Improvment of "Challenges"

[+yawppy]

Here's my take on the new "Challenges"...I know there are plenty of negativity towards them, and as they CURRENTLY came out... I have to agree... there is no challenge in tweeting, or kissing an frog.

 

I like the concept... I miss virtuals, and think that yes Geocaching needs a little ramping up, and am hoping these will stick around, and be improved upon.

 

With that said: Here is my list:

 

Virtuals counted towards the find count, I like that they will...ONLY IF THEY ARE A WORTHY CHALLENGE...I hope there will be a review process much like a cache would have, and also, a GPS set of coordinates needs to be a part of the challenges.

 

I understand the worldwide challenges, I have noticed several challenges archived, which seems like a good idea, and I actually found a few that I will accept, one requires a pic of you or group on a hike, another was a CITO collect 10 pieces of trash, and finally show me your landmarks.

 

These are challenges that seem more geared towards what I believe GS anticipated, and is also something I can get into.

 

OK so let's put aside the negatives, and focus on what we think these should be. As I really like the concept, and hope for some great challenges, not just another ALR!

 

So... what are your thoughts on how to make these work better?

[+Darren V]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same. Except keep some ideas from these challenges like only premium members can create them and a thumps up/down rating system

 

or just a whole "command Z" of this entire update

[knowschad]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

[GOF and Bacall]

I think we need to be able to bookmark them, create pocket queries, send them to GPS and map them. There needs to be a more definitive set of definitions on what each type of challenge is to be. As it stands I don't think people understand that these were supposed to be location specific.

[GOF and Bacall]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

[+addisonbr]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

Earthcaches seem to work okay. I could easily imagine, say, History Virtuals that are reviewed by a historical society in much the same way that Earthcaches are reviewed by the GSA. Bringing back virtuals doesn't have to mean subjecting reviewers to the same nonsense they used to deal with.

[GOF and Bacall]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

Earthcaches seem to work okay. I could easily imagine, say, History Virtuals that are reviewed by a historical society in much the same way that Earthcaches are reviewed by the GSA. Bringing back virtuals doesn't have to mean subjecting reviewers to the same nonsense they used to deal with.

 

True. But then they wouldn't be the old virtuals, now would they?

[+Darren V]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

I see you only quoted half my comment

[+addisonbr]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

Earthcaches seem to work okay. I could easily imagine, say, History Virtuals that are reviewed by a historical society in much the same way that Earthcaches are reviewed by the GSA. Bringing back virtuals doesn't have to mean subjecting reviewers to the same nonsense they used to deal with.

 

True. But then they wouldn't be the old virtuals, now would they?

My gut is that it would be pretty close to what (many?) people are actually clamoring for. Virtuals with quality control - but without involving Groundspeak volunteer reviewers (who would rather shave with a cheese grater than get involved in "wow factor" arguments).

[+Viajero Perdido]

They need ownership.

 

Or at a minimum, the ability of "the crowd" to delete bogus logs.

 

It sure didn't take long for people to take advantage of a lack of policing. It's like London all over again, but at least in a harmless way.

[Mr.Yuck]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

 

Very true. But that was what (in my opinion) most people asking for them to return were expecting. They didn't get it circa 2005 with Waymarking, and they certainly didn't get it in 2011.

 

I don't know. Terracaching.com and Opencaching.us, two websites that accept "old virtuals" are doing fine, and not being overrun by them. Then again, no one that I've seen has tens of thousands of finds, and is playing for the numbers at either one of them.

[+Wilbert67]

I don't see the difference between these challenges and the old virtuals!

I would love to see virtuals or challenges or however you want to call them, but with a lot more regulation!

1st rule: Let the creator of a challenge pick a specific spot(coords) were you actually have to go!!

So not like "take a picture with a statue" but "take a picture at the ????statue in ??? at coords so and so".

Make sure challenges can't be done just sitting behind your computer!

[GOF and Bacall]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

Earthcaches seem to work okay. I could easily imagine, say, History Virtuals that are reviewed by a historical society in much the same way that Earthcaches are reviewed by the GSA. Bringing back virtuals doesn't have to mean subjecting reviewers to the same nonsense they used to deal with.

 

True. But then they wouldn't be the old virtuals, now would they?

My gut is that it would be pretty close to what (many?) people are actually clamoring for. Virtuals with quality control - but without involving Groundspeak volunteer reviewers (who would rather shave with a cheese grater than get involved in "wow factor" arguments).

 

True again. But my statement is still accurate. What I have been told more than once is that if the old virtual were returned many of the reviewers would quite before they dealt with a single one.

[+tozainamboku]

I believe a little transparency on the thumbs up/down vote and the flag is needed.

 

Just what happens if I vote up or down?

What happens when I flag a challenge?

At what point in the voting/flagging does the challenge get archived?

Does someone review the challenge before archiving or is it automatic?

What happens to challenge count of someone who has completed the challenge one it is archived?

