Jump to content

Challenges and agendas


Recommended Posts

What do you all feel about using challenges to push some type of agenda. I will give an example of a challenge that was recently published close to me.

 

"This action challenge is one that is dear to my heart, TASK: I challenge all local cachers to go to this Salvation Army and donate 1 or more items. With the hurricanes in the waters and all the Natural disasters happening around us the ones of us that are fortunate to have what we have need to help those who don't. So I challenge you to take at least one item to this Salvation Army site. If you want to post a picture showing your Salvation donation then post it, but this is not a requirement. Happy caching and have a blessed day.

 

Since everyone's opinions will very, some might see this as an agenda and others might not. I do believe that if this was submitted as a cache worded the way it is now it would be denied. I gave this challenge a thumbs down and left a note for the owner letting him know why. You can probably guess he wasn't to happy about it and told me that if I didn't like it I should just not do it and not vote against it but I feel it is better to let them know why you are voting against it rather them leaving them wondering as it could them help with future submissions.

Link to comment

For the challenge you are talking about, it is very creative and benefits those in need. To criticize someone who wants to do a very touching thing for those in need is pretty low. How much easier it would be just to ignore any challenges that don't suit your standards than to hurt feelings of others.

Link to comment

This was answered recently for me. From the FAQ:

 

Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason.

 

So vote/flag your heart. If I saw that pop up in my area I'd probably just leave it be, neither voting it down or up and not flagging it. I probably wouldn't complete it either. I have no need to advertise and put my personal donations out there for the world.

Link to comment

This was answered recently for me. From the FAQ:

 

Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason.

 

I flagged a challenge that asked people to buy a certain item from a certain place and the challenge ended up being archived. Whether giving to a charity makes it different would be up to the "community" I suppose.

Link to comment

It's a challenge, so the guidelines for listing a cache do not apply. If people want to use their GPS to find the donation box to get a point they can do so. I wouldn't use my GPS to find a donation box, nor would I encourage others to do so.

If you disagree with this challenge meeting the challenge guidelines, flag it or give it the thumbs down.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

Groundspeak is letting the community decide. If you think this is a wonderful idea, give it a thumbs up and complete it. If you think this is something that offends, annoys, or alarms you, flag it as spam. If enough people flag it, it will be archived. If Groundspeak disagrees they will reactivate the listing. If you have no opinion ignore it. Problem solved.

Link to comment

Like geodarts, I flagged a couple of Challenges near me as "spam" - they were commercial (buy a specific something from this business). They're now archived, so apparently I wasn't alone in flagging them.

 

I'd probably just ignore your Salvation Army example, or, maybe flag it as spam.

I do think thumbs down is fine.

 

Groundspeak is letting the community sort this out, I expect you'll see different standards in different places.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

I think it may take quite a while for us cachers who have had the Guidelines be fundamental to the game to realize that Challenges are a whole 'nother animal.

 

I guess that could be where my hang up is. So do we set this basic fundamental to the side since this is a new part of the game or do we hold on to the basics and build from there? I think challenges have potential to be something good and GS has left it up to us to mold challenges into a game we want to play. Reading the challenge FAQ's GS isn't really clear on their stand.

 

This is form the Challenges FAQ's

"Do the geocache placement guidelines against saturation and commercial caches apply?

 

Since Challenges have no physical container, there is no guideline on the distance from each other or from geocaches. Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason."

 

While there is nothing wrong with the Salvation Army, I Personally don't feel agendas should be part of the game so I gave it a thumbs down. If we don't set some standards early on and use the tools GS gave us as the reviewing process by voting or flagging then things could go downhill fast and we will start seeing challenges for everything you can think of.

Link to comment

While there is nothing wrong with the Salvation Army, I Personally don't feel agendas should be part of the game so I gave it a thumbs down. If we don't set some standards early on and use the tools GS gave us as the reviewing process by voting or flagging then things could go downhill fast and we will start seeing challenges for everything you can think of.

 

And that's how it should work. You voted your heart.

 

PS: We already are seeing challenges for "everything you can think of". A great deal of them are being down-voted, flagged and archived.

