Jump to content

Challenges Counting as Finds


ATXTracker

Recommended Posts

If earthcaches and grandfathered virtual & webcam caches count as finds, then challenges should count as well. However, many changes need to be made to make them more like the original virtuals - which was what was originally promised. If they were limited to historic/scenic areas where placement of a physical cache was not feasible or permitted, I believe much of the protest over whether they should count or not would subside. Most of the outrage over challenges is likely over the ridiculous nature of many that have been posted so far: picture of your pet, climb a tree, kiss a frog, picture of a pile of dung, etc., etc., etc...

Link to comment
This is funny stuff, and yet very sad. Ironically, it's not very challenging to open a Hide-A-Key and scratch your initials on a damp strip of paper at Wal-Mart. Yet ya'll readily count that number as a "find".

 

Traditional Geocaching... go to published coordinates, open box, sign log, go home and spend 3 seconds entering "TFTC" on the cache page.

 

Action Challenge Caching... go to published coordinates, perform a specfic task and take a picture, go home, download/crop/resize photo, and enter a log describing what task you performed at the location and upload your photo.

 

Photo Challenge Caching... go to published coordinates, take a specific picture of something at the location, go home, download/crop/resize photo, enter log describing your experience and upload your photo.

 

Maybe the challenge-haters dislike the challenges because they involve more work to complete than a traditional geocache? Seems the only logical conclusion as they are otherwise the same activity of "location".

 

Seems to me that the only difference between a challenge cache and a traditional cache is that the cacher doesn't have to mess around with your stinking wet logsheet and the CO doesn't have to deal with inconsiderate cachers trashing their hide.

 

As for all the "number hunters" complaining about challenges "ruining" their stats... well, since they just started counting challenge stats, are we not all starting from zero at the same time? Perhaps if you get off your computer for a few minutes, go outside and hunt down these virtual caches, your silly numbers would grow just like the rest of the cachers who are/will embrace these challenge caches as the "better mousetrap" over that silly tupperware under the bush which doesn't even require you to look up at the scenery while you quickly scribble the log and head on to the next stupid box.

 

Here's how to keep the "numbers" right... add a new flippin' column to your self-promoting stat sheet, knucklehead. Stop being such stagnant "sticks in the mud". Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Challenge caches should count DOUBLE what a traditional cache does.

 

Challenges refocus us on locations rather than meaningless micro containers every 528 feet. I welcome this concept with open arms.

I enjoyed how you embellished the process of completing Challenges over logging finds to suit your own little agenda. You conveniently left out the fact that those who log traditional caches can and have put as much (and more) work into doing so as completing Challenges.

 

It's interesting how you talk down about "self-promoting stat sheets." Have you seen your own profile? You're the last person who should be patronizing self-promoting cachers.

 

You sure do say a lot of things to insult this game & those who play it. "Stinking wet logsheet, inconsiderate cachers, silly tupperware under the bush, stupid box, knucklehead, sticks in the mud." You berate containers, locations, and cachers who play this game in a manner they see fit. If you despise such simple caches, that must mean you avoid them, right? Your stats say otherwise. Judging by your very words here, you don't seem too happy with Geocaching so why have you stuck with it for 3 years & nearly 500 finds? If it's such a miserable experience for you, move on. People in this forum have as much right to voice their opinions as you do. You're rude, condescending, and attack people for simply having a differing opinion than yours. You sir, do more harm to this game than every "TFTC" log combined.

Link to comment
Ironically, it is not very challenging, by the traditional definition of the word, to take a picture.

...

Traditional Geocaching... go to published coordinates, open box, sign log, go home and spend 3 seconds entering "TFTC" on the cache page.

 

Action Challenge Caching... go to published coordinates, perform a specfic task and take a picture, go home, download/crop/resize photo, and enter a log describing what task you performed at the location and upload your photo.

 

Photo Challenge Caching... go to published coordinates, take a specific picture of something at the location, go home, download/crop/resize photo, enter log describing your experience and upload your photo.

....

As I understand the arugments:

  • Virtuals should count, even those without a verification process.
  • Webcams should count.
  • LPC's should count.
  • 1/1 traditionals should count.
  • A six-mile hike shouldn't count because it's called a challenge.

 

The six mile hike shouldn't count because it isn't tied to a specific GPS coordinate.

 

The virtuals and web cams all required a specific location found by GPS coordinates. Most of the challenges do not. There's one in Chicago that wants you to do something inside Soldier Field, not at a particular point in the stadium, just anywhere in the stadium. There's 2 in Chicago for bike paths, "ride the xxx path" Those aren't tied to a particular geographic point either, they couldn't have been published as virtuals without someplace more specific added to them. (eg. find the sign at XX.xx YY.yy and take a picture there). Of the eleven Challenges I see in the Chicago area, only 2 really require a GPS to get to something very specific. (something like a plaque, a sign or a tree). The rest are general or very well known public places ("Ferris wheel on Navy Pier") A GPS might help, but it's far from necessary.

Link to comment
The virtuals and web cams all required a specific location found by GPS coordinates. Most of the challenges do not. There's one in Chicago that wants you to do something inside Soldier Field, not at a particular point in the stadium, just anywhere in the stadium. There's 2 in Chicago for bike paths, "ride the xxx path" Those aren't tied to a particular geographic point either, they couldn't have been published as virtuals without someplace more specific added to them. (eg. find the sign at XX.xx YY.yy and take a picture there). Of the eleven Challenges I see in the Chicago area, only 2 really require a GPS to get to something very specific. (something like a plaque, a sign or a tree). The rest are general or very well known public places ("Ferris wheel on Navy Pier") A GPS might help, but it's far from necessary.

 

Sorry, but I've "found" a bunch of virtuals that I didn't need my GPS at all to do. Some had coords hundreds of meters off, and I still got my smiley without ever having been at that location. I agree that both virtuals and challenges should point to some specific location, but saying that virtuals do and challenges don't is just not right.

