Jump to content

Challenges Counting as Finds


ATXTracker
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

You can not find a challenge you can only complete it it. (just like a Virt, Earth or any of the FALSECACHES.) That means that completing should not count towards the find total.

Are you familiar with the word Attended? Attending an event counts toward your count, as does finding one of the old virts. How is this any different? You're not wanting to change the entire way that the count has worked for over a decade just to fit your personal definition of the game, are you?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I've found earthcache and virtual caches. I found the geologic formation of an earthcache, and the tombstone of a virtual cache. How is that not finding? I used my GPS to find both.

 

It's all finding, virtuals, earthcaches, challenges and even events. I plug in the coords and let the GPS get me there. I've been to events that were at spots in the middle of the woods that I certainly had to find with a GPS, but I even use the GPS to find restaurants and parks.

Link to comment

I've found earthcache and virtual caches. I found the geologic formation of an earthcache, and the tombstone of a virtual cache. How is that not finding? I used my GPS to find both.

 

You can also use your GPS to find benchmarks. But you don't get your smiley just for finding those things. You only get it after fulfilling the task given to you.

Link to comment

You can not find a challenge you can only complete it it. (just like a Virt, Earth or any of the FALSECACHES.) That means that completing should not count towards the find total.

Are you familiar with the word Attended? Attending an event counts toward your count, as does finding one of the old virts. How is this any different? You're not wanting to change the entire way that the count has worked for over a decade just to fit your personal definition of the game, are you?

I do believe I wrote "just like a Virt, Earth or any of the FALSECACHES." easily inferring that I think non of them should be counted.

Events that have a log are another story, like I say "Technically a container is a cache but the log with my signature is the cache. I will not claim I found a cache that does not contain my sig."

Before I stopped logging online I attended 4 events, I logged 1 only because it was my first and the only one with a log.

Notice I have zero finds on Virtual Cache, Webcam Cache or Earthcache? That is because they are FalseCaches and therefor not going to be logged as real caches by me.

But you already knew this about me because we have done this song and dance before so go use someone else to make your flawed point.