 

If I see a bogus log, should I flag the challenge or vote it down? Will there be a way to flag bogus completion logs?

 

What other ideas are there for tools to evaluate challenges and logs on challenges? Will there be a way for challenges to be archived if they are no longer valid (e.g. object at the location is no longer there)?

 

I'm thinking once everyone understands the way inappropriate use of challenges will be regulated and the way only those that are rated good will show up in geocache searches or perhaps count in finds, most issues will go away. The biggest problems now are challenges for which you don't have to go to the location and bogus logging of challenges (perhaps because it appears you don't have to go to the location).

[GOF and Bacall]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

 

Very true. But that was what (in my opinion) most people asking for them to return were expecting. They didn't get it circa 2005 with Waymarking, and they certainly didn't get it in 2011.

 

I don't know. Terracaching.com and Opencaching.us, two websites that accept "old virtuals" are doing fine, and not being overrun by them. Then again, no one that I've seen has tens of thousands of finds, and is playing for the numbers at either one of them.

 

I agree. That is exactly what the masses wanted. The only reason they work on the other sites is that the cachers who use the other sites are not the same ones who want large bunches of easy caches and McD virtuals. The quick numbers cachers aren't interested in a site that doesn't have a thousand listings within five miles.

[+RIclimber]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

Earthcaches seem to work okay. I could easily imagine, say, History Virtuals that are reviewed by a historical society in much the same way that Earthcaches are reviewed by the GSA. Bringing back virtuals doesn't have to mean subjecting reviewers to the same nonsense they used to deal with.

This is what I was hoping for. Go to a place, learn something, answer a question, get a smiley.

[GOF and Bacall]

I believe a little transparency on the thumbs up/down vote and the flag is needed.

 

Just what happens if I vote up or down?

What happens when I flag a challenge?

At what point in the voting/flagging does the challenge get archived?

Does someone review the challenge before archiving or is it automatic?

What happens to challenge count of someone who has completed the challenge one it is archived?

 

If I see a bogus log, should I flag the challenge or vote it down? Will there be a way to flag bogus completion logs?

 

What other ideas are there for tools to evaluate challenges and logs on challenges? Will there be a way for challenges to be archived if they are no longer valid (e.g. object at the location is no longer there)?

 

I'm thinking once everyone understands the way inappropriate use of challenges will be regulated and the way only those that are rated good will show up in geocache searches or perhaps count in finds, most issues will go away. The biggest problems now are challenges for which you don't have to go to the location and bogus logging of challenges (perhaps because it appears you don't have to go to the location).

 

I hate agreeing with you but I think you are on the right track. There needs to be more definition. People don't understand how these things are supposed to work so they are using them in ways that don't fit the profile of the challenge. Mostly is the lack of so many challenges to be tied to a location.

 

Seeing as I can't really disagree with you I'll just revert to ribbing you about the word count. Ready for a new bag of letters yet?

[+Schwoby]

the biggest problem i have with the challenge system is the credit it gives toward your total count. the second problem is that it has nothing to do with geocaching except by proximity. what i mean is there are no gps coords required, not to mention the lack of logs (pictorial or paper). it is true that pictures can be submitted, but again, no rules means anything goes.

 

there defiantly needs to be rules set up, even if there are no moderators directly involved!

remove the credit for finds from the geocaching totals. if benchmarks don't give credit, why would challenges?

there needs to be some tie-in with geocaching, such as the 10,000 trash pickup!

archive challenges based on same requirements as the rest of the site, aka. no longer able to be completed!

 

yes, i have completed a challenge, and yes, i have created one for others, but no, i will not be continuing challenges until the system gets better!

[+BuckeyeClan]

Bring back virtuals... the old ones - exactly the same.

THAT part is NOT going to happen. I can promise you that much. There aren't enough volunteers in the world to take on the task of reviewing those and putting up the fights for those they don't feel are up to it. I didn't understand until recently that the biggest problem with the old virts had to do with disputes with reviewers, and I do not blame the reviewers one bit for not wanting to get entangled in that mess again! Just look at what we've got already, in less than one day.

 

I have been told that if the old virtuals came back we would not have any reviewers left. I sure would not blame them.

Earthcaches seem to work okay. I could easily imagine, say, History Virtuals that are reviewed by a historical society in much the same way that Earthcaches are reviewed by the GSA. Bringing back virtuals doesn't have to mean subjecting reviewers to the same nonsense they used to deal with.

 

True. But then they wouldn't be the old virtuals, now would they?

My gut is that it would be pretty close to what (many?) people are actually clamoring for. Virtuals with quality control - but without involving Groundspeak volunteer reviewers (who would rather shave with a cheese grater than get involved in "wow factor" arguments).

