Thumbs Down Votes for Challenges

[GOF and Bacall]

I gave it a thumbs up. Specific location and challenge. Ok, meets the basic requirements. That means I don't flag the cache. Interesting location and a challenge that isn't totally stupid. So it gets a thumbs up. The only thing I would recommend changing if you could would be to let 'em take the picture with any part of the building in the shot. Would give the gallery a bit more diversity.

[cezanne]

I personally think that what was intended by Jeremy when he said everyone should vote, was that you should do so based on subjective opinions of what is a good or bad, challenge not necessarily what you would enjoy, For example, before I retired I was a librarian with responsibilities for selecting books. I selected books I thought were well written, would fill a gap in the collection, or be popular with our users. Which books I wanted to read was irrelevant because I was not choosing books for me.

 

Actually, I do not know what's the idea behind the thumbs up/down. I think the decision of a librarian which books to order is a totally different one. Like you I would not base my order decisions on my preferences. My caching is however a leisure time activity and not any work. I'd rather compare the thumbs up/thumbs down with the option available e.g. at Amazon and other sites where one can tell others whether or not one liked a book/an article.

 

As I mentioned before, if someone is asking me which caches/challenge I regard as recommendable for him/her, my reply would be based on that person's preferences and not my own. The same challenge can be among my 5% of recommendations for someone and be among the worst 5% for someone else to visit. For me good and bad does not really make sense for caches and challenges.

 

A challenge asking for a visit to St Stephen's cathedral is very boring for at least 95% of the local cachers while it might be of interest for tourists. In Waymarking this does not cause that many problems as one can restrict oneself to categories one is interested into, but that's not possible for challenges. So there will often be a conflict between the expectations of locals and of visitors.

 

So in case Groundspeak wants us to make some good/bad decisions, they should clearly say so. Then I would not vote on a single challenge. I am not willing to evaluate challenges on the basis of good/bad and also see on sene behind investing work in doing so.

Actually, I would prefer a system where we could see which challenges are voted up (or down) by others - that helps in deciding whether a cache/challenge is suitable for one's own preferences if one is knowing the preferences of the voting person.

I am not motivated to act as reviewer for Groundspeak. Any system that is not based on personal preferences, is completely unattractive for me and I would decide not to take part at all.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 27, 2011 by cezanne

[knowschad]

Perhaps, like favorite points, thumbs-down votes should be rationed out?

 

Rationed out with respect to what? Overall votes or overall completed challenges?

 

In the first case it would mean that I need to search around for challenges in locations far away from my home that I would enjoy and vote with thumbs up for them to be allowed to vote thumbs down to the local ones I would not enjoy.

 

In the second case it would mean that I am not allowed to vote thumbs up for challenges I like, but are not able to visit them right now unless I am visiting first the local ones I do not enjoy.

 

None of the two scenarios makes sense to me.

 

Cezanne

I have no idea. Well, I have a few ideas of my own, but my point was that perhaps thumbs-down votes should not be unlimited. That would make people think twice before blindly down-thumbing somebody's idea. Maybe you earn a thumb's down by voting a thumb's up on another challenge. Maybe you earn one thumb's down for every 10 challenges that you complete. I don't know. HOW they are rationed is not my.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I had a friend that wrote a song, he made a demo CD and passed it around. Then he got mad when people told him the song sucks. I told him that if he didn't want to hear peoples opinions then he shouldn't let them hear his music.

It is the exact same thing I think when done developing a magic effect. Am I willing to hear negative opinions? If the answer is no then the effect is not ready for people to see. The same thing holds true with geocaches and challenges.

 

If you are not ready for negative feed back then you shouldn't be exposing it people, it doesn't matter why they don't like it.

 

I think one of the most disgusting things that has happened over the last few decades is this "Everyone is a winner for trying" attitude. No! Last place is an absolute loser, nothing more. It give people a sense of entitlement that they do not deserve.

 

You want a challenge that has a high positive ratio? Make a challenge that will earn it regardless of what the "I hate all challenges" crowed tries.

 

And to the people who want to restrict the negative votes. If you don't give the positive votes the exact same restrictions then you make the whole voting system worthless. And a guarantee there are people who give a thumbs up to every challenge regardless of how worthless it is. And the person issuing shouldn't get a vote, the very act of issuing it stats they think it is worthy.

[knowschad]

I had a friend that wrote a song, he made a demo CD and passed it around. Then he got mad when people told him the song sucks. I told him that if he didn't want to hear peoples opinions then he shouldn't let them hear his music.

It is the exact same thing I think when done developing a magic effect. Am I willing to hear negative opinions? If the answer is no then the effect is not ready for people to see. The same thing holds true with geocaches and challenges.

 

If you are not ready for negative feed back then you shouldn't be exposing it people, it doesn't matter why they don't like it.

 

I think one of the most disgusting things that has happened over the last few decades is this "Everyone is a winner for trying" attitude. No! Last place is an absolute loser, nothing more. It give people a sense of entitlement that they do not deserve.

