Challenges: Crash and burn?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Challenges are no different than vaguely similar to Virtual and Locationless caches of the past...

Fixed it for you.

No need to fix something that was already accurate. I have created challenges that are the same as a virtual that was in the same spot and gives the visitor the same experience. Only difference is that you don't get a geo smilie, but a challenge completion tick instead that doesn't count in your overall finds.

So, you're saying there's one difference instead of no differences.

 

Here are just a few other differences that you might want to add:

 

- Challenges don't appear in PQ results.

 

- Challenges don't appear on cache maps.

 

- Ability to search for challenges is much more limited.

 

- Challenges don't have .gpx files that you can download to your GPSr.

 

- Challenge description page limited to 2000 characters.

 

- Challenge description page does not accept HTML.

 

- Challenges aren't reviewed.

 

- Cannot add challenges to watchlist.

 

- Cannot add challenges to ignore list.

 

- Challenges do not have Difficulty or Terrain ratings.

 

- Challenges do not have attributes.

 

- Challenges do not have additional waypoints.

 

- Challenges don't have favorite points.

 

- Challenges require a different mobile app.

 

- Challenges cannot be bookmarked.

 

- Challenges can be archived by geocachers instead of reviewers/owners.

 

- Challenges don't have owners (at least after 24 hours).

 

- - Only Groundspeak can delete bogus completions.

 

- - Description page cannot be modified (at least after 24 hours).

 

- - Challenges don't appear among your cache hides.

 

- - Cannot require challenge takers to email information to the owner.

 

- - No notification when "logs" are posted to challenges.

 

- - Challenges cannot be temporarily disabled.

 

But look on the bright side --- They can be armchair/vacation creations and armchair logged with no repercussions.

 

John

 

That's not really true. Anyone in the community can flag an completion log, however, the choices for the reason for flagging don't make a lot of sense (Prohibited, Inappropriate, Spam). It should have a "Not Completed" option to indicate that the log/associated photo does not meet the criteria that the challenge creator stipulated. I don't really a problem with armchair *creation* of a challenge. For example, I was thinking of creating a challenge to take a photo from a specific location in the "Birds Nest" Olympic stadium in Beijing. There are a few places in the stadium that are recommended photo opportunities with foot prints painted on the floor where you're supposed to stand. I was there before challenges were created and see no reason why, if I can come up with reasonable coordinates armchair the creation of a challenge today.

 

A couple of other differences between challenges and Virtual caches.

 

-- There are no proximity guidelines for challenges. I just accepted a bunch of challenges in Rome that are at locations I'm very likely going to visit next week. Two of them are at Trevia Fountain, both photo challenges. The only difference is that one asks you to take a picture throwing a coin in the fountain and the other justs asks for a photo at the location. It's exactly the same location and the same photo could be submitted as proof of completion for both. There is also a traditional cache hidden there.

 

-- The no vacation caches guideline does not apply to Challenges.

[+CanadianRockies]

A couple of other differences between challenges and Virtual caches.

 

-- There are no proximity guidelines for challenges....

 

-- The no vacation caches guideline does not apply to Challenges.

I don't believe there were proximity guidelines for virtuals either. I've found virtuals and EarthCaches placed at the same location as traditionals.

 

But, as substitutes, I offer:

 

- There are no commercial or agenda guidelines for challenges (except for what other geocachers deem to be spam).

 

- Challenges currently can be created only by Premium Members.

 

- Each Premium Member can create only a single challenge per day.

[+Lil Devil]

I don't believe there were proximity guidelines for virtuals either. I've found virtuals and EarthCaches placed at the same location as traditionals.

At the time virtuals were still being accepted, they did have to adhere to the proximity guideline. After they were grandfathered, that limitation was lifted.

[GOF and Bacall]

I think this log shows there to be some value in challenges. Mom and kids got to enjoy time together in the outdoors.

 

I had so much fun today flying a kite with my mom and my brother! I am a kite flying expert now! This was the best day ever!