 

Well then, first you have to find a historical society that is willing to take on the headache of defining and approving them. I know people want history caches, but that concept seems like a huge can of worms to me, especially when you get into worldwide history issues. Caches would have to be written carefully so as not to offend other nationalities. And what qualifies as history? Washington slept here? What about Elvis slept here? What about Elvis' manager slept here? No way is Groundspeak going to want to decide whether or not some old sign is "hisorical" or not. Whatever controversy exists within earthcaching, it would be many times worse trying to implement historycaching.

 

So "challenges" is what we have to work with! First suggestion, break out "challenges completed" from your find count. Why that is so angst-inducing to so many people, I'm not quite sure, but that's an easy enough fix. Second suggestion, clear instructions (or maybe "expectations" is a better word) of what is a valid challenge, and what will happen if you submit a challenge that isn't valid. Right now it appears that TPTB are archiving invalid challenges--will that continue? What about a 24-hour review period to first determine if a challenge meets the location requirement? Not to review quality, but just to ensure people aren't submitting world-wide challenges as location-based challenges. Also explain what users are supposed to do if they come across a challenge that they don't think is valid. Flag it? Vote it down? I'm fuzzy on the "thumbs up/thumbs down" thing; is that just I like it/don't like it, or does that alert TPTB to invalid challenges? Third suggestion, a way to hide or remove logs that don't meet the challenge. Maybe users can thumbs up/thumbs down rate logs, and those with a low rating are hidden (but not deleted). That wouldn't remove the completed from cacher's stats, but people who are genuinely interested in a challenge and browsing the associated pictures wouldn't have to wade through pictures that don't actually fulfill the challenge. Last suggestion, we need a better way to search for challenges. That's something that I would assume is already planned, though I could be wrong about that! Being able to see them on a map would be a great start.

[+geo-jenkins]

Still not totally understanding the challenges.

 

Can I make one to have someone come over and cut my grass? How about pick up my dry cleaning?

Seems almost more like a "truth or dare" competition, and we all know those turn out just fine!

[GOF and Bacall]

Still not totally understanding the challenges.

 

Can I make one to have someone come over and cut my grass? How about pick up my dry cleaning?

Seems almost more like a "truth or dare" competition, and we all know those turn out just fine!

 

You can create any challenge you want. As long as it is tied to a specific location. I suspect you will see a ton of thumbs down votes for doing your chores. Not sure just how it works but Jeremy said that kind of challenge probably wouldn't last long on the site. I suspect that if the thumbs down to thumbs up ratio gets too lopsided the challenge is archived.

[+addisonbr]

Well then, first you have to find a historical society that is willing to take on the headache of defining and approving them.

I suspect this would not be impossible.

[+BuckeyeClan]

Well then, first you have to find a historical society that is willing to take on the headache of defining and approving them.

I suspect this would not be impossible.

 

It would be interesting to see what Groundspeak would say if one stepped forward and made the offer!

[GOF and Bacall]

Well then, first you have to find a historical society that is willing to take on the headache of defining and approving them.

I suspect this would not be impossible.

 

It would be interesting to see what Groundspeak would say if one stepped forward and made the offer!

 

I think that is exactly what happened with earth caches. GS did not go hunting for an organization to do the job. I wonder what would happen if that review support was retracted from ECs?

[Tahosa and Sons]

Without ownership and quality they will never work.

[cezanne]

Well then, first you have to find a historical society that is willing to take on the headache of defining and approving them.

I suspect this would not be impossible.

 

I agree, but I think that by giving control over the logs to the creators of challenges, by allowing descriptions longer than 2000 characters and by allowing for verification methods like having to answer particular questions, it would at least have been possible to create some kind of history challenges akin to Earthcaches. There would be no quality control, but the chance to go ahead for those inclined. The current system does not offer such options.

 

I have the feeling that the Groundspeak team is not interested into educative challenges, but prefers to see funny submissions where the game element and creativity play the key role. The target audience is people playing around with their mobile phones and being bored and not the audience that would love to go for history caches.

 

I do understand that they needed to come along with a system putting no work load on reviewers, but I do not understand why they decided to take the control away from the challenge creators.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited August 19, 2011 by cezanne

[+blossom*]

Without ownership and quality they will never work.

 

I agree. Ownership would allocate accountability for a "stupid" idea to the person who chose to create it so people would be much more likely to create a good idea for a Challenge. And ownership would also provide a person to review and validate completed logs - ie the "owner" who created the Challenge in the first place.

Edited August 19, 2011 by blossom*

[+Ike 13]

1) Communicate: this is their biggest problem. They released this feature with almost no instructions on what it should. There is a FAQ for those who choose to read it (there is also the blog and newsletter). Maybe they should have required reading the FAQ before you had the ability to post one.

 

2) Require them to be location based: GS needs to communicate to everyone that all challenges that we create should be very specific location based challenges. To please those who want the locationless aspect they can promote the feedback forum. Get a team of translators to help get this message across to all groups.

 

3) Control bogus logs: I know it doesn't affect me, but it does bug me and lots of others. I will not create a challenge yet because there is no way to control my creation.