 

You want a challenge that has a high positive ratio? Make a challenge that will earn it regardless of what the "I hate all challenges" crowed tries.

 

And to the people who want to restrict the negative votes. If you don't give the positive votes the exact same restrictions then you make the whole voting system worthless. And a guarantee there are people who give a thumbs up to every challenge regardless of how worthless it is. And the person issuing shouldn't get a vote, the very act of issuing it stats they think it is worthy.

HONEST negative reactions are one thing. But I don't think that is all of what is going on here. We are seeing perfectly good caches (judging by majority forum opinion, at least) getting slammed. That isn't a reaction to the challenge... its a reaction to challenges in general. Or, so it would seem, at least.

[+Ash McCloud]

I had a friend that wrote a song, he made a demo CD and passed it around. Then he got mad when people told him the song sucks. I told him that if he didn't want to hear peoples opinions then he shouldn't let them hear his music.

It is the exact same thing I think when done developing a magic effect. Am I willing to hear negative opinions? If the answer is no then the effect is not ready for people to see. The same thing holds true with geocaches and challenges.

 

If you are not ready for negative feed back then you shouldn't be exposing it people, it doesn't matter why they don't like it.

 

I think one of the most disgusting things that has happened over the last few decades is this "Everyone is a winner for trying" attitude. No! Last place is an absolute loser, nothing more. It give people a sense of entitlement that they do not deserve.

 

You want a challenge that has a high positive ratio? Make a challenge that will earn it regardless of what the "I hate all challenges" crowed tries.

 

And to the people who want to restrict the negative votes. If you don't give the positive votes the exact same restrictions then you make the whole voting system worthless. And a guarantee there are people who give a thumbs up to every challenge regardless of how worthless it is. And the person issuing shouldn't get a vote, the very act of issuing it stats they think it is worthy.

 

Don't you think this is sort of an example that really does not compare to what is going on. If your friend released a cd that was hip hop and he released to a group that loved hip hop. Then he could see what they thought. He would probably get an honest opinion on whether the music is good or not and whether anyone would buy the cd. But to use the idea on what it would really be like for him if he did the same as here in challenges. It would be like him releasing a hip hop cd and the demo went to country music fans, Rock and roll fans, classical music fans, Hip Hop fans, and 20 other genres. So of course most of them would hate it because of what it is. So how the heck does anyone make a challenge that everyone likes when many don't like challenges?

[GOF and Bacall]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

[GOF and Bacall]

So how the heck does anyone make a challenge that everyone likes when many don't like challenges?

 

There is no need to make a challenge that everyone likes. Make a challenge that is as fun and interesting as you can and don't worry about it.

[+Castle Mischief]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

 

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough.

[knowschad]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

 

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough.

 

What region? And how did you determine that?

 

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

[+Castle Mischief]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

 

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough.

 

What region? And how did you determine that?

 

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

 

Just something I've noticed while surfing through the stream of Challenge activity. Seems the Germans are pretty big on the down-thumb. At least, it seems that way. Until the search function becomes more useful it's really hard to substantiate that.

[knowschad]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

 

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough.

 

What region? And how did you determine that?

 

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

 

Just something I've noticed while surfing through the stream of Challenge activity. Seems the Germans are pretty big on the down-thumb. At least, it seems that way. Until the search function becomes more useful it's really hard to substantiate that.

It would make sense that they would give the thumbs-down for any that required proof of being there.

[+Castle Mischief]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

 

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough.

 

What region? And how did you determine that?

 

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

 

Just something I've noticed while surfing through the stream of Challenge activity. Seems the Germans are pretty big on the down-thumb. At least, it seems that way. Until the search function becomes more useful it's really hard to substantiate that.

It would make sense that they would give the thumbs-down for any that required proof of being there.

 

BAD DOG!

[knowschad]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

 

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough.

 

What region? And how did you determine that?

 

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

 

Just something I've noticed while surfing through the stream of Challenge activity. Seems the Germans are pretty big on the down-thumb. At least, it seems that way. Until the search function becomes more useful it's really hard to substantiate that.

It would make sense that they would give the thumbs-down for any that required proof of being there.

 

BAD DOG!

you saw what i did there, huh?

[+BuckeyeClan]

I agree that if you take away the negative voting the positive voting becomes meaningless. Yes, I think a few sour apples are abusing the system. But I think that will die down soon enough.

 

It seems that it already is dying down. The obligatory down-thumbing seems to be somewhat regional, interestingly enough.

 

What region? And how did you determine that?

 

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

 

Just something I've noticed while surfing through the stream of Challenge activity. Seems the Germans are pretty big on the down-thumb. At least, it seems that way. Until the search function becomes more useful it's really hard to substantiate that.

 

I've noticed that about the German ones, too. I can't read German, so don't usually even look at those, but occasionally I do and they often have 10-15 down votes. Meanwhile decent English-language challenges seem to range between 0-5 down votes.