 

More often, as I go to click the "flag" link I find that I can't because it's already archived.

Link to comment

For the challenge you are talking about, it is very creative and benefits those in need. To criticize someone who wants to do a very touching thing for those in need is pretty low. How much easier it would be just to ignore any challenges that don't suit your standards than to hurt feelings of others.

 

Sorry but you are wrong on this one. While this is a very worthwhile agenda, one I could get behind, if this was a cache I would put a Needs Archived on it. I do not think it is "pretty low" to try to enforce the no agenda part of Geocaching.

 

Geocaching is a way to relax and let the pressures of life go away for a while. What you and I may consider a "good agenda" someone else will be bothered by. What they decide to put out may bother you or I. Much better to just not allow any agendas.

Link to comment

For the challenge you are talking about, it is very creative and benefits those in need. To criticize someone who wants to do a very touching thing for those in need is pretty low. How much easier it would be just to ignore any challenges that don't suit your standards than to hurt feelings of others.

 

Sorry but you are wrong on this one. While this is a very worthwhile agenda, one I could get behind, if this was a cache I would put a Needs Archived on it. I do not think it is "pretty low" to try to enforce the no agenda part of Geocaching.

 

Geocaching is a way to relax and let the pressures of life go away for a while. What you and I may consider a "good agenda" someone else will be bothered by. What they decide to put out may bother you or I. Much better to just not allow any agendas.

 

 

Groundspeak have indicated that Challenges should not be judged by the same criteria as the 'reviewed and then published' geocache listings: Challenges are a very different beast.

 

 

This is form the Challenges FAQ's

"Do the geocache placement guidelines against saturation and commercial caches apply?

 

Since Challenges have no physical container, there is no guideline on the distance from each other or from geocaches. Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason."

 

 

When the Challenges first appeared there was a suggestion for a World-wide Challenge in the Challenge Feedback forum where someone suggested something like, "Take your number of geocaching finds, place a decimal point two digits in from the right, then donate that amount in dollars (or other currency) to ********* (They specified which Charity).

 

Personally, I did not like the fact that they specified which charity the money should go to but I wouldn't have any problem with a such a Challenge if one was given your own choice of charity to receive the donation.

 

By giving us all the option to vote the hope is that individual Challenges will sink or swim according to the will of the Great Geocaching Public.

 

MrsB

Link to comment

For the challenge you are talking about, it is very creative and benefits those in need. To criticize someone who wants to do a very touching thing for those in need is pretty low. How much easier it would be just to ignore any challenges that don't suit your standards than to hurt feelings of others.

 

Sorry but you are wrong on this one. While this is a very worthwhile agenda, one I could get behind, if this was a cache I would put a Needs Archived on it. I do not think it is "pretty low" to try to enforce the no agenda part of Geocaching.

 

Geocaching is a way to relax and let the pressures of life go away for a while. What you and I may consider a "good agenda" someone else will be bothered by. What they decide to put out may bother you or I. Much better to just not allow any agendas.

 

 

Groundspeak have indicated that Challenges should not be judged by the same criteria as the 'reviewed and then published' geocache listings: Challenges are a very different beast.

 

This is form the Challenges FAQ's

"Do the geocache placement guidelines against saturation and commercial caches apply?

 

Since Challenges have no physical container, there is no guideline on the distance from each other or from geocaches. Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason."

 

 

When the Challenges first appeared there was a suggestion for a World-wide Challenge in the Challenge Feedback forum where someone suggested something like, "Take your number of geocaching finds, place a decimal point two digits in from the right, then donate that amount in dollars (or other currency) to ********* (They specified which Charity).

 

Personally, I did not like the fact that they specified which charity the money should go to but I wouldn't have any problem with a such a Challenge if one was given your own choice of charity to receive the donation.

 

By giving us all the option to vote the hope is that individual Challenges will sink or swim according to the will of the Great Geocaching Public.

