Splitting out Challenge Finds

[+geocat_]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am happy about the improvements GS has made to Challenges over the past several days. I was very excited to see this message in my inbox today:

 

We are working on splitting out cache finds and challenge completion counts. Both will be displayed on the logs unless you have not found a Challenge. In that case the statistics for Challenges won’t be shown. This should be done by the end of the week (August 26) (30517)

[+Max and 99]

Hmmm. None of our accounts got this message. Thanks for posting it here.

[+UMainah]

I think you'd only get an email if you voted for it on the UserVoice site

 

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

[+geocat_]

Yeah, I had voted and automatically get updates.

[+CanDMan47]

Do I understand that "Completed" will no longer be a "Find"? If so, I hope no one reached a milestone this week after completing any challenges.

 

Personally, I don't care either way, but somebody is bound to be screwed up by this.

[+CanadianRockies]

Do I understand that "Completed" will no longer be a "Find"? If so, I hope no one reached a milestone this week after completing any challenges.

Were completed challenges ever included in the cache statistics (like milestones)? Mine never were, as far as I noticed.

[+CanDMan47]

oops.

 

Yeah, my stats say 639 found/completed. 638 are finds, one is a challenge

Edited August 24, 2011 by CanDMan47

[+briansnat]

Well so much for challenges. Looks like they'll go the way of Waymarking.

[+Cache Sleuth]

Well so much for challenges. Looks like they'll go the way of Waymarking.

 

I agree completely. I was one (of the probably silent majority) that wanted challenges to count in my total finds, not because I am a "numbers whore" as I and others have been accused of being, but because I like seeing a running total of my geocaching achievements. Now that they are being broken out like benchmarks, it's not likely that I will be doing very many. The whole idea at the beginning was to bring back virtuals. Instead we ended up with this challenge fiasco. Many of the members who were behind the push to separate the counts are crowing over their victory tonight. And why? Because several of them were also the ones who were against bringing virtuals back. With this victory, they have also managed to backdoor sabotage the challenges - because very few people will do them if they don't count - and they will go the way of waymarks. Oh well...after all the drama, we are are right back where we started. A lot of effort wasted for nothing, really.

[+Doctroid]

I was one (of the probably silent majority) that wanted challenges to count in my total finds, not because I am a "numbers whore" as I and others have been accused of being, but because I like seeing a running total of my geocaching achievements.

 

Do you really have that much trouble adding two numbers together?

[+Cache Sleuth]

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 members).

GS announces Challenges as a replacement for Virtuals.

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

(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...

[+Cache Sleuth]

I was one (of the probably silent majority) that wanted challenges to count in my total finds, not because I am a "numbers whore" as I and others have been accused of being, but because I like seeing a running total of my geocaching achievements.

 

Do you really have that much trouble adding two numbers together?

 

You mean like adding 162 + 0? Great achievement for 5 years of caching. See, I can be just as rude as you!

[Clan Riffster]

Many of the members who were behind the push to separate the counts are crowing over their victory tonight. And why? Because several of them were also the ones who were against bringing virtuals back.

Just to touch on this segment; My observations have been the opposite. The folks I know who were shouting the loudest to bring back virtuals were the same ones demanding that challenges not count as finds. I suspect that they were petulant over the fact that challenges were not exactly what they wanted, so they were predisposed to complain.

[+Semper Questio]

OK, so now that the caching purists have won that argument, are they now going to go back and split out how old locationless, old virtuals, old webcams, earthcaches, and events are counted and remove them from the total finds? They aren't "caches" either, are they? That was one of the arguments here along with "if challenges count so should benchmarks." So clearly TPTB have decided that containerless objects are not really caches, right?

[+GeoBlank]

For me it is all about keeping Geocaching about Geo (where) and caching (a physical container) [ - I know my greek!] advancing but pure.

 

I would hate to damage the real sport of seeking containers that are well thought out or well hid (notice the or there... sometimes).

 

Trying to get into a social expoding phone based experience like foursquare will only hurt GC.com and it's performance. I think Groundspeak should invest in new ideas and have them self funded. Money raised from GC.com should go to the GC.com backlog.

 

I would also be intersted in an all up Groundspeak stats integration page to see mycaches, my GeoSims, and my Waymarks all integrated into one experience. When I want to cache though I will only go to GC.com

[+Mudfrog]

Well so much for challenges. Looks like they'll go the way of Waymarking.