 

~~~edit~~~

added number 1

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

I've found earthcache and virtual caches. I found the geologic formation of an earthcache, and the tombstone of a virtual cache. How is that not finding? I used my GPS to find both.

 

You can also use your GPS to find benchmarks. But you don't get your smiley just for finding those things. You only get it after fulfilling the task given to you.

Well, maybe we should! :mad:

 

I'll go create a Feedback request. B)

Link to comment

Do you consider micro caches then? You have a strange philosophy. I would think only large container with items inside are "real" caches to you. Interesting.

I have yet to find a micro that could not contain a log. If I did then I would not claim a find because a container has to contain something to be called a cache by the definition of the word.

 

It also helps that I can place my signature legibly within an eighth inch square, add the date and I still take less than a quarter inch square.

 

It isn't a philosophy, one can call frog legs chicken all they want but it doesn't make them chicken.

Link to comment

As of now, there are a bit over 5000 votes to remove the numbers from your overall find count. However, each person can allocate up to 3 votes, so as few as 1700 members may have actually voted. GS is monitoring the topic, so if you are in favor of challenges completed being included in your finds, please go there and post a comment but DO NOT VOTE. Remember: "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease". Don't allow changes to be forced on the majority by an organized, vocal minority!

 

I do not think that it is a minority. Try to see what happens if you open a new feedback thread and propose to keep counting completed challenges towards the found count (if such a thread does not yet exist - I have not checked) and see how many votes you will get. I'd surprise me if you reach a comparable number of votes as the proposal to change the way challenges are counted.

 

I am a fan of virtuals and yet I prefer the challenges to be counted separately. So your theory is wrong.

 

Cezanne

 

Some numbers (and likely consequences) that I noticed:

 

Worldwide number of geocachers (according to GS): 5,000,000

Number who voted "Bring Back Virtuals" in the feedback forum: 3843 (.0007% of total).

GS announces Challenges as a replacement for Virtuals.

Number who voted "Don't Make Completions the Same as Finds": 5358 (.001% of total).

(Members can vote up to 3 times for a topic, so number of actual members likely even less than the amounts shown above.)

GS relents and agrees to break out Challenges from total cache finds.

 

Consequences: Virtuals are not going to be brought back and Challenges are now guaranteed to meet the same fate as waymarks.

 

A couple of things come to mind:

THE SQUEAKIEST WHEEL GETS THE MOST GREASE.

TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY.

 

The 99.99% of us who rarely or never post to the forums, participate in the feedback forum, or get involved in important community issues can all learn a very important lesson from this sad experience...

Yeah, it is called get off your lazy butts and vote.

Anyway...

You can not find a challenge you can only complete it it. (just like a Virt, Earth or any of the FALSECACHES.) That means that completing should not count towards the find total.

 

Hmm. Using that logic, you don't find events, you attend them. So should they count?

Link to comment

Add me to those who feel that the challenge thing is making a farce out of the game of geocaching by requiring people to just do a bunch of lame stunts (locationless). To me that's just not geocaching. We've got one challenge so far in our area. It seems to me to be a virtual- take a picture standing in front of a certain building. I suppose all those people wanting to bring virtuals back now have a means to do so. I know people who loved them (they weren't allowed when I started caching).

 

As for counting challenges as a find the same as a regular cache, where you find a hidden cache, then why even bother differentiating between them?

 

I'll do a challenge cache if it appeals to me. It could be fun having a challenge that requires a person to have their picture taken standing on one leg and flapping their arms like a chicken in a certain location ( the village square). Wait as minute... I've seen caches that have/had challenges associated with them. They used to be requirements that were necessay in order to log the cache, but then Groundspeak said people couldn't make a cache with requirements before you could log it. The "requirement" had to be left up to the to the individual as to whether they wanted to do it.

 

Sounds like the challenges are not being monitored- yikes- what a can of worms that could turn into. I can just imagine challenges requiring people to do dangerous or "morally questionable" things.

Edited by Luckless
Link to comment

I question why the "Challenges Completed" total shows up on our profile page. Why is this category added as something "special" compared to any of the other types of finds logged? (My understanding is that Challenges will show up on your geocache list with the number you have completed just like Virtuals, Traditionals, CITO and even Benchmarks, so why have them listed again on the profile page!? I checked a users profile who has done some challenges and they are listed there.) It seems to me that they are being "forced" on people to an extent by being shown as a "special" category. That annoys me the most so far! I think there should be a way to remove that box from your profile page if you are not interested in doing them.

Personally I would rather see them treated like Benchmarks - a separate category that does not count in the total finds. (I don't really think I have any real interest in this challenge category so far. I'm leaning toward keeping mine at "0" as a statement.)

Link to comment

Do you consider micro caches then? You have a strange philosophy. I would think only large container with items inside are "real" caches to you. Interesting.

I have yet to find a micro that could not contain a log. If I did then I would not claim a find because a container has to contain something to be called a cache by the definition of the word.

 

It also helps that I can place my signature legibly within an eighth inch square, add the date and I still take less than a quarter inch square.

 

It isn't a philosophy, one can call frog legs chicken all they want but it doesn't make them chicken.

 

Ok, that makes sense. I didn't know what your definition of a cache was. I thought you were going way old school and wanting to have it as the original stash was.

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
Link to comment

I've found earthcache and virtual caches. I found the geologic formation of an earthcache, and the tombstone of a virtual cache. How is that not finding? I used my GPS to find both.

 