 

MrsB

 

Agenda:

 

 

1. list of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting

 

2. matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time

 

3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias

 

 

Dang, every cache and challenge is an agenda. Well, all of mine are if you are going by any of those meanings. Too many wannabe lawyers on these forums. There are many caches and challenges now that I will never like but they will and do bring enjoyment to others. I look for the ones that will bring me enjoyment and relaxation, which someone mentioned caching was about. So why ruin someone's enjoyment because their challenge is not to your liking but is valid and has meaning to others? Thumbs down it then and move on to one you want to do.

 

I think we're spending too much time on these forums and not enough time outside caching and doing challenges.

Link to comment
Groundspeak have indicated that Challenges should not be judged by the same criteria as the 'reviewed and then published' geocache listings: Challenges are a very different beast.

 

So even Goundspeak admits challemges are NOT geocaches. :rolleyes:

 

I don't do challenges, so I will not flag them.

 

However, my point was, it sounds like Groundspeak wants us to review and control them. If I feel the rule on agendas is a good one, I don't think it would be wrong, (or low) to flag one that has an obvious agenda.(no matter how good or noble the agenda appears)

Link to comment

 

... However, my point was, it sounds like Groundspeak wants us to review and control them. If I feel the rule on agendas is a good one, I don't think it would be wrong, (or low) to flag one that has an obvious agenda.(no matter how good or noble the agenda appears)

 

My feeling would be that in such a case it would be appropriate for you to mark it 'thumb down', to express your personal opinion on that cache, but not to Flag it because it's not Prohibited/Offensive/Spam/Unplayable according to the (fairly sparse) guidelines for Challenges.

 

MrsB :)

Link to comment

For the challenge you are talking about, it is very creative and benefits those in need. To criticize someone who wants to do a very touching thing for those in need is pretty low. How much easier it would be just to ignore any challenges that don't suit your standards than to hurt feelings of others.

 

try publishing a cache like that and let us know how far you get (and don't tell me this is a challenge not a cache, challenges have been incorporated in geocaching and as such they should be free of personal agendas)

 

i would flag it if it was in my area, that is not what challenges are supposed to be about, even though the thought behind it is good this is supposed to be a fun activity not community service

 

 

... However, my point was, it sounds like Groundspeak wants us to review and control them. If I feel the rule on agendas is a good one, I don't think it would be wrong, (or low) to flag one that has an obvious agenda.(no matter how good or noble the agenda appears)

 

My feeling would be that in such a case it would be appropriate for you to mark it 'thumb down', to express your personal opinion on that cache, but not to Flag it because it's not Prohibited/Offensive/Spam/Unplayable according to the (fairly sparse) guidelines for Challenges.

 

MrsB :)

 

Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/faq.aspx

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

For the challenge you are talking about, it is very creative and benefits those in need. To criticize someone who wants to do a very touching thing for those in need is pretty low. How much easier it would be just to ignore any challenges that don't suit your standards than to hurt feelings of others.

 

try publishing a cache like that and let us know how far you get (and don't tell me this is a challenge not a cache, challenges have been incorporated in geocaching and as such they should be free of personal agendas)

 

i would flag it if it was in my area, that is not what challenges are supposed to be about, even though the thought behind it is good this is supposed to be a fun activity not community service

 

... However, my point was, it sounds like Groundspeak wants us to review and control them. If I feel the rule on agendas is a good one, I don't think it would be wrong, (or low) to flag one that has an obvious agenda.(no matter how good or noble the agenda appears)

 

My feeling would be that in such a case it would be appropriate for you to mark it 'thumb down', to express your personal opinion on that cache, but not to Flag it because it's not Prohibited/Offensive/Spam/Unplayable according to the (fairly sparse) guidelines for Challenges.

 

MrsB :)

 

Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason.

 

http://www.geocachin...lenges/faq.aspx

 

It is a challenge and not a cache, lol. Get your thumb out of your arse and mark it thumbs down because you don't like it. It is not inappropriate, so no flagging is needed. I think everyone here has their own personal agenda to show who can be the biggest DB.

 

I'm going caching.

Link to comment
If I feel the rule on agendas is a good one, I don't think it would be wrong, (or low) to flag one that has an obvious agenda.

