Flagging/Archiving Challenges

[+Lachwurzn]

It's one thing to show the people that commented positivly about a cache (Favorites) and another to show who commented negatively. Groundspeak is monitoring the excessive down-thumbing and the flagging.

 

I buy your argument even though there is already enough negative commenting in normal Cache Logs and there is no drama because of that. However, no amount of manual monitoring will be able to cope with the number of Challenges popping up once this Geocaching subsystem takes off, being used by the gazillion of cachers out there. I agree that Groundspeak (even with its limited resources) wants to get some understanding how the new idea is actually used/misused before they implement any better rules into source code, but the final solution must be via automatism, not human intervention. Let the humans concentrate on architecting proper rules and let the computers do the work... ;-)

 

Specifically, I would raise the number of "flags" necessary to archive a Challenge based on the number of "Thumbs Up" it already received. By doing so, it will be harder for the spoilsports to ruin an Challenge other people like.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Lachwurzn

[cezanne]

As your Engste Gasse challenge is regarded and if the text is still the same, I guess it might get new flags anyway as not everyone will appreciate the sarcastic way it is written up and some might think that it is not fitting the criteria of a light and fun entertainment.

I know you think that what you write is funny, but there are different types of humour.

NB: I did not flag your challenge.

 

I totally agree that humor is very subjective. However, exactly the same type of humor made my series of 4 Multi-Caches within Vienna become top-10 of the country - holding >1400 logs without a single complaint, but lots of applause.

 

I do not agree. The multi caches do not seem to get personal.

 

I therefore strongly believe that this is not the reason behind the flagging. And even if it is... would you accept that I flag your Cache just because I don't agree with a statement in the listing, don't like Nanos or find a misspelling ?

 

As I said I do not know the reason for why your challenge has flagged. We cannot compare caches and challenges as caches get reviewed. Thumbs up/down is for giving feedback on personal liking/disliking.

 

What I meant was that some comments in your challenge might be received as insulting by some cachers. I am not sure whether you would get such a text through the review process in the US. In Austria the reviewers hardly object against anything in this regard - they are much more liberal than some other reviewers and cachers I know.

 

I still think that this is just a very local sign of community protest against anything new appearing on geocaching.com (or any changes to Geocaching at all) - compare this with the heat of discussions when semi-commercial caches by NÖ-Werbung appeared...

 

Certainly a community aspect is involved, but some challenges disappear much quicker than others and some really should disappear. Some of the action challenges (such as donate 1 Euro etc) are clearly locationless. Go to the Ringstrasse is also not location specific enough in my point of view, and yes, I know the Ringstrasse and have been there often.

Some of the challenges like the one at St Stephens cathedral were fine from the formal point of view, but somehow boring for the locals. (I am not saying that this is a reason for flagging them, but for voting thumbs down from my point of view. I cannot see a point for challenges duplicating caches.)

 

Why don't we openly show the userIDs of people who flagged something ? I sure understand the psychology reason behind it, but we do it for favorites as well, right ?

 

Flagging is a kind of review process and many reviewers around the world (not in Austria, but almost everywhere else) are anonymous. I am pretty sure that if someone flags a locationless challenge in Vienna, he will receive insulting mails.

 

Cezanne

[+Lachwurzn]

Some of the challenges like the one at St Stephens cathedral were fine from the formal point of view, but somehow boring for the locals.

 

If we remove all boring Challenges worldwide, we will end up with having 99% removed. And it's not that much better for normal Caches. So that can't be an argument.

 

Please note that I'm not defending my own Challenge, which has been created with the single goal of learning to understand the system and comprehend the emotional and psychological reasoning behind the environment including the community reaction. If the whole Challenges subsystem disappears tomorrow altogether, I personally won't cry about it.

 

What I see here is that the bold move from a reviewer-based system for cache quality into a community-based system is much bigger than it was expected. Will it ever work ? Maybe, but we have a long way to go...

[+Lachwurzn]

[some of the action challenges (such as donate 1 Euro etc) are clearly locationless. Go to the Ringstrasse is also not location specific enough in my point of view, and yes, I know the Ringstrasse and have been there often.

 

Take a look at the leading worldwide Challenges. Which one is location-specific ?

[+Panther&Pine]

[some of the action challenges (such as donate 1 Euro etc) are clearly locationless. Go to the Ringstrasse is also not location specific enough in my point of view, and yes, I know the Ringstrasse and have been there often.

 

Take a look at the leading worldwide Challenges. Which one is location-specific ?

Groundspeak can make locationless GeoTasks.

[+Frank Broughton]

Has anybody seen an instance where an archived Challenge has been restored? If not, then I suspect nobody is reviewing the archived Challenges.

 

We review every reported challenge, though currently we're going through a move so we can't be as quick as we normally are. It helps us to understand which ones are being reported and archived and we do unarchive them when they don't fit the report.

