WSGA Cache of the Month Challenge

[+Gan Dalf]

Doing a bit of shameless self promotion here...

 

Perhaps it's location is the reason and since it is not a PMO cache I really don't know but I expected a bigger response to this cache. The rules are pretty simple, log 30 WSGA COTM winners that are more than a year old. Archived finds count. The cache itself is in Allanon's Forest so lots of opportunities to get other caches when you go out to find the final. Create YOUR boomark list today!

[+B+L]

Why the one year waiting period? That's a disincentive, as is the count those you've found already provision.

We are not fans of "time machine" challenges. Having said that, it looks like fun and it's a nice tribute to Brian as well.

 

We do not factor in COTM status when selecting caches. Maybe we should.

[+hydnsek]

Why the one year waiting period? That's a disincentive, as is the count those you've found already provision.

We are not fans of "time machine" challenges. Having said that, it looks like fun and it's a nice tribute to Brian as well.

 

We do not factor in COTM status when selecting caches. Maybe we should.

Really? We have six years of COTM winners - why is finding older caches a disincentive to do the challenge? It would be much more dodgy to create the challenge only allowing new COTM winners - we wouldn't want the challenge to skew nominations or voting, or for people to create caches, then stack votes, just to get COTM and become part of the challenge. That's why there's a rolling one-year blackout, which the COTM manager approved.

 

Think of this as the WSGA version of the History challenge - classic older caches in Washington - albeit not quite to the dawn of geocaching.

 

To the OP: The challenge was published Sept. 4; that was only four days ago. Patience, grasshopper.

 

Edit: Adding link to the challenge: WSGA Cache of the Month Challenge.

Edited September 9, 2011 by hydnsek

[+B+L]

Why the one year waiting period? That's a disincentive, as is the count those you've found already provision.

We are not fans of "time machine" challenges. Having said that, it looks like fun and it's a nice tribute to Brian as well.

 

We do not factor in COTM status when selecting caches. Maybe we should.

Really? We have six years of COTM winners - why is finding older caches a disincentive to do the challenge?

 

Well, finding archived caches is normally kind of impossible. Finding older caches is not a disincentive to us. In fact,

we purposely look for older caches all the time. Counting caches we've already found (hence the term "time machine

challenges") is the disincentive. If we had already found 30 HOTM caches, then the challenge becomes a bookkeeping

challenge instead of a geocaching challenge. Obviously other people will not care and that's fine.

 

One more thing, do people really try to stack the COTM vote? That's just sad.

 

 

[+Gan Dalf]

Why the one year waiting period? That's a disincentive, as is the count those you've found already provision.

We are not fans of "time machine" challenges. Having said that, it looks like fun and it's a nice tribute to Brian as well.

 

We do not factor in COTM status when selecting caches. Maybe we should.

Really? We have six years of COTM winners - why is finding older caches a disincentive to do the challenge? It would be much more dodgy to create the challenge only allowing new COTM winners - we wouldn't want the challenge to skew nominations or voting, or for people to create caches, then stack votes, just to get COTM and become part of the challenge. That's why there's a rolling one-year blackout, which the COTM manager approved.

 

Think of this as the WSGA version of the History challenge - classic older caches in Washington - albeit not quite to the dawn of geocaching.

 

To the OP: The challenge was published Sept. 4; that was only four days ago. Patience, grasshopper.

 

Edit: Adding link to the challenge: WSGA Cache of the Month Challenge.

 

Thanks hydnsek, and yes, that provision was put in place as a suggetion by the COTM administrator when I brought up the idea for the challenge several months ago. The fear was exactly as hydnsek stated, that the challenge would affect the nominations and votes for caches that truly deserved COTM status. When I realized that the provision would result in barely enough active caches available for people to log to be able to qualify for the challenge, I decided to allow archived and/or previously logged COTM winners to qualify. Especially when you consider that several COTM's are high terrain difficult to get to cahces. My intent was to draw attention to the COTM, not to create another difficult to achieve challenge, although I realize that there are a number of cachers that enjoy that sort of thing.

[+B+L]

My intent was to draw attention to the COTM, not to create another difficult to achieve challenge, although I realize that there are a number of cachers that enjoy that sort of thing.

There could be a couple of unintended consequences. The most important being that at least one person has enough

caches to qualify, yet they are unable to complete the challenge until the one year moratorium

expires for them next January.