You can also use your GPS to find benchmarks. But you don't get your smiley just for finding those things. You only get it after fulfilling the task given to you.

Well, maybe we should! :mad:

 

I'll go create a Feedback request. B)

Post a link, I'll vote for it!

Link to comment

As of now, there are a bit over 5000 votes to remove the numbers from your overall find count. However, each person can allocate up to 3 votes, so as few as 1700 members may have actually voted. GS is monitoring the topic, so if you are in favor of challenges completed being included in your finds, please go there and post a comment but DO NOT VOTE. Remember: "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease". Don't allow changes to be forced on the majority by an organized, vocal minority!

 

I do not think that it is a minority. Try to see what happens if you open a new feedback thread and propose to keep counting completed challenges towards the found count (if such a thread does not yet exist - I have not checked) and see how many votes you will get. I'd surprise me if you reach a comparable number of votes as the proposal to change the way challenges are counted.

 

I am a fan of virtuals and yet I prefer the challenges to be counted separately. So your theory is wrong.

 

Cezanne

 

Some numbers (and likely consequences) that I noticed:

 

Worldwide number of geocachers (according to GS): 5,000,000

Number who voted "Bring Back Virtuals" in the feedback forum: 3843 (.0007% of total).

GS announces Challenges as a replacement for Virtuals.

Number who voted "Don't Make Completions the Same as Finds": 5358 (.001% of total).

(Members can vote up to 3 times for a topic, so number of actual members likely even less than the amounts shown above.)

GS relents and agrees to break out Challenges from total cache finds.

 

Consequences: Virtuals are not going to be brought back and Challenges are now guaranteed to meet the same fate as waymarks.

 

A couple of things come to mind:

THE SQUEAKIEST WHEEL GETS THE MOST GREASE.

TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY.

 

The 99.99% of us who rarely or never post to the forums, participate in the feedback forum, or get involved in important community issues can all learn a very important lesson from this sad experience...

Yeah, it is called get off your lazy butts and vote.

Anyway...

You can not find a challenge you can only complete it it. (just like a Virt, Earth or any of the FALSECACHES.) That means that completing should not count towards the find total.

 

Hmm. Using that logic, you don't find events, you attend them. So should they count?

Yes, if and only if you find and sign the log.

Should you not sign the log or there was non, then it should not count because there was nothing to find.

Link to comment

As of now, there are a bit over 5000 votes to remove the numbers from your overall find count. However, each person can allocate up to 3 votes, so as few as 1700 members may have actually voted. GS is monitoring the topic, so if you are in favor of challenges completed being included in your finds, please go there and post a comment but DO NOT VOTE. Remember: "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease". Don't allow changes to be forced on the majority by an organized, vocal minority!

 

I do not think that it is a minority. Try to see what happens if you open a new feedback thread and propose to keep counting completed challenges towards the found count (if such a thread does not yet exist - I have not checked) and see how many votes you will get. I'd surprise me if you reach a comparable number of votes as the proposal to change the way challenges are counted.

 

I am a fan of virtuals and yet I prefer the challenges to be counted separately. So your theory is wrong.

 

Cezanne

 

Some numbers (and likely consequences) that I noticed:

 

Worldwide number of geocachers (according to GS): 5,000,000

Number who voted "Bring Back Virtuals" in the feedback forum: 3843 (.0007% of total).

GS announces Challenges as a replacement for Virtuals.

Number who voted "Don't Make Completions the Same as Finds": 5358 (.001% of total).

(Members can vote up to 3 times for a topic, so number of actual members likely even less than the amounts shown above.)

GS relents and agrees to break out Challenges from total cache finds.

 

Consequences: Virtuals are not going to be brought back and Challenges are now guaranteed to meet the same fate as waymarks.

 

A couple of things come to mind:

THE SQUEAKIEST WHEEL GETS THE MOST GREASE.

TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY.

 

The 99.99% of us who rarely or never post to the forums, participate in the feedback forum, or get involved in important community issues can all learn a very important lesson from this sad experience...

Yeah, it is called get off your lazy butts and vote.

Anyway...

You can not find a challenge you can only complete it it. (just like a Virt, Earth or any of the FALSECACHES.) That means that completing should not count towards the find total.

 

Hmm. Using that logic, you don't find events, you attend them. So should they count?

Yes, if and only if you find and sign the log.

Should you not sign the log or there was non, then it should not count because there was nothing to find.

 

So you dance around your own definition of a cache by now reducing it to only requiring having signed a log? Or does the event have to have a special container hidden somewhere on the premises of the event site that you have to find which in turn contains the log which you have to sign to be able to claim the event? This is getting so VERY complicated.

Link to comment

I don't care about other people's numbers at all. However, I do care about MY numbers. My numbers are for ME and not for anybody else but I certainly don't want to puff them using challenges. I like to know the actual number of caches I've found. I'm glad that I discovered challenges add to the total find count before I checked them out for myself. I have no desire to add bogus "finds" to my numbers. Like I said, my numbers are just for me (ok for my wife as well :)) and I want them to reflect reality.

 

I didn't kiss a frog or anything close to it and have no intentions of doing so either. I only look at someone else's numbers from the point of view of determining if I should respect them as a Cache-Master that has a vast amount of experience actually finding caches or if they are a Geo-Noob like myself. As for myself, I care about my own numbers cause it provides a way for me and my daughter to keep track of what WE did (you have the wife, I have the daughter). She can look back and know exactually how my caches we did TOGETHER (I never cache without her). I likewise do not wish to dilute the "father / daughter" experience we have with kiss-a-frog type of challenges. We may have fun doing these "rediculous" challenges at some point but only when they do not dilute our own personal measure of "father/daughter" time.

 