[+Vater_Araignee]

HONEST negative reactions are one thing. But I don't think that is all of what is going on here. We are seeing perfectly good caches (judging by majority forum opinion, at least) getting slammed. That isn't a reaction to the challenge... its a reaction to challenges in general. Or, so it would seem, at least.

You don't think that hating challenges and showing so by way of vote is an honest negative reaction? An honest reaction is exactly what it sounds like to me. If they where on a different site then I would say the the behavior is unethical, but still honest. However it is on a geocaching site so it is both honest and ethical.

 

Don't you think this is sort of an example that really does not compare to what is going on. If your friend released a cd that was hip hop and he released to a group that loved hip hop. Then he could see what they thought. He would probably get an honest opinion on whether the music is good or not and whether anyone would buy the cd. But to use the idea on what it would really be like for him if he did the same as here in challenges. It would be like him releasing a hip hop cd and the demo went to country music fans, Rock and roll fans, classical music fans, Hip Hop fans, and 20 other genres. So of course most of them would hate it because of what it is. So how the heck does anyone make a challenge that everyone likes when many don't like challenges?

It sure do work. If the challenges where on their own site then what you say would hold true, but they being presented to geocachers.

Challenges are being presented to geocachers, so we get to find out what geocachers think.

I also never said anything about making a challenge everyone likes. I wouldn't dare suggest someone does such an obviously imposable task.

Lets have another look at what I said.

You want a challenge that has a high positive ratio?

That is asking if you want a challenge that has a significantly higher positive vote than the negative votes.

Make a challenge that will earn it regardless of what the "I hate all challenges" crowed tries.

That means make a challenge that would be so great that the people who would give it an automatic negative vote will be heavily out numbered by the people who would and or do actually enjoy it.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hear people complaining about individual giving negative votes to a challenge they have no intention of doing.

How much ya wanna bet that these same people will not complain about an individual giving positive votes to a challenge they have no intention of doing.

[+Vater_Araignee]

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

What arbitrary 25 mile radius?

27.1 there. I also saw 30+ in New York.

[+SooMukwas]

After a few days of publishing a challenge (Here), I have 1 person completed it, 4 People accepted it 3 thumbs up (one of which is mine) and 5 thumbs down.

I followed the guide lines on creating it, kept it simple with requirement of just a photo as proof of visiting. It's a popular/interesting place to visit with a history attached to it.

 

So why the 5 thumbs down votes?

 

Are people going through and voting down challenges just because they can and they don't like the concept of the challenges. Or is my challenge that bad?

 

Should people only be able to vote on challenges they have completed?

 

I wouldn't worry about the thumbs down votes. I make challenges for those who want to have some fun. I don't make them for the cranky pants who sit there all day moaning that challenges are bad. Don't like them, fine. Vote them thumbs down and don't do them. There is no requirement to do any cache or challenge. If you don't like one, you can skip it and go do another one instead. Thumbs down votes are just like when movie critics give two thumbs down to a movie which then goes on to make $100 million in its first weekend and grab a few Oscars, LOL!

[cezanne]

Well, I have a few ideas of my own, but my point was that perhaps thumbs-down votes should not be unlimited. That would make people think twice before blindly down-thumbing somebody's idea. Maybe you earn a thumb's down by voting a thumb's up on another challenge. Maybe you earn one thumb's down for every 10 challenges that you complete. I don't know. HOW they are rationed is not my.

 

I got your intention, but was curious based on what criteria you would ratio out the thumbs down votes.

 

Personally, I think that we need is not a rule on limiting thumbs down votes. I do not think that there are many cachers who vote down every challenge (some might have done that during the first 2 days). I think that we need is a different way to deal with challenges that get a substantial number of thumbs up and thumbs down and an ignore option at least for Premium members who are used to have such an option for caches. What Groundspeak appears to do at the moment is making challenges invisible if they go below a certain ratio and that's definitey a bad idea (I do not know which ratio they use, but have observed that challenges disappear based on their ratio). It is completely straightforward that most local cachers will be turned off by photo challenges at typical tourist places - the latter ones have their place, but they are certainly not the ones the locals want to see displayed every time they look for new challenges (as there is no notification method, they need to run the search command regularly and all the time will end up disappointed).

 

 

Cezanne

Edited August 28, 2011 by cezanne

[knowschad]

(which reminds me... why the arbitrary 25 mile radius?)

What arbitrary 25 mile radius?

27.1 there. I also saw 30+ in New York.

 

 

Why the arbitrary 30+ mile radius?

[+Too Tall John]

There seems to be a segment of people who are going around giving all challenges thumb down regardless of their quality simply because they dislike the concept and want to muck things up for everyone else.

...with the full blessing of Groundspeak. They know that such a system is subject to abuse, yet did it anyway. Do they at least show names for the votes?