 

4) Treat them like benchmarks (for now): People are abusing them because they add to their find count. Again it doesn't affect me, but all the bogus logs defeat the purpose of a great challenge. Have them show up on the profile but do not add them to the total quite yet. Maybe in a month or so when the other 3 things are solidified we can make them part of the count. Or maybe they should never be part of the count.

[cezanne]

Or maybe they should never be part of the count.

 

I think as long as challenges coupled to finding a single specific cache are allowed, the should never become part of the count.

Otherwise, what will happen is that ALR can be introduced that way and more than one find it awarded for finding a single cache.

 

Cezanne

[+fuzziebear3]

They need ownership.

 

Or at a minimum, the ability of "the crowd" to delete bogus logs.

 

It sure didn't take long for people to take advantage of a lack of policing.

 

Absolutely. Ownership will promote quality control. The owner needs to be accountable for creating a good challenge, not a throwdown. And the owner should be able to monitor the quality of the replies, by deleting bogus logs that do not achieve the challenge.

 

Responses need ownership too. When the challenge is to post a photo, I should be able to understand who posted the photo. Currently that is not available.

 

As an owner, I would like to see who voted and flagged too. I think voters and flaggers should own up and leave a comment as well.

 

1st rule: Let the creator of a challenge pick a specific spot(coords) were you actually have to go!!

So not like "take a picture with a statue" but "take a picture at the ????statue in ??? at coords so and so".

Make sure challenges can't be done just sitting behind your computer!

 

You CAN create that as a challenge, but the interface to setting a coordinate is a bit clunky and less intuitive. I think entering the coordinates should be the first 'encouraged' method of setting up the challenge. I'm not quite ready to throw out the locationless ones, but maybe we leave them in the worldwide realm and they are the ones that have a reviewer.

 

Couple other ideas about the interface from me:

What's with the random map and tweet like stuff? GS knows where I live. Show the map close to my home coordinates, with the challenges that are local to me. I hate having to enter it every single time! I don't care that someone in Germany completed some challenge that I know nothing about.

 

When I do a search, show more miles. If I search on my home big city, I get no hits. If I search on my little town, I get 1. I created one a reasonable distance from me, and it doesn't show in either of these searches. Maybe have it expand to show the 10 nearest, however many miles that is.

[+Mr. 0]

I think we need to be able to map them.

 

That was something interesting that I noticed this morning. When I go to a specific challenge's page, there's no option to see it on a map. There's the tiny little map in the upper left that just gives kind of an overview, but nothing more than that. As far as I can see copying and pasting the coords into Google Maps is the only way to see where a challenge is located without loading it in the GPS and going there.

 

So yeah, I'd like to see a link to a map at least.

[+t4e]

after a day of pondering over this new feature this is my personal take on it:

 

at the core the intention was/is good, however the implementation leaves a lot to be desired

in an attempt to keep this as a surprise there was no information available until they became reality, so people resorted to speculating what they might be like when they will be released, but all this was on the premise that they will be at list very similar to the old virtuals

once implemented it quickly became a big disappointment for the majority of the pro virtuals, and it totally enraged those that disliked the virtuals to begin with, and from the latter group some felt the need to vent by going on a witch hunt and voting "thumbs down" even on challenges that were not anywhere near their location

 

my complaints about the new challenges are those, and some have already been mentioned;

 

-lack of control/ownership over the challenge as the creator of it

you get 24 hours to edit it or until someone has accept it, whichever comes first

 

-action challenges have no requirement to prove that the logger has actually completed it

that to me renders that type of challenge totally useless

the fun of those should come from the logs that prove by some means that they completed it, seeing a log saying "done" its not satisfying by any means

they are satisfying only to those that are only about numbers

How do I prove that I completed a Challenge?

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

 

this is not entirely true because with photo challenges you ask for a photo to be posted, which is the proof

technically geocaching runs on honor system too, not many go out to their caches to compare signatures on the physical logbook with online logs

 

-the whole "thumbs up"/"thumbs down" system is flawed since it allows anyone, anywhere in the world to place such vote, it leaves the door open for abuse

besides why should someone's opinion count that first of all is nowhere near the location of that challenge, and second has not completed it?

 

this right here pretty much says "off you go on your own personal witch hunt"

Who can rate Challenges and why?

 

Anyone can rate a Challenge with a thumbs up or thumbs down. We highly encourage the community to vote on every Challenge, whether or not you have completed it. You can change your vote at any time.

 

-archiving of challenges

 

another open door to witch hunts and personal vendettas

also many people will not be able to complete some challenges for the same reasons they are not able to go for certain caches, why should they be allowed to vote down a challenge because of their own personal limitations?

 

The community can "flag" inappropriate or unplayable Challenges. These are automatically removed from the website if flagged by enough geocachers.

 

 

i know i am forgetting some stuff but this is already beyond my word allowance for a post

[cezanne]

 

another open door to witch hunts and personal vendettas

also many people will not be able to complete some challenges for the same reasons they are not able to go for certain caches, why should they be allowed to vote down a challenge because of their own personal limitations?