But the guideline on agendas does not apply to challenges. By flagging it as inappropriate, you are using a guideline which does not apply, to censure a challenge that you don't personally like. Groundspeak provided us with the Thumbs Up/Down tools to express our likes/dislikes.

 

On the other paw, if you were to flag it as spam, based on your own interpretation of the term, that would seemingly be OK. Could the prohibition against spam be Groundspeak's way of indicating that solicitation should not be incorporated into challenges? It could certainly be read that way. If you were predisposed to flag it.

Link to comment

 

Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/faq.aspx

 

Whilst I can see that a Spam flag (I'm sure there must be a google image for a Spam flag somewhere) might be appropriate in certain situations e.g. if someone has create a lot of Challenges all promoting some particular commercial intent, which flag option do you suggest for a single Challenge which has a charity theme to it? None of the four options offered (Prohibited/Offensive/Spam/Unplayable) seems to fit the bill.

 

MrsB

Edited by The Blorenges
Link to comment

I think either spam or offensive works depending on your opinion. If you feel that such a cache is an unwanted intrusion into your hobby then spam fits the situation. If you find the agenda or the fact of an agenda is offensive then that one expresses your feelings. I think the whole idea behind letting the community decide is to get lots of people making their decisions on their own criteria. The result should be consensus.

Link to comment

The rationale given for the no solicitation guideline for Geocaches is that "Geocaching is intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda."

 

Aren't Challenges intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby? I'm have a hard time understanding why an agenda that would not be allowed on geocache page would be okay for a challenge.

Link to comment
I'm have a hard time understanding why an agenda that would not be allowed on geocache page would be okay for a challenge.

Yeah, me too. But I don't have the answer to that, other than to parrot what Groundspeak has already said about the matter. Perhaps Jeremy will chime in with something other than the company line?

 

There's a gud/not gud analogy to be drawn here. Don't overthink it.

Link to comment

Agenda:

 

 

1. list of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting

 

2. matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time

 

3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias

 

 

Dang, every cache and challenge is an agenda. Well, all of mine are if you are going by any of those meanings.

 

Oh, good grief.

 

Context. Is. Everything.

 

Withen the context of the guidelines for caches, "agenda" is not defined by "any and all agendas".

Link to comment

The rationale given for the no solicitation guideline for Geocaches is that "Geocaching is intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda."

 

Aren't Challenges intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby? I'm have a hard time understanding why an agenda that would not be allowed on geocache page would be okay for a challenge.

 

+1. Yes, I know that challenges are not the same as geocaches. Both, however fall under the same geocaching.com umbrella and the message they're sending is that you can't use our geocaching listing service to publish a geocache listing as a platform for an agenda, but you can use or challenge listing service as a platform for your agenda as long as the community approves of the agenda. Try creating a challenge for cancer awareness and it might not get flagged as inappropriate, but try creating one that is a bit more controversial and it likely won't last long.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing all commercial/agenda related user contributed content banned from geocaching.com sites, including trackables.

Link to comment

It seems that Groundspeak has taken on a whole new direction with the Challenge caches. Rather than using reviewers and a set of guidelines, they are letting the community decide what is appropropriate and what is not. This is your chance to have your say. If you don't like the challenge - give it a thumbs down - that's what those options are for. I, personally, have reasons why I do not support the Salvation Army. I would likely just ignore this challenge, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to give it a thumbs down. That is your opinion though and you are free to express it.

Link to comment

I, personally, have reasons why I do not support the Salvation Army.

 

So do I. The export of used clothing is a *huge* business for Salvation Army, Goodwill, and for-profit used clothing business as well. I've personally seen some large buildings in Zambia that used to be clothing factories that shut down, essentially because they couldn't compete with free/nearly free clothing exported from the U.S.. Sure, there are many that really do need clothing, but it it means depriving local Zambians from earning an income (so that they can buy locally made clothing, food, etc.) that just doesn't seem right.