[+Gan Dalf]

My intent was to draw attention to the COTM, not to create another difficult to achieve challenge, although I realize that there are a number of cachers that enjoy that sort of thing.

There could be a couple of unintended consequences. The most important being that at least one person has enough

caches to qualify, yet they are unable to complete the challenge until the one year moratorium

expires for them next January.

That is indeed an unintended consequence. I figured by allowing archived caches, that would negate the one year waiting period. Also, there are quite a few others available foe people that happens to go get without having to wait 4 months to do it.

[+WeightMan]

 

Well, finding archived caches is normally kind of impossible. Finding older caches is not a disincentive to us. In fact,

we purposely look for older caches all the time. Counting caches we've already found (hence the term "time machine

challenges") is the disincentive. If we had already found 30 HOTM caches, then the challenge becomes a bookkeeping

challenge instead of a geocaching challenge. Obviously other people will not care and that's fine.

 

I think the allowing of archived caches is meant to allow you to count one you found that was later archived. Of course you can't normally find one that is archived since it most likely won't be there.

[+hydnsek]

 

Well, finding archived caches is normally kind of impossible. Finding older caches is not a disincentive to us. In fact,

we purposely look for older caches all the time. Counting caches we've already found (hence the term "time machine

challenges") is the disincentive. If we had already found 30 HOTM caches, then the challenge becomes a bookkeeping

challenge instead of a geocaching challenge. Obviously other people will not care and that's fine.

 

I think the allowing of archived caches is meant to allow you to count one you found that was later archived. Of course you can't normally find one that is archived since it most likely won't be there.

Exactly. It says in the challenge rules that you must have found an archived cache when it was active (it's a past find, not finding an archived cache).

[+hydnsek]

If we had already found 30 HOTM caches, then the challenge becomes a bookkeeping

challenge instead of a geocaching challenge. Obviously other people will not care and that's fine.

Yes, I agree with you there - there are a number of challenges I could do 'armchair' finds on, if I spent time compiling the lists.

 

One more thing, do people really try to stack the COTM vote? That's just sad.

Yes, it has happened (although not often), and yes, it is sad. Sort of like folks soliciting Favorites votes.

Edited September 9, 2011 by hydnsek

[+B+L]

Exactly. It says in the challenge rules that you must have found an archived cache when it was active (it's a past find, not finding an archived cache).

Perhaps I was being unclear. i said we are not fans of counting previous finds. Archived or not does not matter,

although I suppose it might those who did not find a cache before the it was archived. If the intention is to bring

more visibility to COTM winners, then it would seem more productive to use the caches that people can still enjoy.

[+hydnsek]

Exactly. It says in the challenge rules that you must have found an archived cache when it was active (it's a past find, not finding an archived cache).

Perhaps I was being unclear. i said we are not fans of counting previous finds. Archived or not does not matter,

although I suppose it might those who did not find a cache before the it was archived. If the intention is to bring

more visibility to COTM winners, then it would seem more productive to use the caches that people can still enjoy.

See post 5. I guess we'll just have to disagree for this type of challenge. (For the record, I am not the COTM admin, and I never looked at this challenge before today, when I looked it up for this thread.)

Edited September 9, 2011 by hydnsek

[+Gan Dalf]

Thanks for the support Abby.

 

B+L, I understand your point of view. My feeling is that there are only a handful of cachers that are even close to being able to qualify to find the final. If FrodoB can't even log it right away then chances are small that anyone else will be able to either meaning that most others will still have to go out and find several former COTM winners.

 

Fan of it or not, there are plenty of other challenges that allow for former finds, even ones that are archived. That is not why I decided to allow it but it made the decision easier. As I said before, the intent is not to make the overly difficult and plenty of people will still have to go out and find more COTM winners, including myslelf. I appriciate our input, really I do, but I'm goign to leave it as it stands, original finds on archived caches will count.

[+B+L]

Fan of it or not, there are plenty of other challenges that allow for former finds, even ones that are archived. That is not why I decided to allow it but it made the decision easier. As I said before, the intent is not to make the overly difficult and plenty of people will still have to go out and find more COTM winners, including myslelf. I appriciate our input, really I do, but I'm goign to leave it as it stands, original finds on archived caches will count.