 

I think that you mix up two aspects here: One might be able to perform a handstand and still feel that a challenge that asks people to go to the American Embassy in Vienna and perform a handstand there and tell the officers there that a website asked them to do so is not a good thing.

It is absurd to require someone to first perform what you/she considers as a bad thing to do just to be able to voice personal disagreement/non-enjoyment.

 

Another example: Suppose someone comes along with a challenge that requires that you visit a night cache in some sensible environment in a group of at least 100 people and ask them to sing loudly during the hunt.

Do you really want to first finish such a challenge to be able to state that you do not like it?

 

I guess the system you would like to have might work in an ideal world. It does not work however in the current geocaching world.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 19, 2011 by cezanne

[Dinoprophet]

They need ownership.

 

Or at a minimum, the ability of "the crowd" to delete bogus logs.

 

It sure didn't take long for people to take advantage of a lack of policing. It's like London all over again, but at least in a harmless way.

Logs can be flagged. I'm guessing (key) that enough flags can lead to deletion.

[+briansnat]

I think the challenges have potential and could be a lot of fun.

 

I think to make them better:

 

1. There needs to be a review process. Whether its a Groundspeak lackey, a reviewer (who volunteers for, or is brought on specifically for

challenges) or a community review model similar to Waymarking, there needs to be some sort of control.

 

2. They MUST be location based. "Take a picture of your pet sleeping" has no relation whatsoever to geocaching.

 

3. The creators of challenges should own them the same way they own caches, with the power to edit, delete apparently bogus logs and archive a challenge.

 

I'm not thrilled that they are included in the overall find count, but fact of the matter is that if they weren't then they'd be about as popular as bacon at a Bar Mitzvah.

[+t4e]

 

another open door to witch hunts and personal vendettas

also many people will not be able to complete some challenges for the same reasons they are not able to go for certain caches, why should they be allowed to vote down a challenge because of their own personal limitations?

 

I think that you mix up two aspects here: One might be able to perform a handstand and still feel that a challenge that asks people to go to the American Embassy in Vienna and perform a handstand there and tell the officers there that a website asked them to do so is not a good thing.

It is absurd to require someone to first perform what you/she considers as a bad thing to do just to be able to voice personal disagreement/non-enjoyment.

 

Another example: Suppose someone comes along with a challenge that requires that you visit a night cache in some sensible environment in a group of at least 100 people and ask them to sing loudly during the hunt.

Do you really want to first finish such a challenge to be able to state that you do not like it?

 

I guess the system you would like to have might work in an ideal world. It does not work however in the current geocaching world.

 

Cezanne

 

nope, not confusing anything

my point is that if you think that the challenge is a bad idea you don't have to vote it down to point out that is a bad idea, if it is such a bad idea nobody will accept it

what is so bad about someone going to the embassy and doing a handstand telling the officer that a website told them to?

its not any worse than one of the suggestions for a photo challenge

 

Photo Challenge

Challenge people to take a picture doing something specific at a location - trying to push the luggage cart through the wall to platform 9 ¾ at King's Cross Station in London, throwing a coin into Rome's Trevi Fountain, or trying to make a guard at Buckingham Palace laugh.

 

a challenge to visit a night cache will not stand

challenges are supposed to be location based

why would there be a night cache, or any cache in a sensible environment to begin with?

 

the bottom line is that right now there is no clear explanation of how the "flag" feature works

do people have to enter a reason for flagging a challenge?

does it get archived automatically when it reaches a certain number of "flags" or someone reviews them before finally archiving it?

the biggest problem is if the former is true, challenges could unjustly be archived

[cezanne]

 

nope, not confusing anything

my point is that if you think that the challenge is a bad idea you don't have to vote it down to point out that is a bad idea, if it is such a bad idea nobody will accept it

 

But then any voting is meaningless and there should be no option for voting at all.

Voting thumbs down is not asking for archival.

 

what is so bad about someone going to the embassy and doing a handstand telling the officer that a website told them to?

its not any worse than one of the suggestions for a photo challenge

 

I guess you have never been near the American embassy in Vienna. They even get nervous if people stand around there and count the stripes of the flag. That's a high security area where we do not need to attract special attention.

 

 

a challenge to visit a night cache will not stand

challenges are supposed to be location based

 

Not any arbitary night cache, a specific one. That has of course a location - otherwise it never would have been published.

 

why would there be a night cache, or any cache in a sensible environment to begin with?

 

Because people enjoy night caching and many middle European regions are densely populated.

Night caching in larger groups has already caused quite some troubles in some of these regions.

 

 

the bottom line is that right now there is no clear explanation of how the "flag" feature works

do people have to enter a reason for flagging a challenge?

 

Yes, they have, but flagging a challenge is something different than voting thumbs up or down.