Link to comment

 

Regarding commercial content or other agendas, it is up to the community to decide whether a Challenge is appropriate or not. There is a "spam" flag option for this reason.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/challenges/faq.aspx

 

Whilst I can see that a Spam flag (I'm sure there must be a google image for a Spam flag somewhere) might be appropriate in certain situations e.g. if someone has create a lot of Challenges all promoting some particular commercial intent, which flag option do you suggest for a single Challenge which has a charity theme to it? None of the four options offered (Prohibited/Offensive/Spam/Unplayable) seems to fit the bill.

 

MrsB

 

believe it or not i can't find a spam flag lol

 

i would use the "spam" option that Groundspeak is suggesting in the FAQ

Link to comment

It seems that Groundspeak has taken on a whole new direction with the Challenge caches. Rather than using reviewers and a set of guidelines, they are letting the community decide what is appropropriate and what is not. This is your chance to have your say. If you don't like the challenge - give it a thumbs down - that's what those options are for. I, personally, have reasons why I do not support the Salvation Army. I would likely just ignore this challenge, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to give it a thumbs down. That is your opinion though and you are free to express it.

Well Said. This new game can go sooo many places, and us players are the ones to decide. WooHoo...

Link to comment

Well Said. This new game can go sooo many places, and us players are the ones to decide. WooHoo...

 

with that being said, shouldn't we be a little more supportive of ideas that "challenge" (ya see what I did there) the guidelines for a positive reason. If not supportive we don't necessarily have to try and destroy them.

 

I also have a charity of choice, but I don't boo or hiss when I see another charity. Realistically I am not an activist of anykind so although I may see some organizations that are misrepresenting/misleading people with how they present themselves, I won't rally against them.

 

When I see someone trying to do something seemingly noble, I will either applaud them or not pay any attention. People are too willing to be the dissenting vote when there is no accountability. All you have to do is click a button to trash an idea that obviously doesn't directly benefit the CO without having to defend oneself. What happened to live and let live (within the context of this new feature of the game)?

Link to comment

Well Said. This new game can go sooo many places, and us players are the ones to decide. WooHoo...

 

with that being said, shouldn't we be a little more supportive of ideas that "challenge" (ya see what I did there) the guidelines for a positive reason. If not supportive we don't necessarily have to try and destroy them.

 

I also have a charity of choice, but I don't boo or hiss when I see another charity. Realistically I am not an activist of anykind so although I may see some organizations that are misrepresenting/misleading people with how they present themselves, I won't rally against them.

 

When I see someone trying to do something seemingly noble, I will either applaud them or not pay any attention. People are too willing to be the dissenting vote when there is no accountability. All you have to do is click a button to trash an idea that obviously doesn't directly benefit the CO without having to defend oneself. What happened to live and let live (within the context of this new feature of the game)?

 

And that's your opinion and your vote. Somebody else may feel and vote differently. That's kind of how this whole thing works.

Link to comment

What I foresee, should the community allow commercial/agenda challenges then you will end up with every McDonald, Burger King, Bakery, Church, Political HQ, Head shop, Marijuana dispensary, ect ect.

Sounds like potential to become Waymarking.com, but in its current state every search and lameness complaint about WM magnified.

Link to comment

What I foresee, should the community allow commercial/agenda challenges then you will end up with every McDonald, Burger King, Bakery, Church, Political HQ, Head shop, Marijuana dispensary, ect ect.

Sounds like potential to become Waymarking.com, but in its current state every search and lameness complaint about WM magnified.

My profession is marketing. I don't see that happening at all, simply because geocachers are not a large enough audience for marketers to bother with.

Link to comment

What I foresee, should the community allow commercial/agenda challenges then you will end up with every McDonald, Burger King, Bakery, Church, Political HQ, Head shop, Marijuana dispensary, ect ect.

Sounds like potential to become Waymarking.com, but in its current state every search and lameness complaint about WM magnified.

My profession is marketing. I don't see that happening at all, simply because geocachers are not a large enough audience for marketers to bother with.

I don't mean the marketers doing it. The marketers didn't list all of those commercial locations on WM.com, the users did.