+1 to Thrak's comment

Link to comment

So you dance around your own definition of a cache by now reducing it to only requiring having signed a log? Or does the event have to have a special container hidden somewhere on the premises of the event site that you have to find which in turn contains the log which you have to sign to be able to claim the event? This is getting so VERY complicated.

I dance around nothing you simply wish to include what ever you want into the definition of cache where as I say follow the definition to it most logical simplification.

 

CACHE

1: a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements A log which would be an implement for keeping track of those who signed it, and there wile either be a container or a Container. It matters not which, both will conceal and or preserve the log.

 

2: something hidden or stored in a cache At minimum for a geocache, a log.

 

It always comes down to the log.

 

Webcams ,Virts, Earths and events without out logs are by no stretch of any portion of the definition, a cache.

As for Virts specifically, the only time I ever did a Virtual Cache was in SecondLife. Virtual geocaches are hidden there not in real life.

 

Make it all even better...357 consecutive days without logging any of the finds I have made during that time. Once I have the ability to make it so that someone would have to manually calculate my finds to figure it out, I'll start logging online again. Plus we can laugh at the people who aren't smart enough to see past false finds and those who are pitiful enough to do so.

Link to comment
Hmm. Using that logic, you don't find events, you attend them. So should they count?

 

Yup, I don't think they should.

 

So you logged the events you attended... why? Ditto for your Earthcache and Virt finds. Put your money where your find count is. If you don't believe these should count then delete your finds.

 

EDIT: Not to pull this rabbit out of the hat, but...

 

Geocache Information for User: dfx

Event Cache 	           21
Cache In Trash Out Event    1
Mega-Event Cache 	    3
Lost and Found Event Cache  1

 

It's not like you're in danger of an event showing up in a PQ in the future. If you really don't think these should count then you really wouldn't be logging an attended log.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Make it all even better...357 consecutive days without logging any of the finds I have made during that time. Once I have the ability to make it so that someone would have to manually calculate my finds to figure it out, I'll start logging online again. Plus we can laugh at the people who aren't smart enough to see past false finds and those who are pitiful enough to do so.

 

...and we have forum rule violation.

Link to comment

Old Timers:

Did this same uproar happen when micros were first approved? Did some cachers get upset that the cache no longer was a stash in the literal sense?

The cache is a stash in the literal sense if you except the true definition.

A micro no matter what anyone wants to think, is a cache, so wile micros my have caused a flood of subjectively boring caches they had no chance to "Be the death of". Now if you let people hide something without hiding something not only would the statement appear stupid but the game will too. That isn't to say the game would be stupid but it is not a popular game with the geocaching crowed as Waymarking.com has proven. Hmm, I should issue challenge that encourages people to find a cheese factory and make or visit a Wheymark LOL

Link to comment

Make it all even better...357 consecutive days without logging any of the finds I have made during that time. Once I have the ability to make it so that someone would have to manually calculate my finds to figure it out, I'll start logging online again. Plus we can laugh at the people who aren't smart enough to see past false finds and those who are pitiful enough to do so.

 

...and we have forum rule violation.

How so? It isn't pointed at anyone specific and currently no one preforms the mentioned potential action.

Link to comment

I am very disappointed by the development that challenge completions will not be counted with my overall finds total. A challenge, if properly designed according to the rules, is supposed to take the participant to a specific spot to perform a specific task in order to get a "completion". This is exactly what you have to do in order to log one of the grandfathered virtuals as a find. Events, CITOs, Virtuals, Webcams, Earth caches, etc. all count as "finds". And now challenges don't. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand. It seems quite inconsistent to me. I don't believe there will be much interest in challenges now and they will soon fade away.

 

I agree with you. Most of the people who were complaining that they weren't geocaches have logged finds on dozens, and sometimes hundreds of things that aren't geocaches.

 

Without incrementing the find count, challenges will be about as popular as bacon at a Bar Mitzvah. Challenges will become a niche activity like Waymarking and people will still be clamoring to bring back virtuals.

 

Challenges have a lot going for them already that Waymarking never had.

 

1. Challenges (mostly) seem like they are intended to be fun. Waymarking always (to me )seemed like completing a school assignment.

2. Challenges have a working iPhone app. (Android too I guess?) Waymarking doesn't.

3. Challenges are on the same site as geocaches. Waymarks are on a different site.

4. Your Challenge count shows up in your geocaching profile. Waymarks? Nope don't see any here, gotta go to that other site.

 

Over a thousand people have already logged completion of each of the first 4 worldwide challenges. How many waymarks are posted or visited in one day?

Link to comment

No matter how good the intentions of challenges are, people are notoriously dumb and abuse it. i didn't like the fact that they increased your find count but i think an update just happened and they are now separate. you have xxxx finds and have completed xx challenges. that i like. ever since i started geocaching i've enjoyed the idea of milestones. i hate the idea that my 1000 has the possibility to be some rediculous challenge. now don't get me wrong some challenges have merit. hike the snoqualmie pass and see the location of the old ape cache, visit mount rushmore. but seriously, kiss a frog? or "take a photo of yourself pressing the button to cross 50th avenue"?

 

keep them separate or simply don't increase the count like benchmarks.

Link to comment

No matter how good the intentions of challenges are, people are notoriously dumb and abuse it. i didn't like the fact that they increased your find count but i think an update just happened and they are now separate. you have xxxx finds and have completed xx challenges.

 