Flagging means that one thinks it should not be part of the challenge database as it is inappropriate, voting thumbs up or down

relates to personal enjoyment.

 

I'd vote with thumbs down to banana ice, but I would not flag it as banana ice is as fine as any lemon ice that I like.

 

 

does it get archived automatically when it reaches a certain number of "flags" or someone reviews them before finally archiving it?

the biggest problem is if the former is true, challenges could unjustly be archived

 

The faq mentions that this happens automatically, but no details are given.

Please note however that I was talking about voting thumbs up or down, not about flagging challenges.

 

I would vote thumbs down on the hypothetical example challenges I mentioned, but would not flag them as inappropriate.

I just think that it is absurd to require that I have take part in one of these actions that I do not like in order to be able

to have a opinion on them. There is no surprise factor involved. All what needs to be known is known in advance.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 19, 2011 by cezanne

[+Ecylram]

3. The creators of challenges should own them the same way they own caches, with the power to edit, delete apparently bogus logs and archive a challenge.

 

I believe one of the biggest problems with the Challenges is that there is no form of "ownership". Without some semblance of ownership there is no "pride" in creating the challenge. The result is fewer and lower-quality challenges.

 

I've noticed that Groundspeak has chosen to not have the creator of the Challenge listed with the challenge. As a finder I want to know who's creating the challenges so I can follow the better creators. As an creator, I want to create something I can take pride in.

 

I figure Groundspeak will eventually do something to acknowledge the creator of a Challenge in its listing. If they don't, the whole Challenge game will likely go in the dustbin for me (as I assume it would for many others as well).

[+t4e]

 

But then any voting is meaningless and there should be no option for voting at all.

Voting thumbs down is not asking for archival.

 

yes, its not asking for archival but it serves no purpose

we have favorites for caches only, no "i don't like this" or "this cache sucks" option...what is the point in allowing a negative vote?

you don't like it you don't take it, plain and simple

 

I guess you have never been near the American embassy in Vienna. They even get nervous if people stand around there and count the stripes of the flag. That's a high security area where we do not need to attract special attention.

 

i live next to US, i know all about it

 

Not any arbitary night cache, a specific one. That has of course a location - otherwise it never would have been published.

 

nope, not a "location" as far as challenges are concerned

 

Because people enjoy night caching and many middle European regions are densely populated.

Night caching in larger groups has already caused quite some troubles in some of these regions.

 

i guess your notion of "sensible area" refers to dense populated areas, whereas here it refers to ecologically sensitive areas

i don't even see how you would set up a night cache in an urban area, we have plenty here and they are all in the woods

 

Yes, they have, but flagging a challenge is something different than voting thumbs up or down.

Flagging means that one thinks it should not be part of the challenge database as it is inappropriate, voting thumbs up or down

relates to personal enjoyment.

 

I'd vote with thumbs down to banana ice, but I would not flag it as banana ice is as fine as any lemon ice that I like.

 

 

yes, i know they are different, as i said before the "thumbs down" is useless in my opinion and the flagging is prone to abuse and highly subjective personal opinions

 

 

The faq mentions that this happens automatically, but no details are given.

Please note however that I was talking about voting thumbs up or down, not about flagging challenges.

 

I would vote thumbs down on the hypothetical example challenges I mentioned, but would not flag them as inappropriate.

I just think that it is absurd to require that I have take part in one of these actions that I do not like in order to be able

to have a opinion on them. There is no surprise factor involved. All what needs to be known is known in advance.

 

 

it all boils down to lack of detail in the FAQ

 

you are missing my point, this in the context of the negative voting being removed....you don't have to do anything, if you think the challenge is not good all ends there, that's that, no need to vote it down on your own personal belief

on the other hand if you like it and accept it you have the chance to give it a thumbs up or not....

 

come to think of it this is all too much like the Facebook nonsense "i like" "i don't like"

[+redhead3434]

I think that virtuals should have been brought back like they were, same icon, review process, and cache page layout. I think that there are more lame challenges now than there were lame virtuals back then.

 

I am not going to do Challenges because there will be a separate pocket query for them. I wish they were just a different cache type because I like getting everything downloaded in one query.

 

The last thing I would change is to get rid of the world-wide challenges. These are pretty much just locationless caches making a comeback. "Kiss a Frog" was a horrible first worldwide challenge.

Edited August 19, 2011 by redhead3434

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Here's my take on the new "Challenges"...I know there are plenty of negativity towards them, and as they CURRENTLY came out... I have to agree... there is no challenge in tweeting, or kissing an frog.

 

I like the concept... I miss virtuals, and think that yes Geocaching needs a little ramping up, and am hoping these will stick around, and be improved upon.

 

With that said: Here is my list:

 

Virtuals counted towards the find count, I like that they will...ONLY IF THEY ARE A WORTHY CHALLENGE...I hope there will be a review process much like a cache would have, and also, a GPS set of coordinates needs to be a part of the challenges.

