Jump to content

Improving Challenges


Ecylram

Recommended Posts

Here are my suggestions for improving the Challenges experience within the existing guidelines...

 

1. List the creators name under the Challenge title, not just logs. This makes it easier for the cacher to identify new Challenges they might like to do.

 

2. Allow full editing for 24-hours, even if the challenge has been accepted. It's often the first challenge accepter that notices an error in the description.

 

3. Allow the Challenge creator to APPEND information to the description after the 24-hour edit period. This allows for minor changes when there are changes at the Challenge location. For example might be: "Park now closes at 9pm, instead of 10pm."

 

4. Implement the Challenge phrase feature as quickly as possible. Right now the only way to verify the action was done is with a picture. This has created a "sameness" to the Challenges with little distinction between "Action" caches and "Photo" caches. Being able to input a piece of information gleemed from the location will open up more challenging challenges along with a greater variety.

 

5. Add the ability to expand the search area a bit further than the current default radius.

 

6. Add the option when flagging a challenge to select "Locationless" and "Not Verifiable" as reasons for flagging.

 

7. Add the option when flagging a "Completed the Challenge" entry to select "Not verified" (or similar appropriate wording).

 

8. Mapping - Being able to visually see where challenges are located would be helpful in planning Challenge trips.

 

9. PQ's - It would be usefull to easily add the challenges to our GPSr's.

 

10. Add the ability to add photos in the challenge description.

 

11. Watchlists - It will allow creators to easily follow what is going on and for others to be notified of interesting photos and logs.

 

I am not including on this list a change to the voting system as I believe its too early to draw a conclusion on what, if any, changes should be made.

 

 

Link to comment

I like all these points. Good ideas.

 

For #4, I'm not sure phrases are the best solution. It would require an exact match. But if there's a typo, or a space in the wrong spot, one would expect to be able to try again. Would there be a max of attempts before completion is denied? If not, one could simply keep trying until it works. Now of course 'cheaters will cheat'. I like the idea, just think it might need a bit of tweaking...

ETA: Unless perhaps one attempt is all that's needed and saved with the log (hidden) and the challenge owner can decide if it's an actual completion or not.

 

All the other points - Solid :)

 

In addition to being able to view the challenges locations on a map, I'd love to see a little more about worldwide/locationless challenges... (though these are more nice-to-have features than functional improvements)

 

1. If photos can be tied to a location by coordinates, I think it would be neat to see a map in a locationless challenge showing photos that have been logged and tied to coordinates. Sort of like viewing Google Maps', or Panoramio's map with photos browseable in their placed locations. That would also help users see which friends or other local cachers have done the locationless challenges nearby. More localized social networking? :) And of course photos not linked to a coordinate wouldn't be shown on the map.

 

2. As an extension of the above, perhaps have a filter on the worldwide/locationless challenges to view only those logged by those on our friends list. There could be thousands of logs, which practically makes browsing tedious. If we had a way to filter, I think that would be wonderful.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Here are my suggestions for improving the Challenges experience within the existing guidelines...

6. Add the option when flagging a challenge to select "Locationless" and "Not Verifiable" as reasons for flagging.

"locationless" - challenges that are not location based can already be flagged as prohibited.

"Not verifiable" - why must a challenge be verifiable? It hasn't been shown yet that an honor system isn't good enough. This seems to come from a [puritan?] geocacher attitude. Since there is some sort of verification for physical caches, geocachers want only verified challenges to "count". They may look to the old virtual caches which were supposed to include some verification requirement. In fact many virtuals were not verifiable. Many which were supposedly verifiable weren't because the verification answer could be found on the internet or because the cache owner simply did not enforce the verification requirement. Challenges work on the honor system precisely to avoid the problems with verification of virtual caches.

 

7. Add the option when flagging a "Completed the Challenge" entry to select "Not verified" (or similar appropriate wording).

I'd prefer "bogus" for flagging logs that show evidence that someone of couch potato logging logging or not actually meeting the challenge. I suppose that "inappropriate" or "prohibited" could be use for now. One problem is that some cachers will be creative in meeting some challenges. In fact the best challenges may be those that encourage some creativity. Flagging bogus logs should really be used only when someone is clearly abusing the system such as by logging hundreds of challenges all over the world on one day.