Just because Groundspeak is using the thumbs up/down system that they are does not, in any way, mean that they are giving "full blessing" to those people who are indiscriminately giving "Thumbs Down"s to any challenge they read.

 

Imagine, if you will, an ice cream stand. The owners have decided to make it self serve. The ice cream is pre-packaged into different sizes and customers pick the size they want and drop their money into a mail slot in the wall. There is great potential for abuse of this system since the stand goes for long periods of time completely unsupervised. Does this mean they are giving a "full blessing" to anyone who wants to take the ice cream without paying? Of course not. To suggest they are is foolish.

 

Oh, I chose ice cream because this is a real life example, not because it's Toz's favorite metaphor.

[+Max and 99]

I took notice of what time I posted a new challenge today, to see how long it would take to get a thumbs-down vote. I hit publish, refresh on the newest activity screen, and mine wasn't showing up yet. Hit refresh again 3 seconds later, so now 5 seconds after I hit publish it showed up on the newest activity and ALREADY had a thumbs-down vote. I don't even know how they read through the title, never mind my write-up in that little time!

[+kunarion]

There seems to be a segment of people who are going around giving all challenges thumb down regardless of their quality simply because they dislike the concept and want to muck things up for everyone else.

...with the full blessing of Groundspeak. They know that such a system is subject to abuse, yet did it anyway. Do they at least show names for the votes?

Just because Groundspeak is using the thumbs up/down system that they are does not, in any way, mean that they are giving "full blessing" to those people who are indiscriminately giving "Thumbs Down"s to any challenge they read.

 

Imagine, if you will, an ice cream stand. The owners have decided to make it self serve. The ice cream is pre-packaged into different sizes and customers pick the size they want and drop their money into a mail slot in the wall. There is great potential for abuse of this system since the stand goes for long periods of time completely unsupervised. Does this mean they are giving a "full blessing" to anyone who wants to take the ice cream without paying? Of course not. To suggest they are is foolish.

 

Oh, I chose ice cream because this is a real life example, not because it's Toz's favorite metaphor.

I'll grant that it's foolish to suggest a computer program isn't ice cream. But if I wrote a voting script, it would have systems to detect and prevent abuse, NOT "completely unsupervised". It should have been automatic. Or provide tools so I can view the votes any way I like -- Challenges aren't 100% bad, right? Netflix uses an automatic system to recommend movies based on my voting pattern, maybe do something like that. Or since I can't make a Challenge more than once a day, why not allow just ONE vote per day? Okay you could get one additional vote on completed Challenges. The way it's set up now, "votes" mean nothing except that someone did a bunch of them as a juvenile prank. I'm not insisting that GS must not allow it, I'm merely saying that they DO, and the results are no surprise. I swiped a hundred million ice creams from Toz's favorite ice cream stand. Want some?

Edited August 28, 2011 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

Sorry. Double scoop. Edited August 28, 2011 by kunarion

[+CanadianRockies]

From the Challenge FAQ page:

 

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.

I've rated every challenge that I've completed with either a thumbs up or a thumbs down. But I can understand how some people might want to ignore Groundspeak's strong encouragement and not rate some of the caches they complete.

 

I've rated some challenges that I haven't completed. But I've also not rated some of the challenges that I've viewed, despite Groundspeak's encouragement to do so. I certainly won't rate every challenge. That's absurd, especially with no good way to search for challenges.

[+paleolith]

One thing I notice is that there's no "ignore" link or button on the Challenge page. Since there's such a link on a cache page, many may be looking for it on the Challenge page. When they don't find it, they look for something else to have the same effect. The only negative links are "thumbs down" and "flag". I can "accept" a Challenge, but I cannot "decline" or "ignore" it.

 

So how many are clicking thumbs down simply because there's no "ignore"? I doubt this is the top factor, and might only be a small one, but it probably should be on the list. You can't assume that everyone reads the detailed description, not even close. cezanne has described a common phenomenon in Vienna, the vote that really means "I live here and don't want to be bothered". How many of these would just "ignore" if that option were available?

 

Seems to me that while omitting the "ignore" option initially might not have been a problem on its own, that it may interact badly with the voting system.

 

Edward

[+t4e]

I took notice of what time I posted a new challenge today, to see how long it would take to get a thumbs-down vote. I hit publish, refresh on the newest activity screen, and mine wasn't showing up yet. Hit refresh again 3 seconds later, so now 5 seconds after I hit publish it showed up on the newest activity and ALREADY had a thumbs-down vote. I don't even know how they read through the title, never mind my write-up in that little time!

 

i observed that and my conclusion is that every challenge gets a thumb down by default

 

 

i seriously don't care, and it should not matter what personal likes and dislikes are

the thumbs down should be strictly used to vote for challenges that do not fall within the skimpy guidelines we have...but for that there is a "flag" button...so what exactly is the point of voting down a challenge just because you are passing that location each day of the week?

Edited August 29, 2011 by t4e

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

Why the arbitrary 30+ mile radius?