On the profile page nothing has changed except the icon used for displaying the finds which changed to a smilie and has been a green cache box before the update.

The only thing that changed is the separate display of number of caches found and challenges completed on the log pages.

I do not understand why anyone objects against this separate display - it just saves one to have to look up the user's profile.

 

The total number of caches found/challenges completed is still the number of caches logged plus the number of completed challenges as before the update.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

So you dance around your own definition of a cache by now reducing it to only requiring having signed a log? Or does the event have to have a special container hidden somewhere on the premises of the event site that you have to find which in turn contains the log which you have to sign to be able to claim the event? This is getting so VERY complicated.

I dance around nothing you simply wish to include what ever you want into the definition of cache where as I say follow the definition to it most logical simplification.

 

CACHE

1: a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements A log which would be an implement for keeping track of those who signed it, and there wile either be a container or a Container. It matters not which, both will conceal and or preserve the log.

 

2: something hidden or stored in a cache At minimum for a geocache, a log.

 

It always comes down to the log.

 

Webcams ,Virts, Earths and events without out logs are by no stretch of any portion of the definition, a cache.

As for Virts specifically, the only time I ever did a Virtual Cache was in SecondLife. Virtual geocaches are hidden there not in real life.

 

Make it all even better...357 consecutive days without logging any of the finds I have made during that time. Once I have the ability to make it so that someone would have to manually calculate my finds to figure it out, I'll start logging online again. Plus we can laugh at the people who aren't smart enough to see past false finds and those who are pitiful enough to do so.

 

Two issues in play here; First, you keep changing your definition. You do so by quoting the dictionary definition of the word cache, which states that a container is a requirement yet then say you will log an event if there is simply a log present. My last event, the log was an apron I was wearing, before that a pizza paddle and before that a pumpkin. None a container by any stretch of the imagination.

 

However, that is overshadowed by the fact you use a definition of a real word, caching, and apply it to a made up word, geocaching. For 5 plus years, locationless fit in the definition of geocaching. Virtuals lasted slightly longer. Virtuals were eliminated not due to the fact they did not fit a definition, but because they became burdensome to volunteer reviewers to manage quality-wise. One of the things implied in this thread is that if challenges or virtuals become popular, it will kill the hobby yet GC found its way out of obscurity while locationless and virtuals were active and it now appears that TPTB think they have solved the issue of burden on their volunteers.

 

Virtuals, and now challenges are valid finds for those that enjoy them if for no other reason then they are sanctioned by geocaching as such. Since GS defines the word that they made up, or at least made popular, it appears to be so.

Link to comment

No matter how good the intentions of challenges are, people are notoriously dumb and abuse it. i didn't like the fact that they increased your find count but i think an update just happened and they are now separate. you have xxxx finds and have completed xx challenges.

 

On the profile page nothing has changed except the icon used for displaying the finds which changed to a smilie and has been a green cache box before the update.

The only thing that changed is the separate display of number of caches found and challenges completed on the log pages.

I do not understand why anyone objects against this separate display - it just saves one to have to look up the user's profile.

 

The total number of caches found/challenges completed is still the number of caches logged plus the number of completed challenges as before the update.

 

 

Cezanne

 

I just looked at the change. Challenges are broken out from cache finds on the main page in the gray "hello" box after you sign in, and in the "stats" box that shows up on the right of the screen if you click on the geocacher's name in the "hello" box. Then if you click on the "stats" box and go to the cacher's profile page and click on the geocaches tab with the type breakdown, challenges are included in the totals. I think this is a good compromise. However, I am afraid that this will not be sufficient for those that were driving the issue, and we are going to see another uproar and feedback forum campaign to get them removed from the total on the profile page, as well.

Link to comment
However, that is overshadowed by the fact you use a definition of a real word, caching, and apply it to a made up word,

 

Exactly, it's a made-up word, and it was made up so that a particular new activity can be called by a name. This activity was: take a container, put stuff in, hide it somewhere, take GPS coordinates, publish them on the web, while the other players use those coordinates to try and find it. That's it, that's the activity, that's what they decided to call "geocaching" (after a bit of back and forth and some alternative suggested names). The name was not invented for an activity that involved going somewhere and doing something arbitrary. It was not invented for going somewhere and meeting some people. It was not invented for an activity that involves going somewhere and receiving a geological lesson. etc.

 

It doesn't matter what Groundspeak decided to do with their site. They didn't come up with the concept and they didn't come up with the name.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

As of now, there are a bit over 5000 votes to remove the numbers from your overall find count. However, each person can allocate up to 3 votes, so as few as 1700 members may have actually voted. GS is monitoring the topic, so if you are in favor of challenges completed being included in your finds, please go there and post a comment but DO NOT VOTE. Remember: "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease". Don't allow changes to be forced on the majority by an organized, vocal minority!

 

I do not think that it is a minority. Try to see what happens if you open a new feedback thread and propose to keep counting completed challenges towards the found count (if such a thread does not yet exist - I have not checked) and see how many votes you will get. I'd surprise me if you reach a comparable number of votes as the proposal to change the way challenges are counted.

 