 

I agree completely. I was one (of the probably silent majority) that wanted challenges to count in my total finds, not because I am a "numbers whore" as I and others have been accused of being, but because I like seeing a running total of my geocaching achievements. Now that they are being broken out like benchmarks, it's not likely that I will be doing very many. The whole idea at the beginning was to bring back virtuals. Instead we ended up with this challenge fiasco. Many of the members who were behind the push to separate the counts are crowing over their victory tonight. And why? Because several of them were also the ones who were against bringing virtuals back. With this victory, they have also managed to backdoor sabotage the challenges - because very few people will do them if they don't count - and they will go the way of waymarks. Oh well...after all the drama, we are are right back where we started. A lot of effort wasted for nothing, really.

 

With your bolded statement above, you state that alot of people won't do them unless they count. Sounds like you're trying to say that challenges are not fun and are something that few care about doing. That the only reason people would do them is to get a smilie. I just don't buy that myself. I think some challenges will be alot of fun and i'm sure i will do a few. I certainly wouldn't give up on challenges just because their completion count wasn't added into my geocache count.

 

I voted to keep challenge counts separate from geocache counts. The reason being is that i didn't see one challenge that remotely ressembled a geocache. I'm sure there are some out there that do but, in my opinion, it would be too hard to figure out which challenges would qualify for geocache count and which should not. To keep things simple, challenges should just have their own count. That count could be along side our regular cache count but it shouldn't be added to the total number.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Mudfrog

[+briansnat]

OK, so now that the caching purists have won that argument, are they now going to go back and split out how old locationless, old virtuals, old webcams, earthcaches, and events are counted and remove them from the total finds? They aren't "caches" either, are they? That was one of the arguments here along with "if challenges count so should benchmarks." So clearly TPTB have decided that containerless objects are not really caches, right?

 

I found it funny that most of the people who complained that they shouldn't be counted because they "are not geocaches" had logged dozens and sometimes hundreds of finds on things that are not geocaches.

 

Case in point:

 

For me it is all about keeping Geocaching about Geo (where) and caching (a physical container) [ - I know my greek!] advancing but pure.

 

...said the person who logged finds on 34 virtuals, 3 events, 1 CITO, 1 mega, 1 block party, 1 webcam, 1 locationless cache, 1 GPS adventure exhibit and 10 earthcaches.

Edited August 24, 2011 by briansnat

[cezanne]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I am happy about the improvements GS has made to Challenges over the past several days. I was very excited to see this message in my inbox today:

 

We are working on splitting out cache finds and challenge completion counts. Both will be displayed on the logs unless you have not found a Challenge. In that case the statistics for Challenges won’t be shown. This should be done by the end of the week (August 26) (30517)

 

It is interesting that different people interpret that in a different way. I do not think that the overall sum find/completed on the profile page will change. I think what is meant with the above message is just that instead of having the information "x found" near to the alias of a cacher on his logs (status until before the introduction of challenges) and instead of having only the total number of founds/completions displayed in the logs (ignoring the possibility to get the split up by hovering the mouse over the number) they will in the future display something like x caches and y challenges on the logs directly if y is greater than zero. I do not think that the way the finds are treated in the cachers' profiles will change in an essential way. But that's just the way I understand it.

The idea behind this change would be to make it fully transparent whether someone participates in challenges at all.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

OK, so now that the caching purists have won that argument, are they now going to go back and split out how old locationless, old virtuals, old webcams, earthcaches, and events are counted and remove them from the total finds? They aren't "caches" either, are they? That was one of the arguments here along with "if challenges count so should benchmarks." So clearly TPTB have decided that containerless objects are not really caches, right?

 

I found it funny that most of the people who complained that they shouldn't be counted because they "are not geocaches" had logged dozens and sometimes hundreds of finds on things that are not geocaches.

 

Virtual caches and Earthcaches are caches for me. They are reviewed, have an owner, the logs can be controlled. Challenges are not caches - we could not even rename them as challenges caches because that's something different. Certainly some of the challenges have the potential to be caches, but the intention of Groundspeak by naming them challenges apparently has been to come up with something which is not a cache.

 

Cezanne

[Goddess of Wisdom]

I am very disappointed by this development. 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.