Link to comment

Groundspeak (hereafter known as GS) Since there are too many lame virtuals being submitted and the reviewers can't do their jobs they aren't getting paid for because they have to argue with virtual submitters why their McDonalds and\or parking lot isn't "Wow" enough we are staring another website and moving them there.

 

Group of vocal cachers (hereafter known as GoVC) Not good. We want our virtuals and webcams!)

 

GS Sorry, try out Waymarking.com.

 

GoVC Not good. It doesn't show up in our find counts.

 

GS Not going to happen.

 

Consistently over the next 6 years

 

GoVC We want virtuals and webcams!

 

GS No.

 

2010

 

GS We have listened and have decided to bring back virtuals and webcams in some form. We just have to figure out how to do so in a way that doesn't cause all of our crack team of skilled and highly paid volunteer reviewers to up and quit.

 

GoVC YAY!

 

2011

 

GS We have a plan to bring them back. But they won't count as a find.

 

GoVC No good! I won't do them unless I get my smiley!

 

Aug 18, 2011

 

GS Here they are!!! You can post photo challenges (aka webcams) and action challenges (like virtuals and\or ALRs) at spacific locations and we can post worldwide (aka Locationaless) that we determine worthy. They will count as a separate find in all areas except your number when you log a cache, there it will be a total and if someone hovers over your total it will pop up a break down!

 

Less than one hour later

 

GoVC NO GOOD!!! Take them away and put them on their own site. Don't count them as finds!!!! And bring back virtuals and webcams!!! Oh, by the way, if you don't I'll quit!!

 

Hope this adds some perspective!

Link to comment

Groundspeak (hereafter known as GS) Since there are too many lame virtuals being submitted and the reviewers can't do their jobs they aren't getting paid for because they have to argue with virtual submitters why their McDonalds and\or parking lot isn't "Wow" enough we are staring another website and moving them there.

 

Group of vocal cachers (hereafter known as GoVC) Not good. We want our virtuals and webcams!)

 

GS Sorry, try out Waymarking.com.

 

GoVC Not good. It doesn't show up in our find counts.

 

GS Not going to happen.

 

Consistently over the next 6 years

 

GoVC We want virtuals and webcams!

 

GS No.

 

2010

 

GS We have listened and have decided to bring back virtuals and webcams in some form. We just have to figure out how to do so in a way that doesn't cause all of our crack team of skilled and highly paid volunteer reviewers to up and quit.

 

GoVC YAY!

 

2011

 

GS We have a plan to bring them back. But they won't count as a find.

 

GoVC No good! I won't do them unless I get my smiley!

 

Aug 18, 2011

 

GS Here they are!!! You can post photo challenges (aka webcams) and action challenges (like virtuals and\or ALRs) at spacific locations and we can post worldwide (aka Locationaless) that we determine worthy. They will count as a separate find in all areas except your number when you log a cache, there it will be a total and if someone hovers over your total it will pop up a break down!

 

Less than one hour later

 

GoVC NO GOOD!!! Take them away and put them on their own site. Don't count them as finds!!!! And bring back virtuals and webcams!!! Oh, by the way, if you don't I'll quit!!

 

Hope this adds some perspective!

 

When I thought that the "new virtuals" would be just like the old virtuals, I wanted them to count as finds. Now that I see how different Challenges are from Virtuals and Geocaches, I no longer think they should count as finds.

 

Change of opinion due to change in facts available.

Link to comment

You sure do say a lot of things to insult this game & those who play it...

 

Perhaps if you had read a couple of the pages of pointless complaining by the anti-challenge crowd before responding to my clearly sarcastic post that was mocking their point of view you wouldn't have felt the need to stoop to unfounded personal attacks.

 

It's none of my business how anyone else plays the game, so long as they don't have a negative effect on other players in their means.

 

It's none of your business how I play the game. My "stats" and how I choose to track them means nothing to anyone but me. I'm more than happy to add Challenge cache "stats" in with all the other types of numbers we track.

 

Don't try to ban an aspect of the game or stifle progress that has absolutely no effect on you. The existence or counting of Challenge Caches has no effect on anyone but the individual players who choose to go outside, find the Challenge Cache coordinates, and complete the required task. Aside from the lack of a physical logbook, there's no real difference between a Traditional and a Challenge cache. Post a location and ask other people to go there. That's all that geocaching is. People need to stop worrying so much about how other people get to that location. It's none of their business.

Link to comment

Groundspeak (hereafter known as GS) Since there are too many lame virtuals being submitted and the reviewers can't do their jobs they aren't getting paid for because they have to argue with virtual submitters why their McDonalds and\or parking lot isn't "Wow" enough we are staring another website and moving them there.

 

Group of vocal cachers (hereafter known as GoVC) Not good. We want our virtuals and webcams!)

 

GS Sorry, try out Waymarking.com.

 

GoVC Not good. It doesn't show up in our find counts.

 

GS Not going to happen.

 

Consistently over the next 6 years

 

GoVC We want virtuals and webcams!

 

GS No.

 

2010

 

GS We have listened and have decided to bring back virtuals and webcams in some form. We just have to figure out how to do so in a way that doesn't cause all of our crack team of skilled and highly paid volunteer reviewers to up and quit.

 

GoVC YAY!

 

2011

 

GS We have a plan to bring them back. But they won't count as a find.

 

GoVC No good! I won't do them unless I get my smiley!

 

Aug 18, 2011

 

GS Here they are!!! You can post photo challenges (aka webcams) and action challenges (like virtuals and\or ALRs) at spacific locations and we can post worldwide (aka Locationaless) that we determine worthy. They will count as a separate find in all areas except your number when you log a cache, there it will be a total and if someone hovers over your total it will pop up a break down!

 

Less than one hour later

 

GoVC NO GOOD!!! Take them away and put them on their own site. Don't count them as finds!!!! And bring back virtuals and webcams!!! Oh, by the way, if you don't I'll quit!!

 

Hope this adds some perspective!

 

When I thought that the "new virtuals" would be just like the old virtuals, I wanted them to count as finds. Now that I see how different Challenges are from Virtuals and Geocaches, I no longer think they should count as finds.