 

There is a challenge near me that requires a person to enter an establishment, purchase pie and eat it with no hands.

If it wasn't for the fact that people are down voting it, this person would likely issue a challenge for every GTPC he/she knows of and start issuing challenges for all the eating establishments and bars they enjoy. Then the next person see this and decides that they should issue a challenge requiring you to go to BLAH BLAH Church and make a donation. Now a person wants you get a picture of yourself with a big mac in each hand in front of the play place, making others think it is OK to add McNasties and the other fast food joints. Now a pothead wants his favorite dispensary to thrive so he makes a challenge regardless of whether it will work or not. and on and on.

Link to comment

What I foresee, should the community allow commercial/agenda challenges then you will end up with every McDonald, Burger King, Bakery, Church, Political HQ, Head shop, Marijuana dispensary, ect ect.

Sounds like potential to become Waymarking.com, but in its current state every search and lameness complaint about WM magnified.

My profession is marketing. I don't see that happening at all, simply because geocachers are not a large enough audience for marketers to bother with.

I don't mean the marketers doing it. The marketers didn't list all of those commercial locations on WM.com, the users did.

 

There is a challenge near me that requires a person to enter an establishment, purchase pie and eat it with no hands.

If it wasn't for the fact that people are down voting it, this person would likely issue a challenge for every GTPC he/she knows of and start issuing challenges for all the eating establishments and bars they enjoy. Then the next person see this and decides that they should issue a challenge requiring you to go to BLAH BLAH Church and make a donation. Now a person wants you get a picture of yourself with a big mac in each hand in front of the play place, making others think it is OK to add McNasties and the other fast food joints. Now a pothead wants his favorite dispensary to thrive so he makes a challenge regardless of whether it will work or not. and on and on.

 

+1

 

I enjoy photography and like the idea of Waymarking. I'm still really new to all of this and when I first went to that site to find places to photograph, I was surprised and disappointed at all of the fast food places, etc. Really? SMH

Link to comment

What I foresee, should the community allow commercial/agenda challenges then you will end up with every McDonald, Burger King, Bakery, Church, Political HQ, Head shop, Marijuana dispensary, ect ect.

Sounds like potential to become Waymarking.com, but in its current state every search and lameness complaint about WM magnified.

My profession is marketing. I don't see that happening at all, simply because geocachers are not a large enough audience for marketers to bother with.

I don't mean the marketers doing it. The marketers didn't list all of those commercial locations on WM.com, the users did.

 

There is a challenge near me that requires a person to enter an establishment, purchase pie and eat it with no hands.

If it wasn't for the fact that people are down voting it, this person would likely issue a challenge for every GTPC he/she knows of and start issuing challenges for all the eating establishments and bars they enjoy. Then the next person see this and decides that they should issue a challenge requiring you to go to BLAH BLAH Church and make a donation. Now a person wants you get a picture of yourself with a big mac in each hand in front of the play place, making others think it is OK to add McNasties and the other fast food joints. Now a pothead wants his favorite dispensary to thrive so he makes a challenge regardless of whether it will work or not. and on and on.

 

But that's the beauty of this system. Users can flag challenges that are inappropriate, or vote down ones they don't like. I think if I saw a bunch of challenges springing up for every fast-food joint in town, I would flag them as spam. And the pothead challenge can be flagged because it does not fit with the family-friendly nature of the site.

Link to comment

I enjoy photography and like the idea of Waymarking. I'm still really new to all of this and when I first went to that site to find places to photograph, I was surprised and disappointed at all of the fast food places, etc. Really? SMH

It's pretty easy to ignore the Waymarking categories you don't like. It may even be easier to pick just a few categories that look like they may be interesting to photograph and just look at these.

 

With challenges you will have no way to see which are commercial, which have agendas, which are in cool places to visit, and which are just asking you to do something silly in a strip mall parking lot. (Ooh! Challenge idea - Go to Wal*Mart and lift up lamppost covers. probably already done). It may be that these sorts of challengs will get lower rankings but that isn't guaranteed.

Link to comment

What about having a category flag option for challenges?