 

When we receive the report we see exactly who reports them, so there is no anonymous reporting happening on the back side. If we see abuse we deal with it on an individual basis.

 

In the case of CX330, listed above, it was reported two separate times, archived, and subsequently unarchived again. Both times there were different users reporting this particular Challenge.

 

Jeremy, thank you for sharing this bit of information. Glad things are being monitored.

 

I hear improvements are on the way, have a time frame on the upgrades to challenges? I know ya are busy today with the move and all.

[+Frank Broughton]

Would it not be more useful to challenge creators if a comment was *required* when someone passes judgment (bad or good) on a challenge, so they know how to make challenges better in the future?

 

Personally I have made that a requirement. I leave a explanatory note when I vote either way.

[+Lachwurzn]

Would it not be more useful to challenge creators if a comment was *required* when someone passes judgment (bad or good) on a challenge, so they know how to make challenges better in the future?

 

Personally I have made that a requirement. I leave a explanatory note when I vote either way.

 

That's nice, but not needed for "Thumbs up/down" voting. However, I think it would definitely make sense to ask for a mandatory comment when "flagging" a Challenge.

[+BuckeyeClan]

Would it not be more useful to challenge creators if a comment was *required* when someone passes judgment (bad or good) on a challenge, so they know how to make challenges better in the future?

 

Personally I have made that a requirement. I leave a explanatory note when I vote either way.

 

That's nice, but not needed for "Thumbs up/down" voting. However, I think it would definitely make sense to ask for a mandatory comment when "flagging" a Challenge.

 

At first I was leaving a comment when I would flag a challenge for being locationless, but then I noticed that these were disappearing very very quickly--sometimes I think my vote is "the last straw", so to speak. Once it's archived, nobody, even the creator, can see what was written. So I decided that there was no point in leaving a comment that nobody would likely see.

[+Lachwurzn]

AND it will be one more reason for users to upgrade (i.e. more money for you ;-).

I do not think that anyone will upgrade to be able to flag challenges.

 

Exactly that's my point. It takes just a couple of minutes to create a dozen of basic member IDs and then "flag-away" all Challenges as a misused tool for protest against it. But I don't think that people would actually buy a second or third Premium Membership just to do that.

 

In other words... allowing only Premium Members to flag Challenges will make the system more stable against sabotage.

 

To cite a real example again... my CX1ACF Challenge which I created yesterday has been auto-archived again. In those few hours that it was online, it got 11 thumbs up and 2 thumbs down with 9 acceptances (which is a better ratio than the leading worldwide challenges). So I think it is safe to say that this specific instance hit quite high local interest. Yet somebody decided to invest a few mouse clicks to send it into digital paradise.

[cezanne]

[some of the action challenges (such as donate 1 Euro etc) are clearly locationless. Go to the Ringstrasse is also not location specific enough in my point of view, and yes, I know the Ringstrasse and have been there often.

 

Take a look at the leading worldwide Challenges. Which one is location-specific ?

 

I am aware of those, but in contrast to those cachers who come up with locationless challenges I do know that worldwide challenges are only to be issued by Groundspeak. I regard it as quite unfortunate that so few cachers have read about that before they come up with their challenges. It is similar to the situation that more and more cache listings that the reviewers receive violate the guidelines in some severe aspects in the first round of reviewing. There is certainly a better use for the time of the reviewers and us all than educating those who are not willing to invest some time before starting to come up with challenges/caches.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

 

In other words... allowing only Premium Members to flag Challenges will make the system more stable against sabotage.

 

There are other ways to achieve the same stability without treating non PMs as second class. Flagging challenges without abusing the system is a contribution to the community that should not be limited to PM.

You seem to claim that all honest and serious cachers are PM which clearly is wrong. Among the most profilic cachers from Vienna there are some who are not PM. I am also not a PM and will never become one and money is not the reason.

 

To cite a real example again... my CX1ACF Challenge which I created yesterday has been auto-archived again.

 

So does it still have the same contents that might be regarded as insulting by some people?

 

 

As to whether always the same people send Viennese challenges to the archive, only Groundspeak will be able to investigate. I only have flagged some locationless ones.

 

Cezanne

[+Lachwurzn]

There are other ways to achieve the same stability without treating non PMs as second class.

 

Then would you please come up with such helpful suggestions for "other ways" instead of simply using my statements out of context ? I had developed a certain logic behind that which you are simply ignoring.

 

You seem to claim that all honest and serious cachers are PM which clearly is wrong.

 

I never stated anything even remotely like that. Honesty is for sure distributed equally among these groups. Seriousness about the pastime is a different story, but not subject of discussion of this thread.

 

So does it still have the same contents that might be regarded as insulting by some people?

 

Why are you constantly alleging that something in the text is insulting without stating what you actually mean - and what a significant number of fellow local Geocachers does not see ?

 

As to whether always the same people send Viennese challenges to the archive, only Groundspeak will be able to investigate. I only have flagged some locationless ones.