 

Change of opinion due to change in facts available.

 

As it is they aren't that much different from old virtuals and webcams, except no one owns them (I think this one is a mistake). Virtuals took you to a place where you completed a task (answer a question, took a pic, etc.), same as an action challenge. Webcams took you to a spot where you grabbed an image off a webcam, photo challenges could do this. Locationless caches were caches that you could do almost anywhere in an area or the world (take a pic with a cop, post coords of a historical landmark, etc.) this is what a worldwide challenge is. All of these did count toward your geocache total. The challenges do not. When you look at a cachers number on a log they post you do see a total of caches found and challenges completed, hover over it and you see a breakdown. Everywhere else they are listed separately.

 

If you do not like the idea don't complete any. If you think you should rate a cacher by cache numbers then hover over the number and look at the cache total. If you like some challenges but not others then do the ones you like. If you want the system improved then quit complaining and give Groundspeak helpful solutions.

 

It is just a game/hobby/sport. It isn't the end of the world!

Link to comment

As it is they aren't that much different from old virtuals and webcams, except no one owns them (I think this one is a mistake). Virtuals took you to a place where you completed a task (answer a question, took a pic, etc.), same as an action challenge. Webcams took you to a spot where you grabbed an image off a webcam, photo challenges could do this. Locationless caches were caches that you could do almost anywhere in an area or the world (take a pic with a cop, post coords of a historical landmark, etc.) this is what a worldwide challenge is. All of these did count toward your geocache total. The challenges do not. When you look at a cachers number on a log they post you do see a total of caches found and challenges completed, hover over it and you see a breakdown. Everywhere else they are listed separately.

 

If you do not like the idea don't complete any. If you think you should rate a cacher by cache numbers then hover over the number and look at the cache total. If you like some challenges but not others then do the ones you like. If you want the system improved then quit complaining and give Groundspeak helpful solutions.

 

It is just a game/hobby/sport. It isn't the end of the world!

 

Well said and very accurate!

Link to comment

"Don't make completions the same as finds." This is currently the number two ranked idea on the feedback site

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2170499-don-t-make-completions-the-same-as-finds-?ref=title

 

Yup. There's 4,401 votes on the issue. That represents 4,401/5,000,000 or 0.0008% of geocachers. That's 99.9992% of cachers who have not voted for that yet.

<sarcasm >Sure seems like the majority to me. </sarcasm>

Link to comment

As it is they aren't that much different from old virtuals and webcams, except no one owns them (I think this one is a mistake). Virtuals took you to a place where you completed a task (answer a question, took a pic, etc.), same as an action challenge. Webcams took you to a spot where you grabbed an image off a webcam, photo challenges could do this. Locationless caches were caches that you could do almost anywhere in an area or the world (take a pic with a cop, post coords of a historical landmark, etc.) this is what a worldwide challenge is. All of these did count toward your geocache total. The challenges do not. When you look at a cachers number on a log they post you do see a total of caches found and challenges completed, hover over it and you see a breakdown. Everywhere else they are listed separately.

 

If you do not like the idea don't complete any. If you think you should rate a cacher by cache numbers then hover over the number and look at the cache total. If you like some challenges but not others then do the ones you like. If you want the system improved then quit complaining and give Groundspeak helpful solutions.

 

It is just a game/hobby/sport. It isn't the end of the world!

 

Well said and very accurate!

 

+1 (to both quotes)

Link to comment

have done about 20 challenges which may seem a lot, but if you went to the block party and the ape event, you ran into like 12 of them...so, there you go.

 

I do feel that before they were coming out, they should be counted in my finds, like virtuals, locationless (sniff), and webcams...but I admit, after seeing all the crazy ones out there, I think I would be quite okay with them not counting. There seems to be a lot of passion about these ruining the integrity of the find and the numbers...well, I think power trails do more damage to them, but thats my opinion.

 

Anyway, I can definitely see some of the reviewer's pains when you see some silly challenges, and frankly, no way to police the logs. If there is to be no owner, then treat them like benchmarks, not counting.

Link to comment

I don't care if they do count or don't count. Get rid of the numbers altogether for all I care. It does nothing for me. I enjoy getting out, seeing stuff, learning, doing things. So, whatever.

 

Why does it matter to know if I've found 500 caches or 5000 caches? It doesn't matter AT ALL. I enjoyed myself and that's all that counts.

 

I agree with the poster that observed the "numbers don't matter" crowd is very vocal about challenges jot being included in find count. How hypocritical.

 

I've looked at many of the profiles in this thread and all of them had either virtual, earthcaches, web cam, or an event logged as a find.

 

That's also contradictory.

 

You note there that you don't care about the numbers. Does that mean that people who do enjoy the stats part of the game are wrong for enjoying it? That seems to be the implication of many posters.

 

For me, I do go out and find great caches in beautiful locations often (Check my cache finds from the last month) and occasionally hit some urban caches when traveling there or after a haircut or whatever. Even a couple of LPC (Although a tiny piece of me dies every time I do). I also enjoy stats. I like knowing my FTF %, and comparing it with my other local FTFers. Is that so wrong?

 

For me numbers do matter, mine and to a lesser extent others. But how much do they matter in comparison to the experience? Not a large amount, but its still definitively matters to me. I would hate to see stats eliminated.

 

I was thinking about this today up at GC300N0: Mission 9: Tunnel of Light during the big event. I have a lot of people who complain about it being nothing like the original. It's NOT the same as the original, and never will be, but again its a question of degrees. Same container with the same stencil, exact same location, same coin type attached to the lid, copies of all the original documents and the same experience getting there. The only significant difference is the Icon. I would love to hear from some of the people saying that stats are meaningless. I believe many are the same who still bitch and groan about the missing Icon. If it's about the "experience" exclusively then why did I have logs like this:

 

"Nice to see that this was honored in some way even if its not really the same or nearly as special. TFTC."