 

These suggestions seem like an attempt to make challenges more like virtuals. The differences are often there to address the very issues that were problematic with virtual caches. Care needs to be taken not to reintroduce the problems than led to the grandfathering of virtuals in the first place.

Link to comment

Allow more than 2000 characters for the description. While many Earthcache pages and listings of virtuals provide a lot of information on the location, this is hardly possible for challenges, even less when writing in two ore more languages.

 

A longer description could be at least allowed for a learning-like type of challenge.

Link to comment

5. Add the ability to expand the search area a bit further than the current default radius.

 

What is the current radius? I never look to see what challenges are in my state because the radius seems really small.

 

It seems to be precisely 25 miles.

Link to comment

Some excellent suggestions by the OP.

 

I also like the idea of longer descriptions having been forced to cut short some educational Challenge descriptions myself.

 

Waypoints might also be good once you can get a GPX and PQ of Challenges. I have some challenges that require you to use a boat to get there so being able to list waypoints for launch points, etc would be very helpful.

Link to comment

Hi, I'd like challenges that I have done, marked more clearly as solved. A yellow smily would make it much easier to see.

Also a chance to remove challenges that I have already found. And I'd love to be able to see which challenges my geocaching friends have done!

 

J;-)

Link to comment

If you haven't done so I would suggest posting these suggestions one at a time on the feedback site. This will help the development team prioritize the improvements. I think many of these are in the planning stages but some may not be and votes could affect the order they are implemented.

 

I just checked the challenge section of the feedback site and many of these already exist, You might want to add votes if you feel strongly about them,

Edited by Team Taran
Link to comment

1. List the creators name under the Challenge title, not just logs. This makes it easier for the cacher to identify new Challenges they might like to do.

 

An already available solution for this one is to include your name and the date created in the description, I've seen at least one person do this and it seems an easy fix. If you are proud of your challenge, claim authorship, You don't need to wait for the frog.

Link to comment

All excellent ideas, please post them on the feedback site, I think they will get more attention from Groundspeak there!

 

The trouble with the feedback site is that Groundspeak apparently wants to have only one suggestion per topic and that in this way one ends up with many topics who hardly get any votes. I have seen a few topics handled with declined just because more than one idea has been suggested.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Here are my suggestions for improving the Challenges experience within the existing guidelines...

6. Add the option when flagging a challenge to select "Locationless" and "Not Verifiable" as reasons for flagging.

"locationless" - challenges that are not location based can already be flagged as prohibited.

"Not verifiable" - why must a challenge be verifiable? It hasn't been shown yet that an honor system isn't good enough. This seems to come from a [puritan?] geocacher attitude. Since there is some sort of verification for physical caches, geocachers want only verified challenges to "count". They may look to the old virtual caches which were supposed to include some verification requirement. In fact many virtuals were not verifiable. Many which were supposedly verifiable weren't because the verification answer could be found on the internet or because the cache owner simply did not enforce the verification requirement. Challenges work on the honor system precisely to avoid the problems with verification of virtual caches.

 

7. Add the option when flagging a "Completed the Challenge" entry to select "Not verified" (or similar appropriate wording).

I'd prefer "bogus" for flagging logs that show evidence that someone of couch potato logging logging or not actually meeting the challenge. I suppose that "inappropriate" or "prohibited" could be use for now. One problem is that some cachers will be creative in meeting some challenges. In fact the best challenges may be those that encourage some creativity. Flagging bogus logs should really be used only when someone is clearly abusing the system such as by logging hundreds of challenges all over the world on one day.

 

These suggestions seem like an attempt to make challenges more like virtuals. The differences are often there to address the very issues that were problematic with virtual caches. Care needs to be taken not to reintroduce the problems than led to the grandfathering of virtuals in the first place.

 

There is no reason not to have challenges "verifiable". Whether it is posting a picture or password or whatever, it helps keep the game from becoming a free-for-all! If everyone can just claim a "completed" without actually doing the challenge, why waste our time doing these. I can get out and find many great places without having to waste the time and effort to play a worthless game. If you challenge someone, you expect them to either do the challenge or refuse to try and do the challenge. You surely don't expect them to claim they did it when in fact they flat out lied about doing it, or do you? I try to associate with a better class of people, than that! Failure to properly complete a challenge, yet claim to have done so is just as bogus as 'couch potato' logging.