 

At least we now know one nitpicker who is flagging Viennese caches...

Edited September 1, 2011 by Lachwurzn

[+NYPaddleCacher]

[some of the action challenges (such as donate 1 Euro etc) are clearly locationless. Go to the Ringstrasse is also not location specific enough in my point of view, and yes, I know the Ringstrasse and have been there often.

 

Take a look at the leading worldwide Challenges. Which one is location-specific ?

 

Worldwide Challenges are, by definition, not location specific and although only Groundspeak can create an "official" worldwide challenge, anyone else can create a non-location specific challenge simply because there is no pre-publish review process. It's up to us, as a community to flag non-location specific challenges. It's basically the same as someone going to a park, digging a hole, burying the container in the hole, then submitting a traditional cache listing. Since reviewers don't go out and check the hide for every cache they review, as long as the CO omits the fact that it's buried (and it adheres to all other guidelines), it's going to get published. It's up to us, as a community to determine (but finding the cache) if the cache violates the "no buried caches" or any other guideline that the reviewer can't verify, then post an Needs Archived log.

[cezanne]

There are other ways to achieve the same stability without treating non PMs as second class.

 

Then would you please come up with such helpful suggestions for "other ways" instead of simply using my statements out of context ? I had developed a certain logic behind that which you are simply ignoring.

 

I am not using your suggestions out of context. You claimed PMs to be the more serious cachers.

As solving the issue is regarded, Groundspeak appears to want to go their way anyway. I would have some ideas as how I would attack the problem, but I am quite sure that my ideas are different from what Groundspeak would like to do.

 

 

So does it still have the same contents that might be regarded as insulting by some people?

 

Why are you constantly alleging that something in the text is insulting without stating what you actually mean - and what a significant number of fellow local Geocachers does not see ?

 

I wrote that some people might not appreciate some parts of the text. They might it regard as not political correct. I never said that the text *is* insulting. I might imagine that e.g. someone with serious overweight might not appreciate part of the text and/or the task. I am not a fan of the "light fun activity" philosophy of geocaching, but some are.

 

 

At least we now know one nitpicker who is flagging Viennese caches...

 

Some locationless ones yes (if they come to my attention - I am not searching for them) - yours no. Groundspeak is asking us to flag locationless no issued by Groundspeak - so this is definitely not nitpicking. I would prefer if Groundspeak would do the work by themselves. Donating one Euro to one in the need can be done everywhere in the world, the same is true for doing maintenance work for at least five caches not owned by oneself. I would not even talk of Viennese challenges in these examples. They are attached with coordinates in Vienna and have been issued by people who did not bother to read the instructions about challenges and just came up with what ever they regard as a nice idea.

 

What you write above reminds me of all the debates about caches that are clearly against the guidelines where the few that object are attacked and they are provided with the argument you need not go there. The issue with locationless challenges issued by normal cachers is that those who follow the rules by Groundspeak are in the end the losers, and that is not ok from my point of view.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 1, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

[ It's up to us, as a community to determine (but finding the cache) if the cache violates the "no buried caches" or any other guideline that the reviewer can't verify, then post an Needs Archived log.

 

Try to do that in in some parts of Austria and you will certainly earn a lot of negative comments up to insults except in very special cases. There are very few cachers who are willing to get exposed in that way.

 

While I am sad about all that abuse of the flagging feature for challenges and do not welcome that many challenges have been flagged without deserving it, I am likewise unhappy about the attitude in parts of the Austrian caching community. The fact that one is attacked if one tries to follow the rules, might contribute to a lot of sock puppet activity when NA logs and flags for challenges are concerned.

 

Cezanne

[+AnnaMoritz]

 

You [Lachwurzn] seem to claim that all honest and serious cachers are PM which clearly is wrong. Among the most profilic cachers from Vienna there are some who are not PM. I am also not a PM and will never become one and money is not the reason.

 

I keep thinking there is no difference between premium and non-premium "serious" or "profilic" members.

 

When it was said that Groundspeak is looking closer who is flagging the viennese challenges, it seemed to me that the speed of archiving slowed down significantly.

 

Maybee I'm wrong, but I personally think there is perhaps more than one "profilic, serious" (premium/non premium) member who was clever enough to create one or more (non premium) sock puppet accounts that come in handy now for flagging all challenges, even those clearly locationbased, familiy-friendly, leightweight, easy to play and not containing anything that someone might feel is not PC, just to keep Vienna free from challenges.

 

A few persons like Cezanne might feel the need to flag viennese challenges when they think they are against the rules and do this even with their own account.

 

Why do I believe it's "profilic, serious" members doing the flagging, no matter what gets flagged? First: If you were new to the game you probably wouldn't be upset to see challenges watering down true good old geocaching. You would simply ignore challenges if you don't like them, especially as founds/completed are counted separately now - if it doesn't spoil your own geocaches at a specific location. Second: The only two remaining/back from archive viennese challenges are a webcam (it's like the old webcam-caches) and St.Stephens, one of the main sightseeing sites in Vienna (there isn't a physical cache-container anyway on this prominent place).