[+Mudfrog]

OK, so now that the caching purists have won that argument, are they now going to go back and split out how old locationless, old virtuals, old webcams, earthcaches, and events are counted and remove them from the total finds? They aren't "caches" either, are they? That was one of the arguments here along with "if challenges count so should benchmarks." So clearly TPTB have decided that containerless objects are not really caches, right?

 

I found it funny that most of the people who complained that they shouldn't be counted because they "are not geocaches" had logged dozens and sometimes hundreds of finds on things that are not geocaches.

 

Case in point:

 

For me it is all about keeping Geocaching about Geo (where) and caching (a physical container) [ - I know my greek!] advancing but pure.

 

...said the person who logged finds on 34 virtuals, 3 events, 1 CITO, 1 mega, 1 block party, 1 webcam, 1 locationless cache, 1 GPS adventure exhibit and 10 earthcaches.

 

To me, virtuals, earthcaches, and webcams resemble caches in that you use coordinates to get you to the general area. I can see these as counting in your find count. Of course, events and locationless caches incorporate the use of coordinates as well, but i do agree that they don't quite fit the bill. On locationless, i think i did two and found right after i did them, that i didn't think of them as having much to do with geocaching. I also think that events should have an "attended" count instead of adding to our geocaching find count. I wouldn't mind seeing these counted up separately and not added to our total but i grew up with it being this way and it's something i can live with.

 

If challenges do end up becoming more like virtuals (they have coordinates that take you someplace), then i won't have any problem with them adding to our geocaching count. But from what i've seen, there will be too many challenges that don't involve this aspect and therfore aren't geocaching related.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Mudfrog

[+sbell111]

If challenges do end up becoming more like virtuals (they have coordinates that take you someplace), then i won't have any problem with them adding to our geocaching count.

Non-Worldwide challenges do include coordinates that lead you to the location of the challenges, exactly like virts. The mere fact that some people created 'locationless' challenges in error (which now have been archived or are being archived) doesn't change that.

 

There are five challenges that show as 'near' my office. Three fit right into the old virt model. One is like a virt with an ALR. The last is kind of like a local locationless cache. This last one should be archived, in my opinion, but the mere fact that it exists doesn't make me not want to do the others or believe that those should not count in my total.

[+Manville Possum]

I think you'd only get an email if you voted for it on the UserVoice site

 

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

Correct. I got mine. I want my waymarks, benchmarks, challanges, geocaches seperate.

[+Hawkins2.5]

Whether the find totals are combined or whether they are separate makes very little difference to the way I will play the game. I do the ones that take my fancy and I leave the ones I don't and I'll keep doing that, now with challenges as well as caches. (With some caches I decided at the location that they were not for me and didn't even try - one was an earthcache and I was too busy enjoying the location to bother with trying to find pointless information to prove I was there, this may end up being the case with challenges as well but I shall see.)

 

With the scores combined I'm sure I could still have easily seen which were caches and which were challenges and with them separate I can add them together. I understand it's frustrating for people if they do have a strong opinion on this topic but I don't see that it makes that much difference to your caching habits.

[+geocat_]

I really enjoy virtuals and earthcaches but can see the point about separating them out as well. When I started geocaching I couldn't believe events and CITO counted as finds. Still don't believe it either, haha! This whole silly challenge "problem" could have been avoided it they had enough reviewers to handle virtuals. Or maybe I am missing something since I am still pretty new to this.

[+Mosaic55]

Well so much for challenges. Looks like they'll go the way of Waymarking.

 

[repeat of my response on one of the other threads]

 

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?

[GOF and Bacall]

Well so much for challenges. Looks like they'll go the way of Waymarking.

 

[repeat of my response on one of the other threads]

 

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?

 

You forgot one important one. Challenges are not divided into hundreds of categories.

[+Mosaic55]

Well so much for challenges. Looks like they'll go the way of Waymarking.

 

Go look at how they implemented it (just got the "completed" email).

 

A smiley count and a "caped guy" count. Looks like it will do more to draw attention to Challenges as an available activity than the original way.

[+Cache Sleuth]

They just made the change. It no longer shows on the main page after you sign in. They are shown separately. However, they are still added into your totals on your profile after you click on the "geocaches" tab. I think this is a good compromise, but I am afraid that some who were driving this issue will not be satisfied. Look for another feedback forum campaign to get them removed from the total count in the profile geocache breakdown as well.