 

Why must we try to define what's special to others, or denigrate what they find enjoyable. Many people at the event had an amazing experience, and having never found the original, this is the closest they will get. The ones who had merely a meh experience in most cases have had there expectations skewed by longer term cachers who are bitter and always ready to try and negate any pleasure someone may get that is different then theirs. In fact the loudest complaining has been from long term cachers who have found it long ago and if people can't enjoy it the exact same way they did, they may as well not experience it at all. (For the record I was a vocal and strong proponent of not archiving then unarchiving the cache. In fact I would archive GC300N0 without a thought if GS said they changed their mind, which will not happen in this universe unfortunately.)

 

(I am using the Royal you here, not directed at SOTW)Same with stats, some people enjoy them, and if you think stats are meaningless, then it doesn't affect you. Then why worry about it? Not all stat lovers are sitting inside trying to find the best path to 1/1 LPC caches to up there numbers. Some are like me and after an 11 mile hike with 3,300 ft elevation gain after writing their logs enjoy running their StatGen and seeing which spot in top elevations of finds have moved.

 

To be fair it sort of works both ways, there are stat nazis out there that allow stats to override the experience. Thankfully I believe them to be a small minority.

 

Anyway I hope I made at least a little sense. I think I'm suffering mild heat stroke after hanging out at the Cache all day.

Link to comment
Hope this adds some perspective!

 

We have a winner! :lol:

 

Na, he left out the part where they told us to go kiss a frog.

 

No I didn't. Kiss a Frog was along the lines of the old Locationless caches. I personally decided it was kind of silly so I ignored it. I know cachers who did it. Does that affect me? Not in the least. One of them is a reviewer with over 10,000 finds on his personal account. Does the fact he decided to complete it affect me? Not at all.

Link to comment

I fail to see how this is a problem but thousands of people fly across the country and the world to log 1000+ caches thrown every 0.10mi along a highway. Why is counting those "better"?

 

A count is just a count - not a score (yeah I know some view it as a score.)

 

Agreed. I keep hearing the complaint that challenges make the find count watered down or meaningless. That happened years ago with the introduction of many common practices that involve logging finds without actually finding a geocache.

 

It's taken me almost 10 years to for me to build up over 900 finds because I'm selective and focus for the most part on caches with longer hikes, more difficult terrain or in interesting places. Today someone can top that count in a day by driving along a road in the desert. That doesn't water down the meaning of a find count, but challenges do? Give me a break.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

 

Agreed. I keep hearing the complaint that challenges make the find count watered down or meaningless. That happened years ago with the introduction of many common practices that involve logging finds without actually finding a geocache.

 

It's taken me almost 10 years to for me to build up over 900 finds because I'm selective and focus for the most part on caches with longer hikes, more difficult terrain or in interesting places. Today someone can top that count in a day by driving along a road in the desert. That doesn't water down the meaning of a find count, but challenges do? Give me a break.

 

This!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment

I fail to see how this is a problem but thousands of people fly across the country and the world to log 1000+ caches thrown every 0.10mi along a highway. Why is counting those "better"?

 

A count is just a count - not a score (yeah I know some view it as a score.)

 

Agreed. I keep hearing the complaint that challenges make the find count watered down or meaningless. That happened years ago with the introduction of many common practices that involve logging finds without actually finding a geocache.

 

It's taken me almost 10 years to for me to build up over 900 finds because I'm selective and focus for the most part on caches with longer hikes, more difficult terrain or in interesting places. Today someone can top that count in a day by driving along a road in the desert. That doesn't water down the meaning of a find count, but challenges do? Give me a break.

 

I don't really understand why everything on here seems to break down to black and white.

 

I agree that many things have reduced the general "meaningfulness" of find counts over the years. I am not a fan of Power Trails and will not do any. I am contemplating not doing any more virtuals, webcam caches, etc. I am also (reasonably) selective about my cache finds when I spent a full day caching often doing significant hikes, but not necessarily on a day I'm just doing a couple random ones. Yet I believe that challenges, in their current form, do to some degree reduce the general "meaningfulness" of find counts. They won't affect mine, but I do enjoy the stat part of the game, even (gasp) other peoples numbers. It is a small part of the game for me, but enjoyable. Why accept "watering down" on this just because other things have "watered it down" before?

 

I understand it's easier to argue/debate/discuss your point of view when you use the most egregious examples of the people you disagree with. But in this you may miss out on some interesting ideas and maybe some people who have views you may just be surprised by (in a good way). It's not only hardcore number folks who are upset others can now power through finds as they do that have concerns about further weakening the "meaningfulness" of the find count.

Edited by Hypnopaedia
Link to comment

Perhaps in the area next to where the avatar is/was, there is plenty of room for a small stats area:

 

3000 caches found

200 waymarks logged

2 wherigos played

5 challenges completed

3207 total

 

Put all the Groundspeak game counts at the same level to get some visibility. Not including anything about them will make people ignore them, and we'll keep hearing "bring back virtuals" when the same functionality is already there on Waymarking.com and with challenges. There is no mistaking what is what, I can't see how this devalues somebody's precious find count as it's all in the open.

Link to comment

A Challenge, a new thing to do, just came across a couple and took some photo's...

Would ne nice if you can select the date and a "Search..." Spent a lot of time to find

"Kiss the Frog" and found out it has been archived...

 

I don't like either the Challenges you have completed it's added to the Caches you've found,

this must be listed on a different list, I reckon : )

Hopefully this will be changed.

 

 

 

Link to comment

 

What I would love to see is the find count of players completely removed from the cache page logs. If you want to know how many finds a player has, you can browse to their profile.

There you'll get a break down of exactly what the players skills are.

 

I like that idea a lot.

 

Except that the find count (even if challenges are excluded) may have nothing to do with a players skill.

 

How long one has played the game, and the density of caches where one has played it contributes to the find count more than skill. Someone that goes out geocaching once every two weeks is probably going to have more finds than someone that goes out every day. It took me 3 1/2 years to reach 1000 finds. I've seen logs from people that had been playing for a day that logged more caches than that on the ET trail.

Link to comment

Now that I've done a challenge, and it wasn't lame, I've changed my mind and I want it in my find count.