 

If Groundspeak wants to see challenges in Vienna then there has to be some change in archiving policy. Or otherwise simply accept that two challenges are more than enough for Vienna.

[+Avernar]

You claimed PMs to be the more serious cachers.

No he didn't. You missed a small detail in his logic. He said that trouble makers would be willing to create a bunch of free basic accounts to vote challenges down but wouldn't create a bunch of paid PM accounts to vote challenges down.

[+Lachwurzn]

You claimed PMs to be the more serious cachers.

No he didn't. You missed a small detail in his logic. He said that trouble makers would be willing to create a bunch of free basic accounts to vote challenges down but wouldn't create a bunch of paid PM accounts to vote challenges down.

 

Thanks. Couldn't have said it better.

And I fully agree with any word that AnnaMoritz has stated.

 

It's a fact for any type of activity that there is a percentage of at least 2% being spoilsports that harm the overall community. Unfortunately, these Challenges (at least with the current rules/code being established) currently already suffer from less than 0.2% (assuming 2000 local Viennese Geocachers)...

 

As solving the issue is regarded, Groundspeak appears to want to go their way anyway. I would have some ideas as how I would attack the problem, but I am quite sure that my ideas are different from what Groundspeak would like to do.

 

You have different ideas on what Groundspeak would do yet are following their rules strictly to the point and are deleting community contributions that are enjoyed by the majority of people ? You lack some consistency here.

 

 

I'd like to re-confirm that I would like to restrict flagging rights to Premium Members. If nothing else, then simply for consistency because only PMs are allowed to create Challenges right now. So they should also be the only ones allowed to remove them.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Lachwurzn

[+thebruce0]

has any consideration been given to have a proximity guideline?...it really makes no sense to have 10 people listing a challenge at the same spot, which right now to my knowledge there is nothing to stop them from doing so

I'm not sure that would be best, as there may be challenges requiring different tasks though at the same/nearby location. Perhaps more relevant would be to provide a short list of the closest challenges next to the flag option (perhaps specifically a 'duplicate' flag?), so that one can compare with nearby challenges and decide if it's a similar or duplicate task before clicking the flag?

 

I'd like to re-confirm that I would like to restrict flagging rights to Premium Members. If nothing else, then simply for consistency because only PMs are allowed to create Challenges right now. So they should also be the only ones allowed to remove them.

Agreed!

[+Castle Mischief]

I buy your argument even though there is already enough negative commenting in normal Cache Logs and there is no drama because of that.

 

I disagree. There's drama for negative cache logs all the time.

[+CanadianRockies]

It's a fact for any type of activity that there is a percentage of at least 2% being spoilsports that harm the overall community.

A "fact." Really? Not an opinion? Not an educated guess? And for any type of activity? Even extra-vehicular activities (spacewalks) around the International Space Station? Care to list the 2% of that activity's participants who are spoilsports who harm the overall community?

 

Unfortunately, these Challenges (at least with the current rules/code being established) currently already suffer from less than 0.2% (assuming 2000 local Viennese Geocachers)...

So, are you claiming that fewer than 4 Viennese geocachers are archiving the Viennese Challenges? How would you possibly know this? I thought the archiving algorithm was a secret. And I thought any geocacher from any part of the world could flag Challenges.

 

You have different ideas on what Groundspeak would do yet are following their rules strictly to the point and are deleting community contributions that are enjoyed by the majority of people?

Even if a majority of people enjoy an inappropriate challenge, I believe it still should get flagged for archival.

 

I'd like to re-confirm that I would like to restrict flagging rights to Premium Members. If nothing else, then simply for consistency because only PMs are allowed to create Challenges right now. So they should also be the only ones allowed to remove them.

Groundspeak has initially allowed only PMs to create Challenges because they don't want too many Challenges being created right away. Allowing all geocachers to flag inappropriate Challenges would seem to be more consistent with that goal than restricting flagging to PMs only.

Edited September 1, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+AnnaMoritz]

[ It's up to us, as a community to determine (but finding the cache) if the cache violates the "no buried

caches" or any other guideline that the reviewer can't verify, then post an Needs Archived log.

 

Try to do that in in some parts of Austria and you will certainly earn a lot of negative comments up to

insults except in very special cases. There are very few cachers who are willing to get exposed in that way.

 

... I am likewise unhappy about the attitude in parts of the Austrian caching community. The fact that one is

attacked if one tries to follow the rules, might contribute to a lot of sock puppet activity when NA logs and

flags for challenges are concerned.

 

Cezanne

 

An egyptian proverb says: You should whirl up only that amount of sand/dust you can swallow.