I am a fan of virtuals and yet I prefer the challenges to be counted separately. So your theory is wrong.

 

Cezanne

 

Some numbers (and likely consequences) that I noticed:

 

Worldwide number of geocachers (according to GS): 5,000,000

Number who voted "Bring Back Virtuals" in the feedback forum: 3843 (.0007% of total).

GS announces Challenges as a replacement for Virtuals.

Number who voted "Don't Make Completions the Same as Finds": 5358 (.001% of total).

(Members can vote up to 3 times for a topic, so number of actual members likely even less than the amounts shown above.)

GS relents and agrees to break out Challenges from total cache finds.

 

Consequences: Virtuals are not going to be brought back and Challenges are now guaranteed to meet the same fate as waymarks.

 

A couple of things come to mind:

THE SQUEAKIEST WHEEL GETS THE MOST GREASE.

TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY.

 

The 99.99% of us who rarely or never post to the forums, participate in the feedback forum, or get involved in important community issues can all learn a very important lesson from this sad experience...

 

I disagree. I think the way it is now is almost perfect. Challenges are here to stay. The latest changes are right on. No way will they go the way of waymarks,

Edited by Frank Broughton
Link to comment

Although it's not surprising, I find it unnecessary that those who wanted completions to count as finds, after finding out Groundspeak's decision, now resort to saying things like, These people are just going to go complain about something else because they're never happy. How many of you saying that are going to go right back to complaining about smart phones and blank/short logs? If GS banned blank logs, you'd still have a problem with short ones. See what I'm getting at here? We're not all going to be happy with every single aspect of this hobby.

 

I agree with you. Most of the people who were complaining that they weren't geocaches have logged finds on dozens, and sometimes hundreds of things that aren't geocaches.

 

Without incrementing the find count, challenges will be about as popular as bacon at a Bar Mitzvah. Challenges will become a niche activity like Waymarking and people will still be clamoring to bring back virtuals.

According to Jeremy's statement, Challenge completions will have their own count right beside the traditional find count. Those participating in Challenges WILL have a count in order to view their accomplishments. It's not going away, just separating from the typical Found count. So isn't that a happy medium?

 

I believe it is a perfect solution. They still show prominently -challenges are here to stay! Start making some fun challenges and get with it all!

Link to comment

So you dance around your own definition of a cache by now reducing it to only requiring having signed a log? Or does the event have to have a special container hidden somewhere on the premises of the event site that you have to find which in turn contains the log which you have to sign to be able to claim the event? This is getting so VERY complicated.

I dance around nothing you simply wish to include what ever you want into the definition of cache where as I say follow the definition to it most logical simplification.

 

CACHE

1: a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements A log which would be an implement for keeping track of those who signed it, and there wile either be a container or a Container. It matters not which, both will conceal and or preserve the log.

 

2: something hidden or stored in a cache At minimum for a geocache, a log.

 

It always comes down to the log.

 

Webcams ,Virts, Earths and events without out logs are by no stretch of any portion of the definition, a cache.

As for Virts specifically, the only time I ever did a Virtual Cache was in SecondLife. Virtual geocaches are hidden there not in real life.

 

Make it all even better...357 consecutive days without logging any of the finds I have made during that time. Once I have the ability to make it so that someone would have to manually calculate my finds to figure it out, I'll start logging online again. Plus we can laugh at the people who aren't smart enough to see past false finds and those who are pitiful enough to do so.

 

Two issues in play here; First, you keep changing your definition. You do so by quoting the dictionary definition of the word cache, which states that a container is a requirement yet then say you will log an event if there is simply a log present. My last event, the log was an apron I was wearing, before that a pizza paddle and before that a pumpkin. None a container by any stretch of the imagination.

 

However, that is overshadowed by the fact you use a definition of a real word, caching, and apply it to a made up word, geocaching. For 5 plus years, locationless fit in the definition of geocaching. Virtuals lasted slightly longer. Virtuals were eliminated not due to the fact they did not fit a definition, but because they became burdensome to volunteer reviewers to manage quality-wise. One of the things implied in this thread is that if challenges or virtuals become popular, it will kill the hobby yet GC found its way out of obscurity while locationless and virtuals were active and it now appears that TPTB think they have solved the issue of burden on their volunteers.

 

Virtuals, and now challenges are valid finds for those that enjoy them if for no other reason then they are sanctioned by geocaching as such. Since GS defines the word that they made up, or at least made popular, it appears to be so.

 

Thanks, b&b. Ya beat me to it.

Link to comment

So you dance around your own definition of a cache by now reducing it to only requiring having signed a log? Or does the event have to have a special container hidden somewhere on the premises of the event site that you have to find which in turn contains the log which you have to sign to be able to claim the event? This is getting so VERY complicated.

I dance around nothing you simply wish to include what ever you want into the definition of cache where as I say follow the definition to it most logical simplification.

 

CACHE

1: a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements A log which would be an implement for keeping track of those who signed it, and there wile either be a container or a Container. It matters not which, both will conceal and or preserve the log.

 

2: something hidden or stored in a cache At minimum for a geocache, a log.

 

It always comes down to the log.

 

Webcams ,Virts, Earths and events without out logs are by no stretch of any portion of the definition, a cache.

As for Virts specifically, the only time I ever did a Virtual Cache was in SecondLife. Virtual geocaches are hidden there not in real life.

 