I'm not actually trying to get you to change the challenge. As I said, it sounds like fun.

 

You were wondering why this challenge has not gotten a bigger response, so I'm just expressing our opinion of it.

As I have been trying to say, apparently with limited success, there are some things about this challenge that would

limit our enthusiasm for doing it, but that's just us and we can safely be ignored.

 

I'm not going to go into what we really think of armchair logging, because some people will inevitably feel insulted, but it

makes very little sense to us why some challenges are set up to have buit-in inequalities. Voracious and/or

long-term cachers really do not need any extra incentives or advantages. They find everything.

Edited September 9, 2011 by B+L

[nolenator]

Maybe make it a requirement that finding my COTM cache is mandatory... Peace, Nolenator

[+hydnsek]

Maybe make it a requirement that finding my COTM cache is mandatory... Peace, Nolenator

Now there's a statement I can get behind.

[+Gan Dalf]

Maybe make it a requirement that finding my COTM cache is mandatory... Peace, Nolenator

 

Considering all of the group expeditions that are being set up to go and find it nolenator, I have a feeling that will be come true by default... Still gotta go out out there and get it myself.

[+AndrewRJ]

My intent was to draw attention to the COTM, not to create another difficult to achieve challenge, although I realize that there are a number of cachers that enjoy that sort of thing.

There could be a couple of unintended consequences. The most important being that at least one person has enough

caches to qualify, yet they are unable to complete the challenge until the one year moratorium

expires for them next January.

That is indeed an unintended consequence. I figured by allowing archived caches, that would negate the one year waiting period. Also, there are quite a few others available foe people that happens to go get without having to wait 4 months to do it.

I looked, I have 29, of those I haven't looked to see how many have been from the last year. That said I am not worried about the FTF and I will put the COTM caches in my GPS like my other POI file. If I am nearby I will grab one here and there and will get there eventually.

 

I think that the reason there has been less interest in challenges of late is, like caches, there are now quite a lot of them, and many are very lame in that you can just go grab random ones to qualify. My favorite have always been more specific ones, like this one, the history challenges, lookouts and the Delorme.

 

Just my thoughts. I for one appreciate caches like this that at least draw attention to the caches that others have liked.

 

edit: ok I had 2 from this last year so I actually need 3 caches.

Edited September 10, 2011 by AndrewRJ

[+PhilNi]

I'm not going to go into what we really think of armchair logging, because some people will inevitably feel insulted, but it

makes very little sense to us why some challenges are set up to have buit-in inequalities. Voracious and/or

long-term cachers really do not need any extra incentives or advantages. They find everything.

 

Actually, I've always though that those challenges that don't allow previous finds and anything involving a streak put those so called 'voracious and/or long-term cachers' at a significant disadvantage. I guess it depends on your point of view. In addition, some of these challenges promote the creation of artificial caches like the color challenge. Not a big deal either way I suppose but not exactly something we are striving for.

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

Since I'm not a member I should not say anything but if I were.

 

I try to place a cache so the person or group will wonder about the Unique Location, View or just interesting idea of the Cache.

 

I find Micro but I do not like them, Lamppost Caches are a bore, just to throw something out there is not what its about.

 

Challenges are exciting for some, while others will ignore. I do not have time on my hands to run around here & there. I choose my next cache carefully as if I will I be anywhere around there in the near future.

 

Sure I have a few FTF but only my pure luck.

 

So, if someone want to build a Challenge then either accept or ignore it.

 

I will now scurry back under the rock from which I crawled from under.

 

Mutt

 

PS.. Has anyone seen my Flea Collar lately?

[+B+L]

Actually, I've always though that those challenges that don't allow previous finds and anything involving a streak put those so called 'voracious and/or long-term cachers' at a significant disadvantage. I guess it depends on your point of view. In addition, some of these challenges promote the creation of artificial caches like the color challenge. Not a big deal either way I suppose but not exactly something we are striving for.

Maybe. I guess it depends on the circumstances. Challenges that have convoluted rules attempting to solve some perceived problem do not really get us all that motivated to do them. As MtnMutt suggests, we are fine ignoring them, but then what good are these forums if we can't opine about them?