I'm sure that what ever the radius is, it was set as a precautionary measure to prevent server slow down.

 

Or maybe they just wanted people to start learning zip-codes.

[knowschad]

I took notice of what time I posted a new challenge today, to see how long it would take to get a thumbs-down vote. I hit publish, refresh on the newest activity screen, and mine wasn't showing up yet. Hit refresh again 3 seconds later, so now 5 seconds after I hit publish it showed up on the newest activity and ALREADY had a thumbs-down vote. I don't even know how they read through the title, never mind my write-up in that little time!

 

i observed that and my conclusion is that every challenge gets a thumb down by default

 

 

i seriously don't care, and it should not matter what personal likes and dislikes are

the thumbs down should be strictly used to vote for challenges that do not fall within the skimpy guidelines we have...but for that there is a "flag" button...so what exactly is the point of voting down a challenge just because you are passing that location each day of the week?

 

That is the problem as I see it, too. Thumbs-down on any individual challenge should only be used as a vote against that particular challenge. If you have a problem with the challenge concept itself, take that up with Groundspeak on the Feedback site.

[cezanne]

deleted - double post

Edited August 29, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

i seriously don't care, and it should not matter what personal likes and dislikes are

the thumbs down should be strictly used to vote for challenges that do not fall within the skimpy guidelines we have...but for that there is a "flag" button...so what exactly is the point of voting down a challenge just because you are passing that location each day of the week?

 

We agree upon that the flagging option is available for those challenges that do not match the challenge concept. So thumbs up and thumbs down is not intended to evaluate whether a challenge is ok or not.

 

Personally, I think that one meaningful use of the thumbs down and thumbs up at a later stage could be to get recommendations on which challenges one might be interested into by comparing the up/down profiles of users with similar preferences. That works quite well for books, movies etc. Why not for challenges?

 

Another reasonable motivation for voting thumbs down on challenges in one's own caching zone that one does not like is that it can be seen as a message to the creator of the challenge. If 100 people vote thumbs down (mainly from local people) and few thumbs up by occational visitors, then the creator might consider to create his next challenges in a different way such that they appeal to the local community. This is not a must - just a can. As I mentioned earlier, I think there should be a concept supporting ideas that are interesting only for a minority.

 

In any case, they would need to program some more clever analyzing routines than simply archiving a challenge because it gets a certain number of flags or hide it if the up/down ratio falls between a certain limit. Humans are more intellegent than machines, but the simple procedures Groundspeak is using at the moment not even match the state of the art in the field 30 years ago.

 

Apart from more clever routines to deal with flags and the up/down ratio, an ignore option for challenges is urgently needed.

Provide cachers with an option to mark a challenge such that they never need to see it again and I am sure that the number of thumbs down will decrease. The current system that encourages cachers to vote and promises them that only the challenges with a high up/down ratio will survive in the long run, encourages cachers to vote thumbs down on the challenges they personally do not want to see.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Castle Mischief]

You guys are over-thinking this.

 

Thumbs up = gud.

Thumbs down = not gud.

 

Flag: yet another challenge published that tries to be "locationless". (Thumbs down optional.)

[Clan Riffster]

Thumbs up = gud.

Thumbs down = not gud.

Yup. That fits my interpretation of this quip from the FAQ:

"Are Challenges reviewed by anyone before publication?"

 

"No. Challenges are published to the website immediately. The community can "flag" inappropriate or unplayable Challenges. These are automatically removed from the website if flagged by enough geocachers. Players can rate each Challenge with a thumbs up or thumbs down to help others decide whether it is worth doing"

 

My take on this is that the thumbs up/down is meant to act as an entirely subjective rating system. If a challenge fits my highly biased aesthetic, I should give it a thumbs up. If it does not, I should give it a thumbs down. I'm not sure if such a system will cause the cream to eventually rise to the top or not, but the results so far hold at least some measure of promise. For the most part, (exceptions excluded), those challenges with a high thumbs up/down ratio seem to hold more appeal to me than those with a high thumbs down/up ratio.

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm not sure if such a system will cause the cream to eventually rise to the top or not, but the results so far hold at least some measure of promise. For the most part, (exceptions excluded), those challenges with a high thumbs up/down ratio seem to hold more appeal to me than those with a high thumbs down/up ratio.

 

I have been pleasantly surprised in the ability of the community to use a peer review system. I really didn't think I'd like the results, but so far, it's all butter.

[+t4e]

 

Personally, I think that one meaningful use of the thumbs down and thumbs up at a later stage could be to get recommendations on which challenges one might be interested into by comparing the up/down profiles of users with similar preferences. That works quite well for books, movies etc. Why not for challenges?