 

The issue here is going to be choice. Don't want to do a stupid kiss a frog ... don't do it, then it won't add to your find/completed count. See a challenge that is a nice hike to an amazing location and take a photo, then do that if it is your style. Like the location but think the ALR of standing on your head is ridiculous, then decide if you want to go there or not, if you want to stand on your head or not, and if you should log that challenge or not.

 

Just like every cache is not for everyone, and some enjoy certain aspects that others do not, is the same with challenges. Chooose what you like, ignore the rest. Note when you view someone else's stats that they might not feel the same was as you and may value different things.

Link to comment

If two players have each found exactly the same number of Traditional Caches, but the first player finds mostly high difficulty and the second finds mostly LPCs, their find counts can't be compared to each other. Neither one is meaningless, but neither is a representation of how their caching career compares to anyone else.

 

They know what their number means, and that's all that matters.

 

The find counts aren't scores. Throw events into the mix and they're not even a representation of how many times a player has found a cache.

 

So if anyone is using the find counts to compare themselves to others, they're fooling themselves. Other people's find counts are completely meaningless. Why worry that someone else may take a meaningless number and make it even more meaningless by finding a bunch of Challenges? I can't understand the angst.

 

I also can't understand why anyone would get upset that a Challenge would count towards their own finds. If you don't want to do them, then don't. Problem solved. But to not do them only because you don't want your meaningless number to have less meaning is silly.

Link to comment

If two players have each found exactly the same number of Traditional Caches, but the first player finds mostly high difficulty and the second finds mostly LPCs, their find counts can't be compared to each other. Neither one is meaningless, but neither is a representation of how their caching career compares to anyone else.

 

Of course you can compare the find counts. It's how many caches they've found. It wasn't the same caches and it doesn't tell anyone who's "better" than the other or whatever, but it is what it is: a raw count of how many caches they've found. And it's accurate at that.

 

Right now on gc.com, the find count doesn't tell people how many caches they've found, it tells them how many times they've logged a listing. Not that I'm complaining about this, it's how it's always worked. Challenges are just another type of listing, so it makes sense to add that to the count as well.

 

Of course for most people, the largest percentage of their find count will actually be how many caches they've found; the percentage of non-cache "finds" in that number will be rather small, and similarly small for most people, and so won't be very significant. So in that thinking, the find count won't be fully accurate in terms of "caches found", but it will be pretty close. Once the number of challenges gets up to a higher number, it may be possible to skew your find count by a larger amount - the percentage of non-cache "finds" may become more significant. I don't know if that's actually gonna happen.

Link to comment
If two players have each found exactly the same number of Traditional Caches, but the first player finds mostly high difficulty and the second finds mostly LPCs, their find counts can't be compared to each other. Neither one is meaningless, but neither is a representation of how their caching career compares to anyone else.
Of course you can compare the find counts. It's how many caches they've found. It wasn't the same caches and it doesn't tell anyone who's "better" than the other or whatever, but it is what it is: a raw count of how many caches they've found. And it's accurate at that.
Exactly my point. The number represents a number of times a certain kind of log has been made, and that's it. There's nothing about that number that represents how a person caches, and you certainly can't use it to tell how another person's caching compares to yours.

 

Right now on gc.com, the find count doesn't tell people how many caches they've found, it tells them how many times they've logged a listing. Not that I'm complaining about this, it's how it's always worked.
Which is what I said in the part of my post you didn't quote.

 

Challenges are just another type of listing, so it makes sense to add that to the count as well.
I agree.

 

Of course for most people, the largest percentage of their find count will actually be how many caches they've found; the percentage of non-cache "finds" in that number will be rather small, and similarly small for most people, and so won't be very significant. So in that thinking, the find count won't be fully accurate in terms of "caches found", but it will be pretty close.
Unless a person has attended a lot of events and logged a lot of virtuals. Then the meaningless number doesn't even represent the number of caches found very well.

 

Once the number of challenges gets up to a higher number, it may be possible to skew your find count by a larger amount - the percentage of non-cache "finds" may become more significant. I don't know if that's actually gonna happen.
You don't know if the meaningless number will become more or less meaningless? Um... I'm guessing it'll stay exactly as meaningless as it was.
Link to comment

 

Right now on gc.com, the find count doesn't tell people how many caches they've found, it tells them how many times they've logged a listing. Not that I'm complaining about this, it's how it's always worked. Challenges are just another type of listing, so it makes sense to add that to the count as well.

 

I do not think that

challenges like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/view.aspx?cx=CX10FE

(I have encountered already more than 15 of that type) can be compared to anything that happened at gc.com up to that point.

Even if such challenges get archived after a while, the finds remain and the system is just showing how many challenges someone has completed - there is no method to see which ones.

 

Logging no challenges at all is at the moment the only way to demonstrate to others that one is not one of those who is logging challenges without leaving home. Since I started geocaching, I have been a fan of virtual caches, but an ardent opponent of armchair caching. What is happening with some of the challenges now is much worse than what happened in the golden times of couch caches in Germany.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Right now on gc.com, the find count doesn't tell people how many caches they've found, it tells them how many times they've logged a listing. Not that I'm complaining about this, it's how it's always worked. Challenges are just another type of listing, so it makes sense to add that to the count as well.

 

I do not think that

challenges like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/view.aspx?cx=CX10FE

(I have encountered already more than 15 of that type) can be compared to anything that happened at gc.com up to that point.

Even if such challenges get archived after a while, the finds remain and the system is just showing how many challenges someone has completed - there is no method to see which ones.

 

Logging no challenges at all is at the moment the only way to demonstrate to others that one is not one of those who is logging challenges without leaving home.

 

 

Cezanne

 

That one does not meat the guidelines for a premium member to have listed, only Groundspeak can list those type. So I have clicked on the flag as prohibited. Enough cachers do that and it goes away. I will not rant about it and threaten to cancel my premium membership. I will work within the system setup and continue to suggest alternatives at feedback and support ideas others post that I agree with. When I do choose to list a challenge it will be within the guidelines at that time and one that I would find interesting.