 

I can understand that most people don't want to be involved in showing up things that they think are against the guidlines because generally it is not welcomed to spoil the fun other cachers have with that caches or challenges or their way of caching.

 

Geocaching is (only) a game, played in the way the players want to, often regardless of what guidelines say.

 

I try to respect the guidelines when placing a cache (don't think I'm going to create a challenge in the near future). If I think it helps another owner, I propose them what to change in order to bring their geocache closer to what the guidelines say. If there is a full or mouldy logbook or a damaged box I post NM. When I see something at a cache-location that might endanger other people, I try to fix it and write my concern in the log and/or contact the owner. But these owners often are aware of the situation, well connected and react bold. Perhaps in this case indeed NM or NA would be better.

 

But is it my task to report challenges? Or fake coordinates or geocaches at LPs, roman ruins, on bridges or trees that obviously don't have permission but are backed by the majority of the "profilic and serious" premium/non premium members? Perhaps I'm not well instructed and missed the chapters of the guidelines that encourage me to report such things.

 

It is rumoured that there is a special task force of secret caching police for this in Austria.

But I admit that there are cases where every cacher should show civil courage.

Edited September 1, 2011 by AnnaMoritz

[+Lachwurzn]

A "fact." Really? Not an opinion? Not an educated guess? And for any type of activity? Even extra-vehicular activities (spacewalks) around the International Space Station? Care to list the 2% of that activity's participants who are spoilsports who harm the overall community?

 

A secret study that I cannot reveal to you unless I shoot you. No, seriously.. I admit my errors and this was imprecise wording (also based on the fact that English is not my native language). It was an educated guess to stress my point.

 

So, are you claiming that fewer than 4 Viennese geocachers are archiving the Viennese Challenges? How would you possibly know this? I thought the archiving algorithm was a secret. And I thought any geocacher from any part of the world could flag Challenges.

 

By closely watching my own Challenge and testing in cooperation with other Challenge owners. Remember... probably nobody has more experience with archived Challenges than I do as I have re-created mine 6 times now. Obviously, I can't prove it. But I got some data to extrapolate such a claim and unless somebody comes up with a better number based on their experience, I go with my own studies.

 

Groundspeak has initially allowed only PMs to create Challenges because they don't want too many Challenges being created right away. Allowing all geocachers to flag inappropriate Challenges would seem to be more consistent with that goal than restricting flagging to PMs only.

 

Using boldface characters doesn't make an argument better or more logical. Let me compare this with something everybody can relate to...

 

In most countries on this planet, the respective government sets the rules concerning speeding in car traffic. In almost all of these, the government (respectively their law executives) also is the only one who can punish somebody offending traffic laws. Imagine what happens when they allow anybody to stop&punish anybody else for traffic offending.

Yes, there are some societies who do something like that based on rules set by community agreement. But the point is... the rules have been set by the society/community and not a "government".

 

In Geocaching terms: Groundspeak sets the rules, but uses an unlimited number of self-proclaimed policemen to enforce them - often based on unprecise rules rather open for interpretation. At the moment, I can't think of any other closed environment where such an approach works well. If you do, let me know.

 

In essence, I think we need more intelligent rules, less policemen and above all an understanding that THIS IS JUST A GAME. Don't take this so utterly serious. Don't spoil other people's fun !

Edited September 2, 2011 by Lachwurzn

[knowschad]

Using boldface characters doesn't make an argument better or more logical. Let me compare this with something everybody can relate to...

 

Really? It's a fact for any argument that there is a percentage of at least 2% of readers being more convinced of the logic when boldface characters are used.

 

Really.

[+Tribble_Fun]

Using boldface characters doesn't make an argument better or more logical. Let me compare this with something everybody can relate to...

 

Really? It's a fact for any argument that there is a percentage of at least 2% of readers being more convinced of the logic when boldface characters are used.

 

Really.

*lol*

 

In fact 84.3 % of statistics are made up on the spot.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Reini68

[cezanne]

You claimed PMs to be the more serious cachers.

No he didn't. You missed a small detail in his logic. He said that trouble makers would be willing to create a bunch of free basic accounts to vote challenges down but wouldn't create a bunch of paid PM accounts to vote challenges down.

 

That's not true. His orginal statement in posting #32 was as follows:

 

I think flagging should be restricted to Premium Members. They are usually more serious about the Geocaching philosophy AND it will be one more reason for users to upgrade (i.e. more money for you ;-).

 

The sockpuppet argument came later than the statement above.

I agree on the sock puppet aspect and on that something needs to be done about unjustified archivals of challenges (I am not anti-challenge), but object against the statement that PMs are usually more serious about geocaching philosophy.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 3, 2011 by cezanne

[cezanne]

 

In Geocaching terms: Groundspeak sets the rules, but uses an unlimited number of self-proclaimed policemen to enforce them - often based on unprecise rules rather open for interpretation. At the moment, I can't think of any other closed environment where such an approach works well. If you do, let me know.