If you want to, you can up/down vote, or you can flag "spam", "agenda", "adventure", "fun", "serious", "charitable", "offensive", "inappropriate" (rule-breaking, the flag for archival), etc... whatever the list may be.

I can imagine coming to a challenge, and seeing a small coloured bar graph on the side listing the votes people gave, positive and negative, allowing me to decide what to think of it, or even do an advanced search for higher ratios of whatever category I want, like attributes. eg If I want to do an adventurous challenge, I could easily pull up a highly rated adventurous challenge.

 

Another suggestion is just to remove thumbs down and keep thumbs up like favorite points.

 

One of the problems that I foresee with worldwide voting up/down/flagging and community-based moderation is that what someone thinks is inappropriate in one country or culture may not be in another, or even in different cities. Ultimately no cache is safe from being archived by someone across the world even though the local challengeers thought it appropriate and worth keeping.

 

There definitely needs to be a better rating/issues system in place, whether it's tighter categorization or localization or whatever... there's already been a wide variety of opinions about what is acceptable and not just in this thread. :huh:

Link to comment

What I foresee, should the community allow commercial/agenda challenges then you will end up with every McDonald, Burger King, Bakery, Church, Political HQ, Head shop, Marijuana dispensary, ect ect.

Sounds like potential to become Waymarking.com, but in its current state every search and lameness complaint about WM magnified.

My profession is marketing. I don't see that happening at all, simply because geocachers are not a large enough audience for marketers to bother with.

I don't mean the marketers doing it. The marketers didn't list all of those commercial locations on WM.com, the users did.

 

There is a challenge near me that requires a person to enter an establishment, purchase pie and eat it with no hands.

If it wasn't for the fact that people are down voting it, this person would likely issue a challenge for every GTPC he/she knows of and start issuing challenges for all the eating establishments and bars they enjoy. Then the next person see this and decides that they should issue a challenge requiring you to go to BLAH BLAH Church and make a donation. Now a person wants you get a picture of yourself with a big mac in each hand in front of the play place, making others think it is OK to add McNasties and the other fast food joints. Now a pothead wants his favorite dispensary to thrive so he makes a challenge regardless of whether it will work or not. and on and on.

 

Except I've already seen some like this. They were archived just as I was flagging them. Yay, for the most part the system works. There are a few that I'm keeping an eye on that for some magic reason have not been archived but are also not tied to a specific location.

Link to comment

Except I've already seen some like this. They were archived just as I was flagging them. Yay, for the most part the system works. There are a few that I'm keeping an eye on that for some magic reason have not been archived but are also not tied to a specific location.

Good. I am glad to hear that, now if only the Pie eating challenge near me would go bye bye. It has 1 thumbs up to 7 down and at least 1 spam flag.

Link to comment

Post the challenge number here. I'd like to take a look at it,

I would rather not. It is one thing if the local community props it up or squashes it, entirely another if those unlikely to get near it do it.

 

Here is the text.

To complete this challenge, you must eat an entire piece of pie with both hands behind your back while kneeling on a seat in this pie-lovers' paradise. You must submit a picture of yourself taking the last bite from the plate while in this position.

The steps to completing it.

1. Enter the businesses location.

2. Purchase a slice of pie because you know they wont let you bring in yours, considering that it is rude and a health code violation.

3. Use their furniture incorrectly.

4. Eat slice of pie in a manor reserved for contests, children and the rude.

5. Take a picture of you completing my agenda.

 

Now granted, you could simply avoid 3 and 4 till your last bite but it changes nothing that is wrong with the challenge.

Link to comment

Post the challenge number here. I'd like to take a look at it,

I would rather not. It is one thing if the local community props it up or squashes it, entirely another if those unlikely to get near it do it.

 

Here is the text.

To complete this challenge, you must eat an entire piece of pie with both hands behind your back while kneeling on a seat in this pie-lovers' paradise. You must submit a picture of yourself taking the last bite from the plate while in this position.

 

 

well so much for not posting the challenge number lol...that quote is as good as the number itself :anibad:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...