Link to comment

 

That one does not meat the guidelines for a premium member to have listed, only Groundspeak can list those type. So I have clicked on the flag as prohibited.

 

 

I know. Guess what I did: I flagged it before I posted it here.

 

It will get archived, but the finds on it will stay and there exists no way to see which challenges someone has completed. It could be all that all of them

are of that type. So there might be cachers who have completed 50 challenges and really performed actions like one performs for finding caches with containers and other that have performed 50 armchair tasks. If challenges count towards the find count (and that's the topic here and not PM-ship and the feedback forum), then it should at least be possible to display which challenges someone has found.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I fail to see how this is a problem but thousands of people fly across the country and the world to log 1000+ caches thrown every 0.10mi along a highway. Why is counting those "better"?

 

A count is just a count - not a score (yeah I know some view it as a score.)

 

Agreed. I keep hearing the complaint that challenges make the find count watered down or meaningless. That happened years ago with the introduction of many common practices that involve logging finds without actually finding a geocache.

 

It's taken me almost 10 years to for me to build up over 900 finds because I'm selective and focus for the most part on caches with longer hikes, more difficult terrain or in interesting places. Today someone can top that count in a day by driving along a road in the desert. That doesn't water down the meaning of a find count, but challenges do? Give me a break.

 

+ 10 !

Link to comment

I don't care if they do count or don't count. Get rid of the numbers altogether for all I care. It does nothing for me. I enjoy getting out, seeing stuff, learning, doing things. So, whatever.

 

Why does it matter to know if I've found 500 caches or 5000 caches? It doesn't matter AT ALL. I enjoyed myself and that's all that counts.

 

I agree with the poster that observed the "numbers don't matter" crowd is very vocal about challenges jot being included in find count. How hypocritical.

 

I've looked at many of the profiles in this thread and all of them had either virtual, earthcaches, web cam, or an event logged as a find.

 

That's also contradictory.

 

You note there that you don't care about the numbers. Does that mean that people who do enjoy the stats part of the game are wrong for enjoying it? That seems to be the implication of many posters.

 

For me, I do go out and find great caches in beautiful locations often (Check my cache finds from the last month) and occasionally hit some urban caches when traveling there or after a haircut or whatever. Even a couple of LPC (Although a tiny piece of me dies every time I do). I also enjoy stats. I like knowing my FTF %, and comparing it with my other local FTFers. Is that so wrong?

 

For me numbers do matter, mine and to a lesser extent others. But how much do they matter in comparison to the experience? Not a large amount, but its still definitively matters to me. I would hate to see stats eliminated.

 

I was thinking about this today up at GC300N0: Mission 9: Tunnel of Light during the big event. I have a lot of people who complain about it being nothing like the original. It's NOT the same as the original, and never will be, but again its a question of degrees. Same container with the same stencil, exact same location, same coin type attached to the lid, copies of all the original documents and the same experience getting there. The only significant difference is the Icon. I would love to hear from some of the people saying that stats are meaningless. I believe many are the same who still bitch and groan about the missing Icon. If it's about the "experience" exclusively then why did I have logs like this:

 

"Nice to see that this was honored in some way even if its not really the same or nearly as special. TFTC."

 

Why must we try to define what's special to others, or denigrate what they find enjoyable. Many people at the event had an amazing experience, and having never found the original, this is the closest they will get. The ones who had merely a meh experience in most cases have had there expectations skewed by longer term cachers who are bitter and always ready to try and negate any pleasure someone may get that is different then theirs. In fact the loudest complaining has been from long term cachers who have found it long ago and if people can't enjoy it the exact same way they did, they may as well not experience it at all. (For the record I was a vocal and strong proponent of not archiving then unarchiving the cache. In fact I would archive GC300N0 without a thought if GS said they changed their mind, which will not happen in this universe unfortunately.)

 

(I am using the Royal you here, not directed at SOTW)Same with stats, some people enjoy them, and if you think stats are meaningless, then it doesn't affect you. Then why worry about it? Not all stat lovers are sitting inside trying to find the best path to 1/1 LPC caches to up there numbers. Some are like me and after an 11 mile hike with 3,300 ft elevation gain after writing their logs enjoy running their StatGen and seeing which spot in top elevations of finds have moved.

 

To be fair it sort of works both ways, there are stat nazis out there that allow stats to override the experience. Thankfully I believe them to be a small minority.

 

Anyway I hope I made at least a little sense. I think I'm suffering mild heat stroke after hanging out at the Cache all day.

 

I see, and understand, your point. That's why I said I don't care either way. If others want them separate, and I can see why, that's fine too. I won't be opposed to it. I'm not sure how they'll decide what most want.

 

It does seem like most forum members want them separate. That's ok with me too. I also can see how number runners enjoy that, and stats. I went out with a couple that do numbers run because I wanted to experience it. While it's not my thing, I enjoyed the challenge, the company and the number boost since I was a newbie!

 

So I'm not dissing anyone's way to enjoy the game at all. All ways have merit.

Link to comment

 

That one does not meat the guidelines for a premium member to have listed, only Groundspeak can list those type. So I have clicked on the flag as prohibited.

 

 

I know. Guess what I did: I flagged it before I posted it here.

 

It will get archived, but the finds on it will stay and there exists no way to see which challenges someone has completed. It could be all that all of them

are of that type. So there might be cachers who have completed 50 challenges and really performed actions like one performs for finding caches with containers and other that have performed 50 armchair tasks. If challenges count towards the find count (and that's the topic here and not PM-ship and the feedback forum), then it should at least be possible to display which challenges someone has found.

 

 

Cezanne

 

I agree that there are several items that need to be fixed. Groundspeak agrees that there are things to fix. We need to work with them on fixing, not causing angst and problems. People who do challenges like that without or in spite of reading the guidelines and adding to the problem not helping.

Link to comment

I was in Seattle for the Geocaching Block Party. The Challenges they set up as part of that event were fun. We also enjoyed some of the other challenges like "Log 15 Lackey name tags" or "take your photo with the Seattle Space Needle and try to make it look like you are carrying the needle". Sure, some are lame, but I can pick and choose which challenges I want to do.