 

In essence, I think we need more intelligent rules, less policemen and above all an understanding that THIS IS JUST A GAME. Don't take this so utterly serious. Don't spoil other people's fun !

 

I strongly object against your claim that people who flag locationless challenges as we are all asked to do by Groundspeak are referred to as policemen. Yes, challenges are not something highly serious, but it is Groundspeak's activity and if they decide that worldwide challenges are issued only by them and ask us cachers to notify them of challenges violating that rule, it is part of the game to comply with Groundspeak's wish. If you think that normal cachers should be able to come up with locationless challenges themselves, create a feedback topic. In any case, world wide challenges need to be listed among world wide challenges and not be associated with coordinates. Most cachers object against if a multi cache is listed as traditional because this confuses people - this is not regarded as policing. The same is true for challenges that are locationless in nature, but coupled to some arbitray coordinates. Who wants to have 300 challenges around the world where we are asked to donate some money to those in the need?

 

There are some rules that make sense. Having fun is not the only aspect that plays a role. For example, caches placed at active railway bridges are illegal and many of them are very dangerous. I do know that lots of people enjoy such climbing activities. While I personally refrain from posting needs archived logs for such caches, I am very sad that those who create such logs with their own account and explain their concern are so negatively received within parts of the Austrian geocaching community.

Actually, I do not know any other country where those that raise legitimate concerns are frowned upon in a similar way.

I guess that in Austria a log like Eigengott's log for this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=300b0bbc-a6d2-4f13-aff5-ccde24326949&log=y&decrypt=

would result in serious threats.

 

Cezanne

[+Avernar]

The sockpuppet argument came later than the statement above.

He clarified it later on. I was giving him a little leeway as he's not a native english speaker.

 

But his point still stands, PMs are less likely to risk their account being banned than basic members as they've got money invested in it. Groundspeak is tracking who is excessively voting challenges down.

[cezanne]

The sockpuppet argument came later than the statement above.

He clarified it later on. I was giving him a little leeway as he's not a native english speaker.

 

I do agree only to some extent. When a PM is creating a new basic member account, it is still the PM (and his geocaching philosophy) who makes abuse of the flagging procedure. Flagging is done by the people behind the accounts.

As the native language is regarded: I did not get the impression that a language issue was involved. (No Germanism involved.)

 

But his point still stands, PMs are less likely to risk their account being banned than basic members as they've got money invested in it. Groundspeak is tracking who is excessively voting challenges down.

 

See my argument above. If a person has several accounts, it is still the same person.

I guess that a PM with 10 finds is less scared about getting banned than a basic member with 3000 finds.

(Basic members would need to reinstall their logs in quite a tedious way.)

I do not believe in Groundspeak's ability to really track down IP addresses in a reliable way as there are lots of possibilities to use all sorts of tricks. They might be able to block accounts that almost surely appear to be sockpuppet accounts, but it will be hard for them in many cases to find out which PM is behind the action and owns the other account. (Note that many cachers are IT-experts.)

 

A while ago a sockpuppet account with 0 finds and 0 hides was used to log numerous NA logs for Austrian caches. After sometime the account got locked. I am convinced that a PM was behind this action. Without PQs it is already hard to obtain a list of all disabled caches of a country.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 3, 2011 by cezanne

[+Avernar]

I do agree only to some extent. When a PM is creating a new basic member account, it is still the PM (and his geocaching philosophy) who makes abuse of the flagging procedure. Flagging is done by the people behind the accounts.

 

See my argument above. If a person has several accounts, it is still the same person.

 

That argument actually proves the point. PM members will just create basic acounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. Basic members will also just create additional basic accounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. If you restrict flagging to PM accounts then both PM and basic members will not create PM accounts to flag challenges down.

 

Unfortunately that negatively affects basic members who legitimately want to rate challenges.

[cezanne]

PM members will just create basic acounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. Basic members will also just create additional basic accounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. If you restrict flagging to PM accounts then both PM and basic members will not create PM accounts to flag challenges down.

 

Unfortunately that negatively affects basic members who legitimately want to rate challenges.

 

There are way more clever ways to deal with the issue, however, than restricting flagging to PMs (which would be similar to restricting need archived logs to PM members and automatizing the handling of NA logs). Moreover, it does not require at all to claim that PMs have a more serious geocaching philosophy.

 

I would not object if Groundspeak reviews the challenges - if they do not, they need the input of the whole community.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 3, 2011 by cezanne

[+Cybercat]

So is there a new policy regarding Challenge caches now? I've done several lately and my total smiley count hasn't increased. So are they not counting them now? Can't seem to find any recent discussions about this..............?

[+BuckeyeClan]

So is there a new policy regarding Challenge caches now? I've done several lately and my total smiley count hasn't increased. So are they not counting them now? Can't seem to find any recent discussions about this..............?