 

I understand the worldwide challenges, I have noticed several challenges archived, which seems like a good idea, and I actually found a few that I will accept, one requires a pic of you or group on a hike, another was a CITO collect 10 pieces of trash, and finally show me your landmarks.

 

These are challenges that seem more geared towards what I believe GS anticipated, and is also something I can get into.

 

OK so let's put aside the negatives, and focus on what we think these should be. As I really like the concept, and hope for some great challenges, not just another ALR!

 

So... what are your thoughts on how to make these work better?

 

Regarding challenges counting toward your find count. Who defines if they are a worthy challenge? If someone reviews challenges for "worthiness" (which doesn't happen for traditional caches now) there's going to be disagreement between the challenge creator and the reviewer. Who is going to arbitrate these disputes?

 

RE: worldwide challenges. There are only four worldwide challenges, all created by Groundspeak. Many of the challenges that were archived were done so essentially because they were not location specific. Since there were no controls which preventing someone from creating a non-specific challenge (effectively, a worldwide challenge) there is a gaping loophole that a lot of people have abused. Although I don't care for the idea of a review process on for "worthiness" some sort of review/moderation (perhaps GS can recruit some new challenge moderators for the task rather than adding to the burden to existing reviewers) process is warranted. At the very least, challenges could be reviewed for location specificity and the appropriateness of the listing itself (no profanity, no challenges which ask you do something illegal, just common sense stuff for those that seem to be incapable of showing).

[+t4e]

now they even removed the name of the creator from the challenge page

[Dinoprophet]

Having to include a reason for thumbing down or for flagging should be required somehow. I don't know how you'd prevent single character or nonsense entries though.

 

Other than that, I think the community review process is pretty great. Assume it's good until the community says otherwise.

[+Ecylram]

now they even removed the name of the creator from the challenge page

 

That ain't right. The creator should be acknowledged in some fashion, even if there isn't ownership. This decision will, in my opinion, lower the quality and quantity of challenge caches.

[+captnemo]

I think the challenges have potential and could be a lot of fun.

 

I think to make them better:

 

1. There needs to be a review process. Whether its a Groundspeak lackey, a reviewer (who volunteers for, or is brought on specifically for

challenges) or a community review model similar to Waymarking, there needs to be some sort of control.

 

2. They MUST be location based. "Take a picture of your pet sleeping" has no relation whatsoever to geocaching.

 

3. The creators of challenges should own them the same way they own caches, with the power to edit, delete apparently bogus logs and archive a challenge.

 

I'm not thrilled that they are included in the overall find count, but fact of the matter is that if they weren't then they'd be about as popular as bacon at a Bar Mitzvah.

You got it right Brian. I like them as part of my final count, so how about a count/no count buttton, that way it's your choice if they count.

[+ThePetersTrio]

What's with the random map and tweet like stuff? GS knows where I live. Show the map close to my home coordinates, with the challenges that are local to me. I hate having to enter it every single time! I don't care that someone in Germany completed some challenge that I know nothing about.

 

When I do a search, show more miles. If I search on my home big city, I get no hits. If I search on my little town, I get 1. I created one a reasonable distance from me, and it doesn't show in either of these searches. Maybe have it expand to show the 10 nearest, however many miles that is.

 

Agreed. The search feature is worthless at this point. Very user un-friendly.

[+geodarts]

I had looked forward to challenge caches - and had ideas about putting out challenges that would take you to areas where traditionals are not allowed, secret coves that can only be entered through an arch at low tide; historical sites that require a hike into a little known section along a bay; hidden waterfalls; places of particular interest that did not otherwise seem appropriate for an earthcache. But as implemented, I wonder if I should bother.

 

Therefore, I would like to see that there would be an "owner" or identified "creator" who takes responsibility for the listing; monitors the challenge to make sure people have completed its requirements; and has the ability to tweak the listing as needed. I would like to see that the creators have actually completed the challenge before it is listed, gone to the site -- taken a photo for a photo challenge or some proof that they have done what they are daring others to do.

 

I would probably limit the numbers beyond the "one a day" restriction. If you had to choose a challenge for a particular month or even for a particular quarter, you might give more thought as to its quality -- is this something that I really want to use my challenge to create?

 

Although this gets more into my personal aesthetics, I would make photo challenges into a location-based photo rather than a requirement that people get their picture taken doing something silly at the site.

 

I would include clear guidelines against commercial content and agenda that people are expected to read before submitting a challenge, and then have a way of dealing with them other than stating that they may be deleted if enough people mark them as spam. What is enough?

 

In short, I would take what was good about virtuals, and even what was good about the old locationless (location, accountability, monitoring, responsibility) and work with that.

[cezanne]

yes, its not asking for archival but it serves no purpose

 

I do not agree. It shows the percentage of cachers liking or not liking the challenge (among those who decide to vote).