 

i don't agree with that simply because people have different tastes, in the context of challenges, what qualifies anyone out there to tell me what i like and don't like?...everyone is capable to make their own decision based on the description

 

works for movies and books because all you have is a preview or a small summary and the critics that rate those movies and books do so based on having watched or read them

 

with challenges there is nothing more beyond the description and requirements, besides you can google the location and find out more...not so with a movie or a book which you only find out for yourself after you purchased it and spent considerable time going through it

 

Another reasonable motivation for voting thumbs down on challenges in one's own caching zone that one does not like is that it can be seen as a message to the creator of the challenge. If 100 people vote thumbs down (mainly from local people) and few thumbs up by occational visitors, then the creator might consider to create his next challenges in a different way such that they appeal to the local community. This is not a must - just a can. As I mentioned earlier, I think there should be a concept supporting ideas that are interesting only for a minority.

 

 

on that logic please tell me why would anyone in his/her right mind vote this one down?....it is one of the Seven Natural Wonders of NA....the only conclusion is that the down votes are just in spite

 

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/view.aspx?cx=CX8E

[cezanne]

 

Personally, I think that one meaningful use of the thumbs down and thumbs up at a later stage could be to get recommendations on which challenges one might be interested into by comparing the up/down profiles of users with similar preferences. That works quite well for books, movies etc. Why not for challenges?

 

i don't agree with that simply because people have different tastes, in the context of challenges, what qualifies anyone out there to tell me what i like and don't like?...everyone is capable to make their own decision based on the description

 

The same is true for book and movies. You still can read all the descriptions as for caches and you do not need to make use of suggestions what could fit your preferences and even if you decide to give it a try, you can overrule the outcome. In an area with hundreds of caches, I am not eager to start even reading the descriptions of all caches. The favourite system is also not something helpful for me. I'd like to be directed to caches/challenges that people with a similar preference profile than mine regard as nice to visit.

 

works for movies and books because all you have is a preview or a small summary and the critics that rate those movies and books do so based on having watched or read them

 

What you ignore here is that most of us know many locations. We can judge them without visiting them again just for the sake of challenges.

 

I am not so much interested into the critics, but in systems that try to make suggestions based on analyzing who has a similar profile of preferences.

 

 

on that logic please tell me why would anyone in his/her right mind vote this one down?....it is one of the Seven Natural Wonders of NA....the only conclusion is that the down votes are just in spite

 

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/view.aspx?cx=CX8E

 

Note that I do not have provided all possible reasons for voting with thumbs down. Neither have I denied that some thumb down votes are just destructive and contra challenge in general. What I am trying to point out is that there are many other reasons for using thumbs down and many of them are not destructive and not anti-challenge in general.

 

BTW: Is there already a cache nearby? I have read some comments that some cache owners are annoyed if challenges get added to their caches. For that reasons, some are asking for distance requirements. I somehow can understand that point of view as well as I am not amused if someone is placing a traditional on one of the (virtual) stages of my multi caches.

 

Edited comment: I do not like that the challenge does not offer an option to provide just a photo of one's GPS-r in front of the waterfall instead of a photograph of oneself.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 29, 2011 by cezanne

[Tahosa and Sons]

 

on that logic please tell me why would anyone in his/her right mind vote this one down?....it is one of the Seven Natural Wonders of NA....the only conclusion is that the down votes are just in spite

 

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/view.aspx?cx=CX8E

 

There is nothing wrong with the location!! Its the notion that these new challenges are the replacement for virtuals. Which is confusing considering what GS posts when someone logs one of my original Virtuals. A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of a location. Depending on the cache "hider," a virtual cache could be to answer a question about a location, an interesting spot, a task, etc. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

 

Because of the nature of these geocaches, you must actually visit the location and acquire the coordinates there before you can post. In addition, although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant logging a visit. Virtuals are now considered waymarks on Waymarking.com.

 

And when you read the information about challenges notice the section So is this a virtual with another name and it says Yes and no. Although Challenges can serve as a virtual cache replacement, they offer many more options. You can think of Geocaching Challenges as a combination of virtual, challenge, and locationless caches. The basic idea, "go somewhere, do something," can find expression in many different forms.

 

Its the Yes and No statement that makes me wonder the logic about these so called challenges. Are challenges really a combination of virtual, challenge, and locationless caches.

[knowschad]

deleted - double post

 

[+PokerLuck]

I've been very disappointed in the challenges that I've seen so far, because most seem pretty lame (take a picture of yourself standing next to a telephone pole). I think challenges should involve a GPS and should require you to do something more challenging or interesting that finding the nearest telephone pole.

 

Your challenge represents exactly what I think challenges should be. Go somewhere interesting (by interesting, I mean there's a reason for going there), do something unique and/or prove that you were there and did it (photos are fine). For that reason, I gave you a thumbs up.

[cezanne]

deleted - double post

 

 

You might want to add a feeddack thread that allows to delete posts if no one has replied so far.

 

Cezanne

[knowschad]

deleted - double post

 

 

You might want to add a feeddack thread that allows to delete posts if no one has replied so far.

 

Cezanne

 

[+tozainamboku]

You guys are over-thinking this.

 

Thumbs up = gud.

Thumbs down = not gud.