 

They are separating out the count. If you go to the main page, and look in the upper right, it should show how many caches you've found beside the smiley face, and how many challenges you've completed beside the super-dude icon. These also now show in your online logs. If you haven't done any challenges, the super-dude icon doesn't show up at all.

[+Tribble_Fun]

PM members will just create basic acounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. Basic members will also just create additional basic accounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. If you restrict flagging to PM accounts then both PM and basic members will not create PM accounts to flag challenges down.

 

Unfortunately that negatively affects basic members who legitimately want to rate challenges.

 

There are way more clever ways to deal with the issue, however, than restricting flagging to PMs (which would be similar to restricting need archived logs to PM members and automatizing the handling of NA logs). Moreover, it does not require at all to claim that PMs have a more serious geocaching philosophy.

 

I would not object if Groundspeak reviews the challenges - if they do not, they need the input of the whole community.

 

Cezanne

 

I see the points as a thesis that combined with an antitheses might lead to good solution. Hearing all your points, why not "Let more experienced people flag." Criterias to value a vote might be:

 

• number of finds
  
• premium member
  
• cache hides
  
• other activities for the geocaching world
  
• ...
  

 

Mix these factors together in a way that Groundspeak defines and get a value for the vote. A newbie like me would probably only have half a vote or even less, a sockpuppet with no finds at all or only recent finds would probably have only a 0.001-vote. A longterm member with thousands of finds, a lot of hides, and so on would have a full vote. This would take into account that people who risk much when abusing the system are less likely to do that.

 

Best regards

 

PS: The meta-discussion about what Lachwurzn meant and whether he phrased it correctly is neither improving the results of this topic nor is it useful in any other respect. Just my € 0.02

[+Lachwurzn]

There are way more clever ways to deal with the issue, however, than restricting flagging to PMs (which would be similar to restricting need archived logs to PM members and automatizing the handling of NA logs). Moreover, it does not require at all to claim that PMs have a more serious geocaching philosophy.

 

I would not object if Groundspeak reviews the challenges - if they do not, they need the input of the whole community.

 

Cezanne and I have started an extensive offline discussion to clarify some (rather emotional) items that are not relevant to the systemic issue here.

 

All I want to achieve is to find a solution which allows to:

 

+ avoid those cases where people "flag" a Challenge without the intention to indicate that it does not conform to the rules/ideas and without the knowledge that they will contribute to auto-archiving

+ avoid those cases where people are flagging just to protest against Challenges altogether

 

Let me give an example for the first item above: if you look at the Smartphone app for Challenges (I think it is available for both iOS as well as Android devices), you will see that it is for free, is extremely easy to install and use and is available in English language only. The current GUI for Challenges shows the "flag" icon as the first one, followed by "rate" and "comment". I strongly believe that many people (especially those where English is not their native language) will believe that "flag" means something like "mark it for later usage" and do NOT understand that it is more or less for reporting problems. It's not well documented and it's just too easy to use.

 

Restricting flagging to PMs was just ONE idea to solve both of the problems above. Another one would be to restrict it to those who have already found a certain (small?) amount of "normal" caches or Challenges (indicating a higher probability that they understand what's behind it and have read the rules), but it will probably not help with the second issue mentioned above.

 

There will for sure be other/better ideas. So let's discuss them - it's what will help Groundspeak to improve the current implementation.

 

Hearing all your points, why not "Let more experienced people flag." Criterias to value a vote might be:

 

Interesting idea, Reini ! It would certainly help with the first problem I described above ("unintentional flagging").

Playing devil's advocate, I see a couple of minor problems with the approach:

 

- it's rather hard to implement from a development effort point of view.

- it gives "point hunters" (or whatever the correct international term for the German "Punktegeier" is) an unfair advantage. There are many very experienced cachers who have only a minimum number of finds whereas there are power trail experts who...

- as any other slightly complex voting system, it automatically raises a lot of discussion about fairness of the rules. There will be endless fights about the details.

- somebody mentioned that he believes that it's actually the long-term and experienced Cachers who are flagging Challenges as a matter of protest against the idea.

 

But again... it's an idea worth discussing and might lead somebody else to an even better one.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Lachwurzn

[+Lachwurzn]

See my argument above. If a person has several accounts, it is still the same person.

 

That argument actually proves the point. PM members will just create basic acounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. Basic members will also just create additional basic accounts to flag challenges down so their main account won't be banned. If you restrict flagging to PM accounts then both PM and basic members will not create PM accounts to flag challenges down.

 

Unfortunately that negatively affects basic members who legitimately want to rate challenges.

 

Well, I would strictly separate RATING from FLAGGING. Let anyone (basic & PM members) RATE a Challenge, but let only PM members FLAG one. Again, the only difference between PMs and non-PMs for me (concerning this systemic discussion) is that people usually don't have multiple PM accounts because it costs real money. So it's a good & simple method to achieve a "one vote per person" environment without going into the difficult area of IP address storing or whatever else.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Lachwurzn

[+PISA-caching]

- it's rather hard to implement from a development effort point of view.