 

These suggestions are to make challenges consistent with the intent of "Virtuals", which is what they are claimed to replace, according to GS.

 

The way challenges are voted on and/or flagged is what can make them better than the original virtuals while eliminating some of the "problems" that the originals had. To eliminate the ability to "OWN" the challenge and verify the logs does not correct any of the problems of the old virtuals, nor does having the search radius so small correct anything. PQs would be nice, especially when you will be traveling out of town for a day or two and would like a nice diversion.

 

As to locationless challenges, try flagging GS's locationless challenges as prohibited and see what happens.

 

John

Link to comment

 

There is no reason not to have challenges "verifiable". Whether it is posting a picture or password or whatever, it helps keep the game from becoming a free-for-all! If everyone can just claim a "completed" without actually doing the challenge, why waste our time doing these.

 

 

I agree!

I saw a bunch of local challenges completed this week by someone who didn't complete ANY of them. He/she just took a pic of someone else completing them. How is that the same?

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment

There is no reason not to have challenges "verifiable". Whether it is posting a picture or password or whatever, it helps keep the game from becoming a free-for-all! If everyone can just claim a "completed" without actually doing the challenge, why waste our time doing these. I can get out and find many great places without having to waste the time and effort to play a worthless game. If you challenge someone, you expect them to either do the challenge or refuse to try and do the challenge. You surely don't expect them to claim they did it when in fact they flat out lied about doing it, or do you? I try to associate with a better class of people, than that! Failure to properly complete a challenge, yet claim to have done so is just as bogus as 'couch potato' logging.

This sure reads like the p-word response I hinted at in my response.

True you could try to have some verification method and you could allow "ownership" of challenge with owners told to delete bogus logs. But for what purpose?

 

In reality most geocachers are the "class of people" you want to associate with. They are going to mark the challenge completed only when they have completed the challenge. There may be a few people who will log completion when they didn't complete it, but as the cliche says "they have only cheated themselves". If it's an obvious bogus log it can be flagged. If it's a challenge that doesn't have a clear way to verify, who cares? So what if someone had more fun sitting at home making up a story that the they went somewhere and did challenge than to actually go somewhere and do the challenge. Why are you so concerned over that? How does this effect the person who actually completed the challenge. If it was a good challenge in some cool location, whom do you think enjoyed it more?

 

These suggestions are to make challenges consistent with the intent of "Virtuals", which is what they are claimed to replace, according to GS.

People read too much into what Groundspeak says. They said Waymarking replaced virtuals as well. Challenges are not virtuals or necessarily consistent with everything that virtuals were. Groundspeak has made certain thing different particularly to address problems that virtuals had.

 

The way challenges are voted on and/or flagged is what can make them better than the original virtuals while eliminating some of the "problems" that the originals had. To eliminate the ability to "OWN" the challenge and verify the logs does not correct any of the problems of the old virtuals, ... [snip because there wasn't anything I disagree with in the remaining sentences]

 

John

The reality is that virtual caches with owners did have a very big problem with coach potato logging. Some cache owners encouraged people to look up the answer and log the cache without ever visiting. Other caches owner simply allowed when it happened (sometimes because they believe that if someone emailed them the right answer they couldn't delete their log). Still other cache owners ended up archiving their virtual cache because the could figure out how to deal with couch potato logs. By de-emphasizing verification, challenges should avoid the most serious problem with cache owners trying to use virtual caches as a virtual online game of couch potato logging. Hopefully, this will discourage couch potato logging in the other cases. Certainly by a avoiding challenge type that ask for a verification method that doesn't require a visit to the site, you have less incentive for the couch potato loggers. Finally, if a challenge does get some couch potato logs, it can continue to exist for those who want to actually go to the location and complete the challenge. If a challenge becomes couch potato logged so much that nobody bothers to actually go to the location anymore, the challenge can be flagged and removed.

 

I snipped the last part of 2oldfarts post that addressed some other difference between virtuals and challenges. Certainly there are some feature that seem to be missing for challenges that geocaches (not just virtual caches) have. Since Groundspeak has decided that challenge are not caches and they won't count in the find oount as challenges, I would expect somethings to work differently than virtual cache did. Hopefully, these functional difference will be addressed and we will see challenges integrated in search and PQ in some fashion.

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...