[+JL_HSTRE]

However, they are still added into your totals on your profile after you click on the "geocaches" tab. I think this is a good compromise, but I am afraid that some who were driving this issue will not be satisfied. Look for another feedback forum campaign to get them removed from the total count in the profile geocache breakdown as well.

 

Can someone explain why Challenges count toward my Total on that page, but Benchmarks don't?

[+BuckeyeClan]

Well so much for challenges. Looks like they'll go the way of Waymarking.

 

Go look at how they implemented it (just got the "completed" email).

 

A smiley count and a "caped guy" count. Looks like it will do more to draw attention to Challenges as an available activity than the original way.

 

Looks good to me!

[+BuckeyeClan]

I really enjoy virtuals and earthcaches but can see the point about separating them out as well. When I started geocaching I couldn't believe events and CITO counted as finds. Still don't believe it either, haha! This whole silly challenge "problem" could have been avoided it they had enough reviewers to handle virtuals. Or maybe I am missing something since I am still pretty new to this.

 

The thing you are missing is all the explanations in the forums about why virtuals will never come back as they were. Too many people flooded the reviewers with absurd listings (an old shoe in the woods, a dead animal carcass), so they instituted the "wow" factor. That put reviewers in the awful position of having to judge whether or not a listing was "wow" enough. Reviewers have said that they spent way too much time dealing with virtuals and all the associated problems. I've read posts from Keystone and others saying that if Groundspeak tried to bring back virtuals in their original form, many reviewers would quit on the spot. Even earthcaches have issues with listings. Read some of the threads in the earthcaching forums--there is plenty of angst surrounding what can/can't be listed, what verification is permitted, etc.

 

That's the (potentially) good thing about the way challenges work. The community gets to decide what is good and what is bad. Ultimately, if people take this seriously, each community should end up with exactly the kind of virtuals (challenges) that they deserve.

 

edit to add linkto one of Keystone's recent posts on the matter.

Edited August 25, 2011 by BuckeyeClan

[+dfx]

However, they are still added into your totals on your profile after you click on the "geocaches" tab. I think this is a good compromise, but I am afraid that some who were driving this issue will not be satisfied. Look for another feedback forum campaign to get them removed from the total count in the profile geocache breakdown as well.

 

Can someone explain why Challenges count toward my Total on that page, but Benchmarks don't?

 

Not conclusively

[+Frank Broughton]

I think that the latest changes are going to go a long way in making challenges work. I am really liking the idea alot! The new apps is perfect too! GOF I did up that one across from my work today... funny picture for sure;.

[Luckless]

Challenges

Perform an activity- maybe take a picture of you doing it, locationless, no coordinates to locate, no cache to find, nothing to sign, log online. This is geocaching?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Did I get these right? Any I forgot?

[+d+n.s]

So far, challenges are an awesome replacement for virtuals. The missteps of the early ones doesn't change that. I really enjoy them and I think the only people complaining are people who are too worried about others' find counts.

 

Its a shame they won't be counted as finds in the future, because I think people should be encouraged to do them and place them... and as reductive as people would like to be.. and as many semantic arguments that they might make... People find them fun and have the ability to bring people to interesting locations that cannot support a cache without muggle trouble or a bomb scare.

 

I don't know... I just don't see why cachers get so upset about stuff that doesn't effect them. I think we're a group that largely complains about change.

 

Challenges

Perform an activity- maybe take a picture of you doing it, locationless, no coordinates to locate, no cache to find, nothing to sign, log online. This is geocaching?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Did I get these right? Any I forgot?

 

Photo Challenge- Go to coordinates and take a picture

Activity Challenge- Go to coordinates and complete an activity

Worldwide Challenge- locationless community activities created by Groundspeak

 

similar to:

Earthcache- go to coordinates and learn about nature

 

No reason to be overly verbose about it.

Edited August 25, 2011 by d+n.s

[+sbell111]

However, they are still added into your totals on your profile after you click on the "geocaches" tab. I think this is a good compromise, but I am afraid that some who were driving this issue will not be satisfied. Look for another feedback forum campaign to get them removed from the total count in the profile geocache breakdown as well.

 

Can someone explain why Challenges count toward my Total on that page, but Benchmarks don't?

