control, they will become ownerless at some point. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

Link to comment
If you keep something secret until it's been unveiled, and squash all negative opinions after it's been unveiled, it's not clear to me when the feedback would be expected or appropriate. Or allowed.
Squash all negative opinions? The forums are smoking hot with negative opinions about this new feature.

On the Feedback site I'm talking about. Except for vulgarity and sock-puppet-ish identity theft, I've never seen Feedback threads completely deleted before as if they never happened. Let alone what I believe the most popular suggestion in the history of the site (I think it was 1000+ votes in a couple of hours).

As far as I can tell, no thread has been deleted from the feedback site. The one that you appear to be referring to is right here.

Link to comment

I'm going to hide a container, then post the coordinates as a Challenge. You can log the challenge when you find the container, open it, and sign the log. No reviewer! This will be great.

 

But there is a reviewer. Or rather, there are THOUSANDS of reviewers. Someone is bound to see your challenge, say to himself "that's a geocache, not a challenge," and hit the flag button. If enough people do it, your challenge disappears.

 

So if that's such a great idea, why aren't geocaches done that way?

Link to comment

I'm going to hide a container, then post the coordinates as a Challenge. You can log the challenge when you find the container, open it, and sign the log. No reviewer! This will be great.

 

But there is a reviewer. Or rather, there are THOUSANDS of reviewers. Someone is bound to see your challenge, say to himself "that's a geocache, not a challenge," and hit the flag button. If enough people do it, your challenge disappears.

 

So if that's such a great idea, why aren't geocaches done that way?

 

They are, just not on gc.com :ph34r:

Link to comment

I'm going to hide a container, then post the coordinates as a Challenge. You can log the challenge when you find the container, open it, and sign the log. No reviewer! This will be great.

 

But there is a reviewer. Or rather, there are THOUSANDS of reviewers. Someone is bound to see your challenge, say to himself "that's a geocache, not a challenge," and hit the flag button. If enough people do it, your challenge disappears.

 

So if that's such a great idea, why aren't geocaches done that way?

Because of land ownership issues and the physical container. Challenges are being evaluated by the community for their "wow" factor or other intangibles, which geocaches are not.

Link to comment

Yes, people can lie. They can post pics found on the net and say that completes the Challenge, or Photoshop themselves in. Who cares? What have they accomplished? More importantly, how does their cheating affect you? It doesn't, of course....

 

If someone does post a completion and I see that they have not found the requisite challenge cache I can flag it and write a comment like "You haven't found it, why claim that you have? That's seriously lame!". I suspect that the bogus logger will then right quickly delete their completion log.

First, why go to the trouble of leaving such a comment. As you noted, "Who cares?"

 

Second, even if you did leave a comment, I doubt the logger will ever see it.

Perhaps, but others might see it and learn by example.

"Who cares?"

Based on your posts, I'm guessing that you do.

Link to comment

How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

 

Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

 

It's not a geocache.

 

Neither are virtuals.

 

Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

Link to comment
As far as I can tell, no thread has been deleted from the feedback site. The one that you appear to be referring to is right here.

Yeah, I can't tell if I'm going crazy or not. I could swear it disappeared yesterday. One minute I could see it, the next minute someone was complaining it had been deleted and I couldn't find it.

 

It's possible I was hallucinating, but it felt so real...

 

(In all seriousness, it really is possible I was hallucinating.)

Link to comment

How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

 

Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

 

It's not a geocache.

 

Neither are virtuals.

 

Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

 

Sounds like we should pull earth caches too. That would be truly sad.

Link to comment

Ownership and control over the logs is the only big difference I can see, and my gut feeling is that they chose to do it that way because a lot of those challenges will sooner or later become effectively ownerless, as it happened with a lot of the virtuals. So as a preventive measure, their solution was to not let the owners have any control to begin with. Maybe not a good solution, but worth a shot.

If you want to prevent Challenges from becoming ownerless, then you don't make them ownerless to begin with.

No - if they have a single owner in control, they will become ownerless at some point. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

I think you missed my point. Making something onwerless doesn't prevent it from becoming ownerless.

 

Besides, there is something Groundspeak can do about that. They can allow the Challenge owner/creator to archive Challenges. Just like cache owners can archive caches.