 

I guess it seems kind of unfair that 25% of the COTM caches are archived, yet they can still be counted by previous finders. Let's see, 77-11-19=47 47 COTM caches are available to find, but if someone had previously found all the archived caches, they have 66 to draw from. Thats a pretty big advantage, almost 30% more caches. I guess we just don't see what the "challenge" is when old finds count. I look forward to not doing a challenge where all the locationless caches in Washington must be logged.

[+Hypnopaedia]

I don't think I will qualify anytime soon. However I hope my winning cache is on the FTF's bookmark, at least that way I can somewhat live vicariously through the FTF.

[+Gan Dalf]

I guess it seems kind of unfair that 25% of the COTM caches are archived, yet they can still be counted by previous finders. Let's see, 77-11-19=47 47 COTM caches are available to find, but if someone had previously found all the archived caches, they have 66 to draw from. Thats a pretty big advantage, almost 30% more caches. I guess we just don't see what the "challenge" is when old finds count. I look forward to not doing a challenge where all the locationless caches in Washington must be logged.

 

Don't forget that at least four of the former COTM's are series caches where in order to qualify to find the COTM winner you have to find anywhere from 40 to 90 other caches before you can log them.

 

Historical challenges desinged to require a certain number of specific caches in order to log the challenge are going to be easier for a long time cacher to qualify for than someone that just started caching yesterday. I beleive easier is the wrong word to use because at one time, those older cachers that had already found them had to take the time to go and look just like a new cacher would have to. They just have the "advnatage" of having done that before they knew this challenge existed. That doesn't make it any less of an accomplishment to have found them before the challenge existed.

[+B+L]

Don't forget that at least four of the former COTM's are series caches where in order to qualify to find the COTM winner you have to find anywhere from 40 to 90 other caches before you can log them.

 

Historical challenges desinged to require a certain number of specific caches in order to log the challenge are going to be easier for a long time cacher to qualify for than someone that just started caching yesterday. I beleive easier is the wrong word to use because at one time, those older cachers that had already found them had to take the time to go and look just like a new cacher would have to. They just have the "advnatage" of having done that before they knew this challenge existed. That doesn't make it any less of an accomplishment to have found them before the challenge existed.

It is true that a challenge limited in scope, such as the history challenge, would be impossible to complete without allowing old finds. Old archived finds, not so much.

 

But the COTM challenge does not need to be a historical challenge. It is not a static list. It is possible to design a challenge that does not need to allow previous finds that would still accomplish what you have set out as your goals. As I've said, it just does not make sense to me the have a challenge where the requirements can be satisfied in advance. I've cached long enough to know there is a lot of pressure put on the owners of challenges by other cachers, but that's not what I'm trying to do here (which is the biggest reason this is a public conversation). I'm speaking of challenges in general using yours as an example. I'm really not trying to pick on your challenge in particular though, so I'll shut up now.

 

 

[+Gan Dalf]

It was pointed out to me that I failed to say whether or not chaces that a player owns are eligible to be used by them towards the 30 cache requirement to qualify for the challenge. The answer is yes and I have updated the ruls on the cache page to reflect the additional infromation. Thanks.

[+Gan Dalf]

One more point, you do no tneed to be a member of the WSGA in order to do this cache, in fact it is open to everyone, including basic members of Geocaching.com. No premium memebership required.

[+_Shaddow_]

This there anyway to generate and distribute a list or macro for GSAK for a quick check? I can of course check each one independently but seems like a lot of cumulative work for each participant to check separately. Might also help a little with participation.

[+hydnsek]

This there anyway to generate and distribute a list or macro for GSAK for a quick check? I can of course check each one independently but seems like a lot of cumulative work for each participant to check separately. Might also help a little with participation.

You could run a pocket query on the COTM bookmark list and quickly see how many you've found. That's what I did. The bookmark list is also linked on the challenge cache page.

[+Gan Dalf]

This there anyway to generate and distribute a list or macro for GSAK for a quick check? I can of course check each one independently but seems like a lot of cumulative work for each participant to check separately. Might also help a little with participation.

If there is I'm not aware of how to do it. I think hydnsek's suggestion is a good one. Besides, I thought this was a pretty straight forward challenge. Public bookmark list already exists and is linked to on the cache page, people should have a pretty good idea which ones they've found and only 30 caches to check for... Besides, I was hoping to make this one easy to manage given that my hands are pretty full with the Cities and Towns challegne as well (not that I am trying to slack off or anything...)