 

Flag: yet another challenge published that tries to be "locationless". (Thumbs down optional.)

if gud means "wow" then I agree.

 

Geocachers are familiar with the "wow" guideline from the old virtual caches. Even in the bring back virtual thread, most people agreed that you needed some sort of "wow" to prevent being overrun by lame virtuals. Since there is no cache to find, the reward of a virtual is that it brings you to some place that makes you think "wow".

 

Since challenge aren't reviewed, the voting mechanism is simply a way for the community to give feedback on what challenges they think are "wow" and which aren't.

[cezanne]

Since challenge aren't reviewed, the voting mechanism is simply a way for the community to give feedback on what challenges they think are "wow" and which aren't.

 

Are you sure? The wow concept might fit quite well for virtuals, but what about action challenges where the action is the main aspect or what about worldwide challenges?

 

I also think that a lot depends on which view someone is taking on challenges: For some challenges are like waymarks, but integrated into the gc.com site - those people do not care that much if a challenge collides with existing geocaches and does not add anything additions. For others, challenges should add to what they are already offered at gc.com.

 

I'd really like some more clear statement what thumbs up/down should mean. If we all interpret it in completely different manners, the overall result will not be that helpful.

 

There is a lot of room between

thumbs up/down .... I would/would not enjoy that challenge

thumbs up/down ..... wow factor present yes/no

thumbs up .... meets guidelines and look ok /thumbs down .... the challenge sucks

 

Cezanne

Edited August 29, 2011 by cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

Since challenge aren't reviewed, the voting mechanism is simply a way for the community to give feedback on what challenges they think are "wow" and which aren't.

 

Are you sure? The wow concept might fit quite well for virtuals, but what about action challenges where the action is the main aspect or what about worldwide challenges?

I actually had a longer "toz" style response where I adressed this, but decided I didn't neen the extra paragraphs.

 

Challenges face two kinds of "wow". First is whether the the location is "wow" and second is whether the activity is "wow" meaning fun or otherwise worthwhile to do. For virtuals the "wow" requirement was generally just about the location. But in reality I found that often what I was supposed to do at the virtual contributed quite a bit to whether I found it "wow". For example, virtuals that took me to several specific spots where I needed to get information were generally more interesting than just going to one place and taking a picture of my GPS.

 

I think this applies to worldwide challenges as well. It seems that the ones that are considered more "wow" are those that take you to a specific kind of place to do the action. Kissing a frog on a mountain top or kissing a frog in front of a castle might be better accepted than just kissing a frog.

 

I also think that a lot depends on which view someone is taking on challenges: For some challenges are like waymarks, but integrated into the gc.com site - those people do not care that much if a challenge collides with existing geocaches and does not add anything additions. For others, challenges should add to what they are already offered at gc.com.

I agree that without any proximity guidelines, some geocachers will use the thumbs down to indicate the challenge is too close to a geocache or perhaps that duplicates another challenge.

 

There are already two challenges to take pictures of the Hollywood sign. I was planning a similar challenge to take the picture from the back of the sign. However there is already a geocache here and the cache page and name already indicate that it will give this unusual view. So I didn't submit. However, I think it would be a different (and IMO much more "wow") experience than either of the exisiting challenges.

[Clan Riffster]

I'd really like some more clear statement what thumbs up/down should mean.

 

There is a lot of room between

thumbs up/down .... I would/would not enjoy that challenge

thumbs up/down ..... wow factor present yes/no

thumbs up .... meets guidelines and look ok /thumbs down .... the challenge sucks

While I think your third choice isn't polar enough, (It would be better if it were worded along the lines of, "thumbs up/down .... meets guidelines and look ok/doesn't meet guidelines"), I think the crux of your question can be addressed;

 

I think Groundspeak has stated fairly clearly what the thumbs up/down mean.

 

"Players can rate each Challenge with a thumbs up or thumbs down to help others decide whether it is worth doing"

 

As for Flags vs thumbs, Groundspeak has stated that the Flag button is the one to use if a challenge is inappropriate (defined as spam, unplayable or for offensive or prohibited content), or unplayable, (which I guess is the same as meeting the guidelines? Maybe? I really can't find any guidelines for challenges, though I have found a Knowledge Book article), which would at least indicate that the thumbs up/down buttons serve another purpose. Like, whether or not it's worth doing? I'm thinking that their choice of the word "worth" means they expect the results of the thumbs vote to be completely subjective. I don't agree with Toz's "Wow" interpretation, mostly because I don't agree with his premise that "Geocachers are familiar with the "wow" guideline from the old virtual caches". With the amount of growth we've had since the last Virtual was published, and the attrition of seasoned players dropping out of the game, I would venture to guess that many, if not most active cachers today could not cite the Virtual guidelines.

 

For me, all that is left is, "Do you like it? Is it worth your time? Do you think it would be worthwhile for other players?"