Because benchmarks never have and challenges always have. Also, because challenges are analogous to cache types that also count toward the total.

 

Anyone who believes that benchmarks should count toward the total should pop over to the feedback area and vote on that idea.

Edited August 25, 2011 by sbell111

[+Avernar]

Because benchmarks never have and challenges always have.

Wow. That's right up there with your parents saying "Because I said so" when you asked for an explanation. Not very helpful.

 

Also, because challenges are analogous to cache types that also count toward the total.

That's debatable. One can also argue that benchmarks are closer to existing cache types because you actually find something physical at the location.

 

Anyone who believes that benchmarks should count toward the total should pop over to the feedback area and vote on that idea.

Joshism never said they should he just wanted to know why. I too would like to know the reasons why benchmarks were excluded from the find count. The only one I heard was because they were US only but I'm not sure if that's true or not.

[+tozainamboku]

Anyone who believes that benchmarks should count toward the total should pop over to the feedback area and vote on that idea.

Joshism never said they should he just wanted to know why. I too would like to know the reasons why benchmarks were excluded from the find count. The only one I heard was because they were US only but I'm not sure if that's true or not.

Why make things complicated.

 

The real reason for not counting benchmarks is because the find count has always been a simple query against the LOGS table in the geocaching.com database. Originally it was

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM LOGS WHERE USER_NAME='user' AND LOG_TYPE='Found';

 

Later the log types of Attended and Photo Taken were added for Event and Webcam caches and the query became

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM LOGS WHERE USER_NAME='user' AND LOG_TYPE IN ('Found', 'Attended', 'Photo Taken');

 

When benchmarks were added to Geocaching.com they were given their own database instead of being put in the standard geocaching database. So were they to count, something more complex than the simple query would be needed.

 

Now when challenges were added, we don't know if the challenge completed logs are stored in LOGS table with geocaches or if they are stored in their own table.

 

If challege completed logs are in the same table as the geocaching logs then to count challenges you simply have to change the query to

SELECT COUNT(*) FROM LOGS WHERE USER_NAME='user' AND LOG_TYPE IN ('Found', 'Attended', 'Photo Taken', 'Challenge Completed');

 

But if challenge logs are stored in a separate table, then whenever the find count is computed you would have to make two queries and add the results together. In this case you might find the load on the servers goes up and geocaching.com sees a performance hit. One can speculate that the decision to not count challenges in the find count has little to do with number of votes this got in the feedback forum and everything to do with site performance.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I was one (of the probably silent majority) that wanted challenges to count in my total finds, not because I am a "numbers whore" as I and others have been accused of being, but because I like seeing a running total of my geocaching achievements.

 

Do you really have that much trouble adding two numbers together?

 

I guess it's just as difficult as subtracting challenges from caches found. But folks didn't want to do that either. Go figure.

Edited August 25, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+Avernar]

The real reason for not counting benchmarks is because the find count has always been a simple query against the LOGS table in the geocaching.com database.

That explanation doesn't alter the nature of the question. Now it becomes:

 

Why was it too much trouble to query two databases in the past but fine to query two databases now?

 

or

 

Why was it a problem to include benchmarks in the main log table but not a problem to include challenges in the main log table?

 

The problem could have easily been solved if they just made benchmarks a regular cache listing.

[+Avernar]

I guess it's just as difficult as subtracting challenges from caches found. But folks didn't want to do that either. Go figure.

Not difficult, just one more step. I'd have to go into the persons profile to find the number to subtract. Now I have both numbers right away and can add them together if I choose to.

[+Team Taran]

I think the real reason benchmarks have never been counted as finds is historic. When they were first added to the site, they were seen as a side game something for people to look for since caches were fairly sparse. A single free source file was used and all the benchmarks were in the U.S. It's true that the equivalent of benchmarks exist in most countries but all are not necessarily easily added to the data base and may or may not be done freely. They are not hidden or created by cachers and may be on private property.

[+NEAVIDA]

thank you thank you thank you... at least some respect... it is still not what we want, but THANK YOU for respecting the critics !!!

[+sbell111]

... They are not hidden or created by cachers and may be on private property.

This point may be the most important one. GC.com was not involved with the creation or maintenance of the database of benchmarks. As such, many benchmarks are located in inaccessible locations. These will nether be 'archived' or removed from the database.