Link to comment

How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

 

Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

 

It's not a geocache.

 

Neither are virtuals.

 

Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

 

Sounds like we should pull earth caches too. That would be truly sad.

 

I would pull them and put them on another site(geochallenge.com). To indicate that they're "caches" is a misnomer.

Edited by reedkickball
Link to comment

Yes, people can lie. They can post pics found on the net and say that completes the Challenge, or Photoshop themselves in. Who cares? What have they accomplished? More importantly, how does their cheating affect you? It doesn't, of course....

 

If someone does post a completion and I see that they have not found the requisite challenge cache I can flag it and write a comment like "You haven't found it, why claim that you have? That's seriously lame!". I suspect that the bogus logger will then right quickly delete their completion log.

First, why go to the trouble of leaving such a comment. As you noted, "Who cares?"

 

Second, even if you did leave a comment, I doubt the logger will ever see it.

Perhaps, but others might see it and learn by example.

"Who cares?"

Based on your posts, I'm guessing that you do.

Which posts? I'm just curious why someone who doesn't care about bogus completions would bother to comment on them.

Link to comment
I think you missed my point. Making something onwerless doesn't prevent it from becoming ownerless.

Of course it does. If it's already ownerless, then it can't become ownerless, because it already is.

 

Besides, there is something Groundspeak can do about that. They can allow the Challenge owner/creator to archive Challenges. Just like cache owners can archive caches.

Challenge owners can indeed archive their challenges. But that wouldn't prevent challenges from becoming ownerless, because in those instances, the owners can also not be bothered to archive the listings. It has happened with so many virtuals before.

Link to comment

I'm going to hide a container, then post the coordinates as a Challenge. You can log the challenge when you find the container, open it, and sign the log. No reviewer! This will be great.

 

But there is a reviewer. Or rather, there are THOUSANDS of reviewers. Someone is bound to see your challenge, say to himself "that's a geocache, not a challenge," and hit the flag button. If enough people do it, your challenge disappears.

 

So if that's such a great idea, why aren't geocaches done that way?

Because of land ownership issues and the physical container.

 

Exactly! So why have TPTB now handed us a sanctioned way to circumvent all that troublesome reviewing? A challenge can be (until it's flagged enough times) an un-reviewed geocache. More generally, a challenge can be anything — regardless of considerations of land ownership, environmental impact, personal safety, suitability for families, and so forth — and can only be "reviewed" by a crowdsourcing mechanism after its publication. Is that a good thing? If so, why not do traditional caches that way? If not, then geocaching.com's abdication of reviewing challenges needs to be rethought.

Link to comment

And those things are your only complaint? Big deal, mostly things they can still implement. Ownership and control over the logs is the only big difference I can see, and my gut feeling is that they chose to do it that way because a lot of those challenges will sooner or later become effectively ownerless, as it happened with a lot of the virtuals. So as a preventive measure, their solution was to not let the owners have any control to begin with. Maybe not a good solution, but worth a shot.

They're not complaints. My point was they didn't have to "still implement" those features. They already had those features. Instead of fixing one or two things that were broken they decided to reinvent the wheel.

Link to comment

Ownership and control over the logs is the only big difference I can see, and my gut feeling is that they chose to do it that way because a lot of those challenges will sooner or later become effectively ownerless, as it happened with a lot of the virtuals. So as a preventive measure, their solution was to not let the owners have any control to begin with. Maybe not a good solution, but worth a shot.

If you want to prevent Challenges from becoming ownerless, then you don't make them ownerless to begin with.

No - if they have a single owner in control, they will become ownerless at some point. There's nothing anyone can do about that.

I think you missed my point. Making something ownerless doesn't prevent it from becoming ownerless.

Of course it does. If it's already ownerless, then it can't become ownerless, because it already is.

:rolleyes:

 

Besides, there is something Groundspeak can do about that. They can allow the Challenge owner/creator to archive Challenges. Just like cache owners can archive caches.

Challenge owners can indeed archive their challenges. But that wouldn't prevent challenges from becoming ownerless, because in those instances, the owners can also not be bothered to archive the listings. It has happened with so many virtuals before.