 

Or, as CM said,

Thumbs up = Gud

Thumbs down = Not Gud

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm not voting for "wow". I'm voting for "gud" and "not gud".

 

Still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much over-thinking going on here.

[+Castle Mischief]

For me, all that is left is, "Do you like it? Is it worth your time? Do you think it would be worthwhile for other players?"

 

Or, as CM said,

Thumbs up = Gud

Thumbs down = Not Gud

 

This post = gud.

[+BuckeyeClan]

I'd really like some more clear statement what thumbs up/down should mean.

 

There is a lot of room between

thumbs up/down .... I would/would not enjoy that challenge

thumbs up/down ..... wow factor present yes/no

thumbs up .... meets guidelines and look ok /thumbs down .... the challenge sucks

While I think your third choice isn't polar enough, (It would be better if it were worded along the lines of, "thumbs up/down .... meets guidelines and look ok/doesn't meet guidelines"), I think the crux of your question can be addressed;

 

I think Groundspeak has stated fairly clearly what the thumbs up/down mean.

 

"Players can rate each Challenge with a thumbs up or thumbs down to help others decide whether it is worth doing"

 

As for Flags vs thumbs, Groundspeak has stated that the Flag button is the one to use if a challenge is inappropriate (defined as spam, unplayable or for offensive or prohibited content), or unplayable, (which I guess is the same as meeting the guidelines? Maybe? I really can't find any guidelines for challenges, though I have found a Knowledge Book article), which would at least indicate that the thumbs up/down buttons serve another purpose. Like, whether or not it's worth doing? I'm thinking that their choice of the word "worth" means they expect the results of the thumbs vote to be completely subjective. I don't agree with Toz's "Wow" interpretation, mostly because I don't agree with his premise that "Geocachers are familiar with the "wow" guideline from the old virtual caches". With the amount of growth we've had since the last Virtual was published, and the attrition of seasoned players dropping out of the game, I would venture to guess that many, if not most active cachers today could not cite the Virtual guidelines.

 

For me, all that is left is, "Do you like it? Is it worth your time? Do you think it would be worthwhile for other players?"

 

Or, as CM said,

Thumbs up = Gud

Thumbs down = Not Gud

 

I'm just guessing here, but I interpret "unplayable" to mean that the conditions have changed and the challenge can no longer be done--the statue got torn down, the bridge washed away, the tree got struck by lightning and was chopped up for firewood. (Which has me wondering--all the block party challenges, should we be flagging them as "unplayable" since they could only be done at the block party? ) Since the challenge isn't owned, and the creator can't archive it because conditions have changed, it is up to the community to do that.

 

But I'm with ya on the voting: "gud", or "not gud"! Though I will abstain from voting for "meh".

[cezanne]

I think Groundspeak has stated fairly clearly what the thumbs up/down mean.

 

"Players can rate each Challenge with a thumbs up or thumbs down to help others decide whether it is worth doing"

 

That could mean a lot. A system of the type I would like would allow cacher A to see which challenges cacher B has thumbed up or down and knowing the preferences of cacher B the votes of B would help A.

 

In contrast to many cachers almost all challenges I have seen so far do not involve a surprise factor.

 

For me, all that is left is, "Do you like it? Is it worth your time? Do you think it would be worthwhile for other players?"

 

My personal problem with that is that it might well be that I do not like a challenge/a cache and regard it as wasting my time while I think it be wothwhile for many others and vice versa. I would need two votes - a personal one (that could help cachers with similar preferences) and a vote regarding my more objective opinion. I guess it is easier for more average people (not intended as insult or in any way negative!) than for people like me.

 

 

Or, as CM said,

Thumbs up = Gud

Thumbs down = Not Gud

 

I need to admit that while wow means something to me with respect to caches, gud means nothing to me. I guess that gud stands for good, but I am neither able nor willing to classify challenges or caches into good and bad.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 29, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

Challenges face two kinds of "wow". First is whether the the location is "wow" and second is whether the activity is "wow" meaning fun or otherwise worthwhile to do. For virtuals the "wow" requirement was generally just about the location. But in reality I found that often what I was supposed to do at the virtual contributed quite a bit to whether I found it "wow". For example, virtuals that took me to several specific spots where I needed to get information were generally more interesting than just going to one place and taking a picture of my GPS.

 

I also prefer getting information and in this way learning something to taking photographs. The action challenges, however, are rather about different sorts of action and not searching answers to questions.

 

I guess my personal understanding of wow does not apply at all to actions like phooning, planking, performing handstands etc

 

Part of my problem might be that I might understand the term "fun" in a different way than the word is used in the US.

E.g. I noticed that the newest worldwide challenge

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/view.aspx?cx=CX19EA

asks the cachers to tell a few fun facts about the creation of the fountain one has chosen to visit.

When I read this, I was left confused. I could have understood if they asked for a few interesting facts (history, art, architecture etc) about the creation of the fountain, but why in the world fun facts?

 

 

Cezanne

Edited August 29, 2011 by cezanne