Make it all even better...357 consecutive days without logging any of the finds I have made during that time. Once I have the ability to make it so that someone would have to manually calculate my finds to figure it out, I'll start logging online again. Plus we can laugh at the people who aren't smart enough to see past false finds and those who are pitiful enough to do so.

 

hey, someone is knocking on your door, better go answer.....:P

Link to comment

 

Challenges have a lot going for them already that Waymarking never had.

 

1. Challenges (mostly) seem like they are intended to be fun. Waymarking always (to me )seemed like completing a school assignment.

2. Challenges have a working iPhone app. (Android too I guess?) Waymarking doesn't.

3. Challenges are on the same site as geocaches. Waymarks are on a different site.

4. Your Challenge count shows up in your geocaching profile. Waymarks? Nope don't see any here, gotta go to that other site.

 

Over a thousand people have already logged completion of each of the first 4 worldwide challenges. How many waymarks are posted or visited in one day?

I agree with the 4 points about Waymarking. It used to be that at least for #1 I could point the Waymarking games department. But Groundspeak renamed it Mutifarious and while it still includes game it also includes any category that they can't seem to fit into one of the other departments. Groundspeak made this change without soliciting any feedback from the Waymarking community (sound familiar) but also did not publicize it when it was made nor did Jeremy blog about the new exciting change that was coming to Waymarking. And frankly multifarious sounds like something terrible to begin with. Waymarking wasn't killed by challenges, it was dead when Groundspeak decide that it wasn't meant to be fun anymore. Otherwise, I'd point out some fun categories in Waymarking that, IMO, are at least as exciting as challenges.

 

Please note - I didn't actually intend to reply this thread, but felt the off-topic jab at Waymarking, needed a response. So just to be on topic: I don't give a flying patootie whether or not challenges or waymarks count as caches or even that Groundspeak thinks its important enough to keep flip flopping on this issue. I find the arguments from both sides ridiculous.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

Challenges have a lot going for them already that Waymarking never had.

 

1. Challenges (mostly) seem like they are intended to be fun. Waymarking always (to me )seemed like completing a school assignment.

2. Challenges have a working iPhone app. (Android too I guess?) Waymarking doesn't.

3. Challenges are on the same site as geocaches. Waymarks are on a different site.

4. Your Challenge count shows up in your geocaching profile. Waymarks? Nope don't see any here, gotta go to that other site.

 

Over a thousand people have already logged completion of each of the first 4 worldwide challenges. How many waymarks are posted or visited in one day?

I agree with the 4 points about Waymarking. It used to be that at least for #1 I could point the Waymarking games department. But Groundspeak renamed it Mutifarious and while it still includes game it also includes any category that they can't seem to fit into one of the other departments. Groundspeak made this change without soliciting any feedback from the Waymarking community (sound familiar) but also did not publicize it when it was made nor did Jeremy blog about the new exciting change that was coming to Waymarking. And frankly multifarious sounds like something terrible to begin with. Waymarking wasn't killed by challenges, it was dead when Groundspeak decide that it wasn't meant to be fun anymore. Otherwise, I'd point out some fun categories in Waymarking that, IMO, are at least as exciting as challenges.

 

Please note - I didn't actually intend to reply this thread, but felt the off-topic jab at Waymarking, needed a response. So just to be on topic: I don't give a flying patootie whether or not challenges or waymarks count as caches or even that Groundspeak thinks its important enough to keep flip flopping on this issue. I find the arguments from both sides ridiculous.

 

I find it ridiculous that you and many others pretend to be above so many issues, but obvously care greatly by your continued participation (long winded participation) in the back and forth.

Edited by M 5
Link to comment

It COULD be an interesting facet of the game but will have to be monitored by someone. If this remains a part of Geocaching.com, I assume that the reviewers will get some new job responsibilities. With no commensurate increase in their compensation.

I wouldn't assume that. Many reviewers, myself included, have made it quite clear that we have no interest in returning to anything like the 2001-2005 era when we were reviewing virtual and locationless caches. The pressures of that failed review system factored into the new design. So, what you are seeing with the flow of challenge submissions should give you a taste of what it was like for a reviewer back when people could submit those types of geocaches. I hope that any non-believers now believe what the reviewers have been saying on this subject for many years. It is no fun spending a disproportionate amount of one's volunteer time trying to explain to an angry virtual or locationless cache submitter why their listing doesn't meet the rules.

In that case you copy and paste an explanation that the listing does not meet the guidelines (That GS can define how they see fit) and they need to re read the guidelines to make it work -- just like earth caches. Its a job and it does not matter if you want to do it if it is part of the job. If you don't like it then you can find a new job, you have that choice. For example: I really don't want to grade homework assignments but I do because it is part of the job and recently the school has forced the teachers to give and grade a new test in the middle of the year. Yes this is extra work but I do it because it is part of the job. If I felt strongly enough then I could find a different job.

 

What it comes down to is tell them once it does not meet the rules and they have the option to appeal the decision. If it wins appeal then it is published if not archived.

 

further more for each reviewer who would quit over this there is 100 who would feel his spot. There needs to be more reviewers anyways. I think that is the root problem. For example: I can't believe that Japan does not have a dedicated reviewer. The world should be split up into areas depending on how active the community is in that area. Counties (usa) up to whole regions like Central Aisa or West Africa.

Edited by releasethedogs
Link to comment

I personally like the changes they made today to separate out them like they did. I have completed 8 challenges (under a different account, 6 from the Groundspeak Block Party and 2 from the Going APE event the following day. I was waiting to see if they were going to separate them out before I put them on our normal account). I will probalby pick and choose the ones I want to do and get a few more, but I won't be actively going after challenges. It will be more if I'm in the area it looks likes a worth while one...

 