And there's something Groundspeak can do about that too. They could recruit Challenge Monitors to archive Challenges for Challenge owners who cannot be bothered to archive their Challenges...just like there are reviewers who can do that when cache owners fail to fulfill their responsibilities.

Link to comment

My initial reaction to Challenges was "meh." But now that I see the really bad ones being flagged and archived, I am starting to get interested.

Unfortunately the good ones are getting flagged and archived too. I think I'm going to wait until the backlash settles and they get things under control again.

Link to comment
And there's something Groundspeak can do about that too. They could recruit Challenge Monitors to archive Challenges for Challenge owners who cannot be bothered to archive their Challenges...just like there are reviewers who can do that when cache owners fail to fulfill their responsibilities.

Or you design them in such a way so that there's no need for owner control to begin with. I don't know which approach works better. Do you?

Link to comment
They're not complaints. My point was they didn't have to "still implement" those features. They already had those features. Instead of fixing one or two things that were broken they decided to reinvent the wheel.

I just don't see how those things that were broken could possibly have been fixed. Virtuals had a fundamental problem to them. Nobody could ever come up with a plausible proposal. All you ever heard was "bring them back as they were", but nobody could ever say how.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
I just don't see how those things that were broken could possibly have been fixed. Virtuals had a fundamental problem to them. Nobody could ever come up with a plausible proposal. All you ever heard was "bring them back as they were", but nobody could ever say how.

I think that, by and large, Earthcaches work well. A model that borrows from that - an outside body like the GSA reviewing (say) History Virtuals - could work.

 

I've seen it implied that no outside body would ever agree to be involved, but the Earthcache experiment still makes me think there's a plausible chance.

Link to comment

I think that, by and large, Earthcaches work well. A model that borrows from that - an outside body like the GSA reviewing (say) History Virtuals - could work.

 

I've seen it implied that no outside body would ever agree to be involved, but the Earthcache experiment still makes me think there's a plausible chance.

Yeah. Only problem is that 1) you'd have to find somebody willing to do that first, and 2) those still wouldn't be virtuals. It would be another special case of them, but not virtuals, and people wanted virtuals back.

Link to comment

Yes, people can lie. They can post pics found on the net and say that completes the Challenge, or Photoshop themselves in. Who cares? What have they accomplished? More importantly, how does their cheating affect you? It doesn't, of course....

 

If someone does post a completion and I see that they have not found the requisite challenge cache I can flag it and write a comment like "You haven't found it, why claim that you have? That's seriously lame!". I suspect that the bogus logger will then right quickly delete their completion log.

First, why go to the trouble of leaving such a comment. As you noted, "Who cares?"

 

Second, even if you did leave a comment, I doubt the logger will ever see it.

Perhaps, but others might see it and learn by example.

 

One can dream.

 

The community moderated concept for a location aware social media game is not new. There is a game that has been mentioned here a few times called iSpy (a mobile app). Essentially, someone goes out and takes a photo of something distinctive at a specific location. It's called a "mission". Others can the search for missions, then attempt to "solve them" by navigating to the location, and taking their own photo such that it looks as close as possible to the original. Even you don't participate in the creation or solving of missions, you can click on a "Verify" button and it will show you a random pairing of of original and solution images and then you can give it a thumbs up/down. As soon as you submit a vote it presents the next original/solution pairing from some sort of random queue. You can't specifically select a mission, and it doesn't show the creator/solver for either of the images thus it avoids the issue of someone in a feud with another player. I have no idea what, if anything, happens if a bunch of people post a thumbs down on a specific solution.

 

So what if a similar approach were done for challenges. From the main challenges page one could click on a verify button. It would display the text of a random challenge and a "Completed" log. Then you could post a thumbs up or thumbs down to indicate whether or not you felt the challenge was completed as intended. Since some challenges might be unverifiable (i.e. most action challenges) an "abstain" vote would probably be necessary. However, if when creating an action challenge the creator asks for some sort of evidence (i.e. a track log for a "hike this trail" challenge) and the completion log doesn't contain it, posting a thumbs down vote would seem to be justified. If some minimum of thumbs up votes were posted, a solution could be marked as "verified" and no longer show up in the queue. If some number of thumbs down votes were made (or based on a ratio) perhaps generating a message to the person posting the completion log which asks for additional evidence or the log will be deleted could work as a mechanism for community moderated log verification.