 

I like that they count them in a separate category from the finds. You can see how many challenges you have accepted and how many you have completed. Your profile shows the number of caches found, caches hidden and challenges completed.

 

I do NOT like the fact that they get added to the final total of caches found though. My opinion would be to keep them separate like the Benchmarks. Show how many you've done, but don't include them in your total finds. I'm still waiting to see which number the stats crunchers use. I am hoping they won't affect which cache is shown as my milestone. Will have to test that this evening when I finish logging my caches for the weekend.

 

You can always post comments rather than finds on the challenges. I logged one as completed and the rest as comments until I see how they affect my stats.

Link to comment

While the total shown at the top does include challenges, and is denoted as found/completed, they are also shown as a breakdown of cache finds and challenges.

 

Furthermore, pocket queries and specifically the 'MyFinds' PQ, are not including challenges in the list.

Since the statistics (those generated by geocaching.com itself, as well as those by mygeocachingprofile or by GSAK) are based off of the my finds query, it seems to me that for the purposes of milestones and other statistics, that completed challenges do not count.

 

Now that I understand that, I am perfectly happy with the way they are being counted/not counted. They basically count on their own, but are not considered 'finds'. This will keep my Groundspeak, geocaching profile, and GSAK statistics all happily in line with each other.

 

Now when they add challenges to PQs, then all things may have to change again, and I'm not necessarily looking forward to that set of changes now.

Link to comment
Ironically, it is not very challenging, by the traditional definition of the word, to take a picture.

 

This is funny stuff, and yet very sad. Ironically, it's not very challenging to open a Hide-A-Key and scratch your initials on a damp strip of paper at Wal-Mart. Yet ya'll readily count that number as a "find".

 

Traditional Geocaching... go to published coordinates, open box, sign log, go home and spend 3 seconds entering "TFTC" on the cache page.

 

Action Challenge Caching... go to published coordinates, perform a specfic task and take a picture, go home, download/crop/resize photo, and enter a log describing what task you performed at the location and upload your photo.

 

Photo Challenge Caching... go to published coordinates, take a specific picture of something at the location, go home, download/crop/resize photo, enter log describing your experience and upload your photo.

 

Maybe the challenge-haters dislike the challenges because they involve more work to complete than a traditional geocache? Seems the only logical conclusion as they are otherwise the same activity of "location".

 

Seems to me that the only difference between a challenge cache and a traditional cache is that the cacher doesn't have to mess around with your stinking wet logsheet and the CO doesn't have to deal with inconsiderate cachers trashing their hide.

 

As for all the "number hunters" complaining about challenges "ruining" their stats... well, since they just started counting challenge stats, are we not all starting from zero at the same time? Perhaps if you get off your computer for a few minutes, go outside and hunt down these virtual caches, your silly numbers would grow just like the rest of the cachers who are/will embrace these challenge caches as the "better mousetrap" over that silly tupperware under the bush which doesn't even require you to look up at the scenery while you quickly scribble the log and head on to the next stupid box.

 

Here's how to keep the "numbers" right... add a new flippin' column to your self-promoting stat sheet, knucklehead. Stop being such stagnant "sticks in the mud". Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Challenge caches should count DOUBLE what a traditional cache does.

 

Challenges refocus us on locations rather than meaningless micro containers every 528 feet. I welcome this concept with open arms.

 

EXCELLENT post! Well worth the complete quoting of it. Wet logs and trashing of cache sites, yes, especially! I am saddened at how many so called "veterans" do not take care of their caches and have a hissy fit if someone points them out. Now I just leave a fresh new log sheet for them or post nice poems about trees {grin}.

Link to comment
Your profile shows the number of caches found, caches hidden and challenges completed.

 

I do NOT like the fact that they get added to the final total of caches found though. My opinion would be to keep them separate like the Benchmarks. Show how many you've done, but don't include them in your total finds. I'm still waiting to see which number the stats crunchers use. I am hoping they won't affect which cache is shown as my milestone. Will have to test that this evening when I finish logging my caches for the weekend.

 

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=280379&st=100&gopid=4818993entry4818993

 

You see from my profile they are broken out. If you look at the top right of the page it does show a total of 3198 Found\Completed. Now look at my profile and you see it is 3195 caches and 3 challenges. The only other place I'm aware of that showed a total of both was on logs on cache pages. There you could hover over them and it would show you a breakdown. Again they were separated. At this moment those are not even being shown. So I fail to see why this is such a big issue?

Link to comment

I did a cache above 12,000 feet.. so I could do the following.. 1) Find the actual physical cache 2) do an action challenge of finding a cache above 12,000 feet 3) complete the photo challenge of me being at my favorite trail 4) Do a photo challenge of taking yourself a picture at Henderson Mine.

 

WOW! 4 Smileys for 1 spot. Crazy.

 

This could literally be repeated for every physical cache.. So if you really wanted to "cheat" you could do 2-3 challenge for every spot where there was a physical cache since there are ABSOLUTELY no integration with challenges and real, actual geocaches (like they did with virtual caches).

 

Hope Groundspeak gets their act together on this quickly.

Link to comment

Perhaps in the area next to where the avatar is/was, there is plenty of room for a small stats area:

 

3000 caches found

200 waymarks logged

2 wherigos played

5 challenges completed

3207 total

 

Put all the Groundspeak game counts at the same level to get some visibility. Not including anything about them will make people ignore them, and we'll keep hearing "bring back virtuals" when the same functionality is already there on Waymarking.com and with challenges. There is no mistaking what is what, I can't see how this devalues somebody's precious find count as it's all in the open.

 

I like that ChileHead!

Link to comment

While the total shown at the top does include challenges, and is denoted as found/completed, they are also shown as a breakdown of cache finds and challenges.

 

Furthermore, pocket queries and specifically the 'MyFinds' PQ, are not including challenges in the list.