 

A cacher has to have 10 finds to create a favorite. It shouldn't be too difficult to use a similar algorithm for flagging challenges.

 

Also: Please (everybody) stop the childish discussion about the good/bad character of Premium/Standard users. As we all know both are humans and in almost every group of humans you will find good and bad ones. Instead we should talk about user accounts. They might be good ones or evil ones that were only created to abuse the system. The goal has to be to stop that abuse and meanwhile Groundspeak has received many suggestions and I'm sure they have some great ideas too.

 

So let's grant them a little more time and I'm sure they will find the perfect way to make us all happy.

[+Tribble_Fun]

- it's rather hard to implement from a development effort point of view.

 

A cacher has to have 10 finds to create a favorite. It shouldn't be too difficult to use a similar algorithm for flagging challenges.

 

Also: Please (everybody) stop the childish discussion about the good/bad character of Premium/Standard users. As we all know both are humans and in almost every group of humans you will find good and bad ones. Instead we should talk about user accounts. They might be good ones or evil ones that were only created to abuse the system. The goal has to be to stop that abuse and meanwhile Groundspeak has received many suggestions and I'm sure they have some great ideas too.

 

So let's grant them a little more time and I'm sure they will find the perfect way to make us all happy.

+1

[cezanne]

A cacher has to have 10 finds to create a favorite. It shouldn't be too difficult to use a similar algorithm for flagging challenges.

 

But such a limit makes no sense at all as flagging challenges is regarded. It is absurd to have people complete challenges like Kiss a frog and other worldwide challenges to be able to flag locationless challenges showing up at around their home coordinates that are created by cachers who do not care about the few rules for challenges that exist.

Limiting the number of favourites makes some sense for most cachers (not for all). That's not the case for flagging caches that are not appropriate.

 

Cezanne

Edited September 5, 2011 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

Awarding favourite caches is a privilege one receives by going out and finding more caches (even though one might think that anyone should be able to favourite to their heart's content; but it's a community effect, not a personal one)

 

IMO, flagging challenges as inappropriate is a privilege and a responsibility (read: for the responsible), and if there's a way to minimize the irresponsible from incorrect flagging challenges, then that's the best option. Whether it's a matter of limiting the amount of flags one can set, or limited who can set them, obviously it won't please everyone (just like limited favorite points). If you earn the right to flag inappropriate caches, that'll limit it to people who put effort into positive actions in order to flag inappropriate challenges. If you limit it to premium membership, that'll limit it to people who feel that geocaching is worth subscribing to (really, if you love geocaching and are an avid geocacher, why haven't you gone for a PM yet?) - yes, there are good, responsible, respectful, intelligent geocachers who aren't PM, and there the opposite who are. But overall? Earning, or limiting the amount of flags, or limiting flagging to paying members, will certainly help reduce the amount of .. inappropriate inappropriate flagging going on.

 

my 2p

 

For a side-reference, take a look at Slashdot's community moderation system as another possible solution. Moderators are effectively activated at random from the active user list for a period of time during which they can rate and flag a limited number of comments, and the rest of the community can moderate the moderators (meta-moderating) so if they feel that user moderating at the time was not moderating properly, they'll have less chance in the future to moderate again (vice versa).

It's complex, but it works.

Edited September 5, 2011 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

(really, if you love geocaching and are an avid geocacher, why haven't you gone for a PM yet?)

 

That's off-topic here, but

there are many reasons for refraining from becoming PM that have nothing to do with money or dedication to geocaching.

 

Earning, or limiting the amount of flags, or limiting flagging to paying members, will certainly help reduce the amount of .. inappropriate inappropriate flagging going on.

 

But because it will keep PMs and basic members from user sockpuppet accounts for their bogus actions, and not because PMs act more responsibly.

 

 

Cezanne

[+thebruce0]

But because it will keep PMs and basic members from user sockpuppet accounts for their bogus actions, and not because PMs act more responsibly.

This is what I said. However I added that while it's not a blanket statement (PM != responsible), it would certainly make a huge difference.

 

That's off-topic here, but there are many reasons for refraining from becoming PM that have nothing to do with money or dedication to geocaching.

It is off topic, but I'm curious what reason there would be for a geocacher not to pay for a membership, other than not having the $, not being dedicated enough to geocaching to consider it worth the money, or simply not wanting to give money to Groundspeak. PM (private msg, not paid/premium membership ) me about that plz...

[+Fandango739]

Not wanting to wade through the pickings and pecks...

 

So, is there an actual way to appeal an archived challenge?

 

I had two perfectly good challenges, direct location, family friendly, not dangerous, nothing to be offended by, was getting thumbs up and then overnight some yahoo pelted them. =poof=

 

I don't want to spend the energy to recreate them, if it takes less energy to kill them again.