Link to comment

only read OP.

 

First impressions. Wooooooopty freaking dooo.

Photo Challenge: Can you say Waymarking?

Action Challenge: Lets all welcome back the stupid ALRs. Heck they are even encouraged,

Action Challenge

Challenge people to perform a task at a location - sing a song in the middle of Times Square, hike the Inca Trail to Machu Picchu, or climb the stairs to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

only difference is you no longer have the reward of a geocache at the end of it all.

 

So like Virts, Earths and the other no cache having cache types (absurd isn't it?) it is all about showing up, not finding anything hidden.

 

Other problems.

1. What is the search radius for "Search by Location"?

2. Why aren't my home coords tied in on a search?

3. Why is the devastatingly inaccurate Geolocation being used rather than... see number 2?

4. Why isn't there a map?

5. Why isn't this on Waymarking where it obviously belongs?

Link to comment
I just don't see how those things that were broken could possibly have been fixed. Virtuals had a fundamental problem to them. Nobody could ever come up with a plausible proposal. All you ever heard was "bring them back as they were", but nobody could ever say how.

I think that, by and large, Earthcaches work well. A model that borrows from that - an outside body like the GSA reviewing (say) History Virtuals - could work.

 

I've seen it implied that no outside body would ever agree to be involved, but the Earthcache experiment still makes me think there's a plausible chance.

 

I haven't been impressed by them, and don't think they work very well. Usually I go to places. The requirements tend to be vague. You email the owner with answers, you rarely get a confirmation. You log them thinking, "Maybe I completed it, Maybe not". Don't know. After every single one of them, I question what it has to do with geocaching, I didn't find or sign anything. I've even created one, but I'm not impressed with the creation process, logging process, or anything else with it. Naming it a cache or even considering it geocaching hurts the effort trying to get actual caches into places that don't currently allow them, like NPS parks.

Link to comment
I just don't see how those things that were broken could possibly have been fixed. Virtuals had a fundamental problem to them. Nobody could ever come up with a plausible proposal. All you ever heard was "bring them back as they were", but nobody could ever say how.

I think that, by and large, Earthcaches work well. A model that borrows from that - an outside body like the GSA reviewing (say) History Virtuals - could work.

 

I've seen it implied that no outside body would ever agree to be involved, but the Earthcache experiment still makes me think there's a plausible chance.

 

I haven't been impressed by them, and don't think they work very well. Usually I go to places. The requirements tend to be vague. You email the owner with answers, you rarely get a confirmation. You log them thinking, "Maybe I completed it, Maybe not". Don't know. After every single one of them, I question what it has to do with geocaching, I didn't find or sign anything. I've even created one, but I'm not impressed with the creation process, logging process, or anything else with it. Naming it a cache or even considering it geocaching hurts the effort trying to get actual caches into places that don't currently allow them, like NPS parks.

I can't disagree with much of what you are saying. I'm not a fan of virtual caches in general for some of the reasons you mention (especially the one about giving land managers an 'out' when they want to continue a ban on physical containers).

Link to comment

Heh.

 

I posted a local challenge, and it's kind of going ... out of control. It's international already.

 

It'll be fun to see where this goes...

 

http://coord.info/CX10D

That is really sad! A reasonable good example of a challange, and people from all over log it without meeting the requirements. And when you try to report the cheeting, the only option is to flag it as "Prohibited" "Offencive" or "SPAM". Maybe you should flag all the fakes "Prohibited". In this situation, what does Prohibited mean?

Link to comment

Heh.

 

I posted a local challenge, and it's kind of going ... out of control. It's international already.

 

It'll be fun to see where this goes...

 

http://coord.info/CX10D

That is really sad! A reasonable good example of a challange, and people from all over log it without meeting the requirements. And when you try to report the cheeting, the only option is to flag it as "Prohibited" "Offencive" or "SPAM". Maybe you should flag all the fakes "Prohibited". In this situation, what does Prohibited mean?

Forbidden from doing. In the case of false claims of challenges being met I would think that that should be appropriate to use though there should be a more descriptive flag.

Note I said should, I don't think that GS ultimately cares or they would have given the issuers the ability to remove false claims.

Link to comment

Heh.