I also think it will draw enough attention to them to keep them going strong.

 

If they want Waymarks and Wherigos to survive, they should do the same.. Keep the details on the separate websites, but list the totals on gc.com. Break out the "Totals" into different groups with subtotals and a grand total.

 

Physical Caches (Trad, Multi, Unk, Lett, Wherigo+Cache)

NonPhysical (Virtual, Locationless, Earth, Webcam)

Events (Events, Mega, CITO)

Challenges

Benchmarks

Waymarks

NonCache Wherigo

 

-TWT

Link to comment

further more for each reviewer who would quit over this there is 100 who would feel his spot. There needs to be more reviewers anyways. I think that is the root problem. For example: I can't believe that Japan does not have a dedicated reviewer. The world should be split up into areas depending on how active the community is in that area. Counties (usa) up to whole regions like Central Aisa or West Africa.

 

This is getting off-topic for this topic, but Is GS currently looking for more reviewers or have they said they don't need more and turning volenteers away? I haven't really cached longed enough to have any idea of how many their are. I think I see 3 in my general area (Seattle), but I don't know how big their "terrirtory" realy is...

Link to comment

further more for each reviewer who would quit over this there is 100 who would feel his spot. There needs to be more reviewers anyways. I think that is the root problem. For example: I can't believe that Japan does not have a dedicated reviewer. The world should be split up into areas depending on how active the community is in that area. Counties (usa) up to whole regions like Central Aisa or West Africa.

 

This is getting off-topic for this topic, but Is GS currently looking for more reviewers or have they said they don't need more and turning volenteers away? I haven't really cached longed enough to have any idea of how many their are. I think I see 3 in my general area (Seattle), but I don't know how big their "terrirtory" realy is...

 

We are actually pretty spoiled around our parts TWT, but don't tell anybody or it will ruin it for us.

Link to comment

Two issues in play here; First, you keep changing your definition. You do so by quoting the dictionary definition of the word cache, which states that a container is a requirement yet then say you will log an event if there is simply a log present. My last event, the log was an apron I was wearing, before that a pizza paddle and before that a pumpkin. None a container by any stretch of the imagination.

In correct. If you read the definition then the container is the cache but so is what is contained. What you fail to see is that wile there may be no container at an event for a log there is a Container.

 

Even discounting common and proper, technically if the log is located within the boundaries of the event...

 

Call it a stretch all you want, it is still located within the realm of correct definitions where as Earthcache, Virtual cache etc are all complete misnomers.

 

Truth be told though this is an abysmally useless argument, if GS said "Hey Vater, tell us what counts as a find and we will implement it." then I would only say four things. Traditional Cache, Multi-cache, Unknown Cache and Letterbox Hybrid.

 

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: Events don't meet longevity guidelines. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

then there is what dfx said.

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

Make it all even better...357 consecutive days without logging any of the finds I have made during that time. Once I have the ability to make it so that someone would have to manually calculate my finds to figure it out, I'll start logging online again. Plus we can laugh at the people who aren't smart enough to see past false finds and those who are pitiful enough to do so.

 

...and we have forum rule violation.

How so? It isn't pointed at anyone specific and currently no one preforms the mentioned potential action.

 

Oh well in that case the vague collection of people that can't seem to stop complaining about the new feature that doesn't meet their personal aesthetic are acting like something that rhymes with but may not actually be "naysaying over-dramatic goobers", in my opinion. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Two issues in play here; First, you keep changing your definition. You do so by quoting the dictionary definition of the word cache, which states that a container is a requirement yet then say you will log an event if there is simply a log present. My last event, the log was an apron I was wearing, before that a pizza paddle and before that a pumpkin. None a container by any stretch of the imagination.

In correct. If you read the definition then the container is the cache but so is what is contained. What you fail to see is that wile there may be no container at an event for a log there is a Container.

 

I assume you mean "incorrect". If so, can you please point us to a link in a recognized dictionary that lists this definition you refer to for the word "geocache"?

 

All my events are held outdoors, there is no container. Were I to use your definition, in essence a "virtual" container and apply the same logic, the servers at GS and the online logs meet the requirements for a container, thus making virtuals and their ilk valid geocaches for you..

 

It is kind of a moot point since GS responded to the whining and removed the challenge finds from the counts yesterday (yes, dfx, they were counted), however it still remains indisputable that the definition of "geocache" remains subjective and controlled by whatever site you choose to use.

 

I suspect this is more about the debate than any real issue.

Link to comment

To all this about earth caches, virtuals, events, and how they shouldn't count if Challenges don't count.. The debate of Challenges counting in the total numbers was about the future, which can be planned and to a certain extent controlled. The past is totally out of our control.

Link to comment

To all this about earth caches, virtuals, events, and how they shouldn't count if Challenges don't count.. The debate of Challenges counting in the total numbers was about the future, which can be planned and to a certain extent controlled. The past is totally out of our control.

 

No, it is not. Technically the "Challenges" feature was "in the past", if only by a few days.

Changes can be made, and if Groundspeak wanted they could quite easily drop the EC,VC, Event caches from totals. Bigger problem would be dealing with the forum angst when people's find counts suddenly drop by a couple hundred a piece ... particularly those near "milestones"

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 6
×
×
  • Create New...