 

we have favorites for caches only, no "i don't like this" or "this cache sucks" option...what is the point in allowing a negative vote?

you don't like it you don't take it, plain and simple

 

That's a different issue. You can open up a feedback request asking them to only allow the thumps up option.

What I am saying is just that if the thumbs down option exists, I think that it can be used also without having to complete a challenge where one knows in advance that one will not like it. That's way more authentic than going there and writing a very negative completion log.

 

There are lots of cachers who think that GCVote is much more useful than favourites. It prefer to know which caches XY does not like at all. It helps me to get an idea whether I might like a cache. Many highly favourited caches are a horror for me.

Some are good caches, but just nothing that fits my idea of geocaching.

 

i live next to US, i know all about it

 

I know where you live, but I do not know why you then asked why I consider the example with the American Embassy a bad idea.

 

Not any arbitary night cache, a specific one. That has of course a location - otherwise it never would have been published.

 

nope, not a "location" as far as challenges are concerned

 

I guess that your understanding of location differs from mine. I cannot find anything specific that supports your theory that some arbitrary given coordinates are not a location for a challenge.

 

Because people enjoy night caching and many middle European regions are densely populated.

Night caching in larger groups has already caused quite some troubles in some of these regions.

 

i guess your notion of "sensible area" refers to dense populated areas, whereas here it refers to ecologically sensitive areas

i don't even see how you would set up a night cache in an urban area, we have plenty here and they are all in the woods

 

It can mean both in my setting. If e.g. hunters and the owners of the forests complain that the deer are getting too much stress and thus run to the next road and get involved into traffic accidents, then a lot of aspects play a role.

 

I was not referring to an urban night cache. In the woods around villages in small countries like Austria and Switzerland there are often farm houses and other houses in isolated locations. There are hardly any night caches on remote mountain peaks on 2000 m - the less remote areas are hardly lonesome around here.

 

yes, i know they are different, as i said before the "thumbs down" is useless in my opinion and the flagging is prone to abuse and highly subjective personal opinions

 

In your original posting you did not write that you think that thumbs down is useless, but rather that one should be allowed to use it only after a visit. I was arguing why I do not like to have a condition like that.

Certainly, thumbs up and down is highly subjective, but I am not interested into something objective anyway.

I would prefer a personalized system so that anyone could see which challenges/caches someone likes or does not like.

 

you are missing my point, this in the context of the negative voting being removed....you don't have to do anything, if you think the challenge is not good all ends there, that's that, no need to vote it down on your own personal belief

on the other hand if you like it and accept it you have the chance to give it a thumbs up or not....

 

Groundspeak plans however to display those challenges that have a high ratio of thumbs up to thumbs down together with caches in the nearest search. So there is a clear motivation to use thumbs down if 95% of the cachers do not want to encounter a specific challenge among their search results.

 

An idea might be to introduce an option to opt out of the challenge system at all. If you do so, you are not allowed to vote on any challenges, but do not get any to see by default. Those who decide to stay in the system, could continue to vote. One might also introduce a personal threshold ratio that can be set even to zero meaning that someone wants to see all challenges among his search results for nearby caches regardless of their quality. I do not think that they will implement it that way, but it would not be hard to do.

 

Cezanne

[+t4e]

 

I know where you live, but I do not know why you then asked why I consider the example with the American Embassy a bad idea.

 

 

the comment was in the context of the example provided by GC, to go make a guard laugh at Buckingham Palace, harassing people is not an overall good idea IMO

 

I guess that your understanding of location differs from mine. I cannot find anything specific that supports your theory that some arbitrary given coordinates are not a location for a challenge.

 

 

nope, you listened to the Podcast and Jeremy explained what "location" is for the purpose of challenges, plus my first challenge along with numerous others that were purely based on "some arbitrary given coordinates" have been archived

 

now, i agree with you that beyond the Podcast nothing in the FAQ defines "location", rather calls it "location of interest", which is vague and can be highly debated like a lot of the wording in the guidelines, but that is beyond our topic here

 

Find a location of interest and challenge someone to take a photo or complete some kind of task unique to that location.

 

so based on the above quote, why did they archive my challenge that was posted at some arbitrary coordinates?...as far as i am concerned it was a location of interest in our community, at a nice place on the beach

 

the other problem is, who decides what's a "place of interest" and how if they don't live in your neck of the woods?

 

this is what a moderator had to say during the archival blitz yesterday

since you can't create a challenge without specifying a location the "bad" will be at arbitrary coordinates

 

It looks like a lot of the ones that aren't tied to a specific location are getting archived.

 

Bad: Post a picture of yourself doing a phoon.

 

Good: Post a picture of yourself doing a phoon in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Edited August 19, 2011 by t4e

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

If I were to "create" a challenge, I would like to get the credit for doing so and have some control over it, the same as with a traditional cache. I would also like the ability to remove any bogus logs (those from visits made before the challenge was issued).

 

When you challenge someone to do something, it is expected that they will go do whatever is challenged after accepting said challenge.

 

John