 

I posted a local challenge, and it's kind of going ... out of control. It's international already.

 

It'll be fun to see where this goes...

 

http://coord.info/CX10D

That is really sad! A reasonable good example of a challange, and people from all over log it without meeting the requirements. And when you try to report the cheeting, the only option is to flag it as "Prohibited" "Offencive" or "SPAM". Maybe you should flag all the fakes "Prohibited". In this situation, what does Prohibited mean?

Forbidden from doing. In the case of false claims of challenges being met I would think that that should be appropriate to use though there should be a more descriptive flag.

Note I said should, I don't think that GS ultimately cares or they would have given the issuers the ability to remove false claims.

 

I did use the Flag selecting "Spam" on the 2 bogus completes on that challenge yesterday. They're still there, so not sure what flagging them does.

Link to comment
So like Virts, Earths and the other no cache having cache types (absurd isn't it?) it is all about showing up, not finding anything hidden.
It's just like the virts that people have been finding for the last decade or so, right? I don't see that as a problem.
Other problems.

1. What is the search radius for "Search by Location"?

Seems like somebody played around with the site yesterday and found the search radius to be about twenty miles.
2. Why aren't my home coords tied in on a search?
Dunno. Why don't you suggest this change?
3. Why is the devastatingly inaccurate Geolocation being used rather than... see number 2?
See answer to number 2.
4. Why isn't there a map?
I have little doubt that it is on the way.
5. Why isn't this on Waymarking where it obviously belongs?
Because LOADS of people clamored for the return of virts, ALRs, and LCs.
Link to comment

How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

 

Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

 

It's not a geocache.

 

Neither are virtuals.

 

Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

 

Sounds like we should pull earth caches too. That would be truly sad.

 

I would pull them and put them on another site(geochallenge.com). To indicate that they're "caches" is a misnomer.

 

They can't pull it and put it on another site. Waymarking is too similar to challenges. Would be sort of dumb to have TWO web pages devoted to two similar concepts.

 

And they realize that if they did that, it would be another utterly ignored failure. At least here, it is getting traffic and talk!

Link to comment

How are challenges remotely connected to geocaching?

Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless;

 

Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience.

Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience.

 

It's not a geocache.

 

Neither are virtuals.

 

Correct, they aren't geocaches either.

 

Sounds like we should pull earth caches too. That would be truly sad.

 

I would pull them and put them on another site(geochallenge.com). To indicate that they're "caches" is a misnomer.

 

They can't pull it and put it on another site. Waymarking is too similar to challenges. Would be sort of dumb to have TWO web pages devoted to two similar concepts.

 

And they realize that if they did that, it would be another utterly ignored failure. At least here, it is getting traffic and talk!

 

Leverage the activity of geocaching, and try to shoehorn other activities in and classify it as geocaching as well. So the local parks can create these non-geocaching activities and claim they're supporting geocaching while banning real geocaching.

Edited by reedkickball
Link to comment
Challenges need some guidelines to ensure they are "outdoor" and require the use of "location-based technology" (coordinates to a specific location which is a component of everything that is geocaching.
Why are you keying on 'outdoor'? There has never been a rule that geocaches had to be outdoors. I've found several that were indoors.

 

 

Direct quote from GS: "The mission of Groundspeak is to inspire outdoor play using location-based technology. "

 

More????

These will almost always be outdoor adventures. We started with one that was not necessarily an outdoors Challenge (Kiss a Frog) because we thought it would be fun. But, we realize that such a Challenge is not in keeping with our mission of getting you outside. So, we have archived the Challenge effective today. We will soon be adding functionality to allow you to remove ‘Acceptance’ and ‘Completion’ logs you’ve entered, if you choose to do so.

http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/08/geocaching-challenges-thanks-for-the-feedback/

Edited by geocating
Link to comment

Just my opinion; but I find the idea of these "Challenges" to be stupid, and a waste of Groundspeak's time and mine...

 

I do not see that it has anything at all to do with geocaching, and I do not plan to ever visit any of the web pages dealing with it, nor do I have any plans to "accept" any of them.

 

I'll just put them on ignore.....

 

Meanwhile, beta maps are broken in about a dozen ways; the maps preview feature has been broken for months, and it seems none of these real issues are being addressed.

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...