Since the statistics (those generated by geocaching.com itself, as well as those by mygeocachingprofile or by GSAK) are based off of the my finds query, it seems to me that for the purposes of milestones and other statistics, that completed challenges do not count.

 

Now that I understand that, I am perfectly happy with the way they are being counted/not counted. They basically count on their own, but are not considered 'finds'. This will keep my Groundspeak, geocaching profile, and GSAK statistics all happily in line with each other.

 

Now when they add challenges to PQs, then all things may have to change again, and I'm not necessarily looking forward to that set of changes now.

 

This is what I needed to know and what I planned to test this evening. It is what I was hoping for, so I am happy to see they (at least currently) won't count in my stats. Might take a a wee bit more work to figure out when I am hitting a "cache finds" milestone, but I can live with that. Thanks for the post!

Link to comment

 

Logging no challenges at all is at the moment the only way to demonstrate to others that one is not one of those who is logging challenges without leaving home.

 

 

(emphasis mine)

 

I don't get it. Why does this matter so much to some people? It ties in with "counting these cheapens my finds" and other such claims. Why is there such an intense interest in others' caching habits or concern with how others perceive your caching? ("You", in this post, is being used in the general collective sense and is not directed at any one individual)

 

I play my game my way. I not only do not care what you think of how I play, I care not one whit about how you play. Your style does not affect mine and vice versa.

 

Similarly, my find numbers mean something to me because I know what went into them. I don't care what anyone thinks of mine because it doesn't really concern them and I certainly don't care about anyone else's.

 

Ultimately this is an individual activity and the only person that you must answer to about how you play the game and what your numbers mean, if anything, is yourself. You play your game your way, and I'll play it mine. If you don't like challenges and don't want them to count, that's fine. Then don't do them. But why force your attitude and opinion on others? I don't care for benchmarking and I can't do T5 caches, but do I want them banished? Of course not. That would just be silly, wouldn't it?

 

Clearly, I think the challenges should count, mainly because I do them in the spirit in which they are intended and in accordance with the published guidelines. Challenges that do not seem to me to fit that spirit or those guidelines, I simply ignore. But that's just me. And I'm OK with that.

Link to comment

 

Logging no challenges at all is at the moment the only way to demonstrate to others that one is not one of those who is logging challenges without leaving home.

 

 

(emphasis mine)

 

I don't get it. Why does this matter so much to some people? It ties in with "counting these cheapens my finds" and other such claims. Why is there such an intense interest in others' caching habits or concern with how others perceive your caching? ("You", in this post, is being used in the general collective sense and is not directed at any one individual)

 

I can only provide my personal answer (as the person whom you cited above without adressing your question to someone specific).

 

I am not concerned that my finds or those of someone else are cheapened. There are caches for which I had to work enormously hard that have been easy for almost all

others, e.g. for this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=aadff77c-d9f5-4f88-be69-cc18036e6472

and there are mystery caches that are trivial for me and have been really hard for others.

Each one has different capabilities and thus comparing find counts makes no sense whatsoever.

 

It is important, however, for me not be perceived as armchair cacher and I think that it is negative for the image of geocaching if people get to believe that it is a well accepted way of geocaching to perform actions at one's PC. Like I am angry when I read logs that cachers proudly report to have ignored driving prohibited signs, as this puts geocachers into a bad light, I am not happy about armchair activities subsumed under geocaching.

 

If the challenges continue to contribute towards the find count, I'd at least want to have the option to get the list of challenges displayed that someone has logged.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I did a cache above 12,000 feet.. so I could do the following.. 1) Find the actual physical cache 2) do an action challenge of finding a cache above 12,000 feet 3) complete the photo challenge of me being at my favorite trail 4) Do a photo challenge of taking yourself a picture at Henderson Mine.

 

WOW! 4 Smileys for 1 spot. Crazy.

 

What's crazy, to me, is the notion that smileys mean anything getting bothered about. If I did a cache above 12,000 feet, I wouldn't care if I or someone else got 10 smileys or none for the experience. If only wanted to see a +1 on my find count I'd just log a find for the physical cache. If I wanted a +2 on my find count I'd only accept and log a completed on one of the challenges. If I wanted +4 added to my find count I'd log all of the cache/challenges. Or, I might not log anything and just remember the experience. Actually, I would at least log the physical cache, but not because it would increase my find count (because I don't care if my find count increases), but as a courtesy to the CO know that someone found their cache.

Link to comment

The "find count" is pretty meaningless anyway, challenges or no challenges. And, realistically, it's going to stay that way: Go ahead, try to change the system in such a way as to decrease some people's find total, see what happens.

 

But if you look at the geocaches tab on the profile, you can see separate totals for caches and challenges, and for individual types of caches. What I'd like to see, and isn't there, is a total for physical caches — ones with a container and log: traditionals, multis, letterbox hybrids etc.

 

That would arguably be a meaningless number too, giving equal weight to 1/1 and 5/5 caches, but not as meaningless as the cache total which includes locationless caches, virtuals, and events in the same category as containers-with-logs.

 

Then again, the only find count I care much about is my own, and the only person whose opinion of my find count I care much about is me; and keeping track of that number for myself isn't such a big deal.

Link to comment

It's taken me almost 10 years to for me to build up over 900 finds because I'm selective and focus for the most part on caches with longer hikes, more difficult terrain or in interesting places. Today someone can top that count in a day by driving along a road in the desert. That doesn't water down the meaning of a find count, but challenges do? Give me a break.

 

Your decade long bias might be clouding your vision for this topic. Most folks seem to have accepted that if you make any effort to find and log a container cache it counts as a find. Being "selective" is an admirable quality and folks will always associate your find count with high value caches. It is one of many styles of container geocaching.

 

Folks here are upset that the new challenges have the potential to add high numbers of containerless finds to the total geocache find count. This is clearly different from container caching.

 

This is an interesting and pertinent discussion about how the Prime Directive may have changed. I find it interesting to see how it affects people and to see how this discussion might affect my bias in this matter. Forum discussions of the past have led me to change my opinion about containerless caches. Maybe it will happen again here. Maybe not.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...