[+Doctroid]

I think this log shows there to be some value in challenges. Mom and kids got to enjoy time together in the outdoors.

 

I had so much fun today flying a kite with my mom and my brother! I am a kite flying expert now! This was the best day ever!

 

There's some value in scanning electron microscopy too.

 

But it ain't geocaching.

[GOF and Bacall]

I think this log shows there to be some value in challenges. Mom and kids got to enjoy time together in the outdoors.

 

I had so much fun today flying a kite with my mom and my brother! I am a kite flying expert now! This was the best day ever!

 

There's some value in scanning electron microscopy too.

 

But it ain't geocaching.

 

Didn't claim it was.

[+Cybercat]

They don't add to my find count, so.......(yawn).......why bother?

[GOF and Bacall]

They don't add to my find count, so.......(yawn).......why bother?

 

How sad. You'll miss out on a lot of fun things to do because they won't add to your find count.

[+Lil Devil]

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to your find count but you still do it

[GOF and Bacall]

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to your find count but you still do it

 

 

Excuse me while I go get some paper towels.

[+tozainamboku]

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to your find count but you still do it

Hmmm. An idea for a new challenge.

[+Manville Possum]

Bogus logging a challange and the user that created the challange not being able to delete it is a down side of creating a challange for me.

[+jellis]

Keep in mind on thumbs down measurements, many people who are opposed to the basic idea of challenges are simply thumbs downing everything in the area.

 

To make the comparison more valid, you should compare to the number of geocaches created during the same period for an area, recognizing that this is a sideline to the primary purpose, so one would expect it to be at a much lower level.

 

I neither like nor dislike challenges, so I'd say I'm relatively unbiased.

I agree, I have one where all you do is go to Union Square in SF and take picture with yourself with one of the Heart Sculptures. 5 thumbs up and 6 down. So far 12 accepted and 7 completed. Some not as I was hoping but close enough.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to your find count but you still do it

 

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to my find count, but that's not why I wouldn't do it.

[+Avanclan]

Challenges should go the way of the dinosaur , not much interest shown in these in my part of the world.

 

We have Earth caches, why cant we have History caches, Nature caches and Science caches

[+t4e]

Challenges should go the way of the dinosaur , not much interest shown in these in my part of the world.

 

We have Earth caches, why cant we have History caches, Nature caches and Science caches

 

and who would be the authority governing such caches?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I created a fairly simple (yet fun) Challenge, in the same park as the oldest cache in Rhode Island. I have had one person complete it, compared to about 20 finds on the oldest cache.

 

There are only 3 other Challenges in RI.

 

So, it looks like there is not much interest here.

[+dfx]

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to your find count but you still do it

 

Ah, but maybe it should! Gonna start a feedback thread...

[+geodarts]

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to your find count but you still do it

 

So perhaps the question for me is whether I would I consider doing challenges if they were not part of this site. Probably not. I looked at one this morning that is a few blocks from where I am staying. It wants me to dress in a cowboy outfit - I am not even sure I would do that for my wife. So I think I will just grab the cache at that location instead.

 

I am sure there are great waymarks, navicaches, mumzees, gowalla sites, or other activities that could get me out and about. But I do not need to add one more game to what I already do. Yesterday, I drove 20 miles out of my way for a virtual. I have done the same for earthcaches. Somehow I cannot imagine doing that for most challenges I have seen, which has more to do with how the game is designed than anything else.

Edited October 6, 2011 by geodarts

[+Maingray]

Nothing around here. I think the initial "OMG WTF" that Groundspeak generated with their first iteration of Challenges meant premature death.

[AZcachemeister]

After a little consideration, I will add this:

 

When Geocaching was first developing, it was a kind of free-form organic thing.

Should this be allowed?

Can I do that?

 

Now the Challenges have been dropped in, and they are being allowed to develop and flower on their own, or perhaps remain a stunted, disfigured mockery of what they might have become.

 

I realize that by not participating, I am not helping. That is my choice. Because (as I see it), you should have a fully formed viable seed before you plant it. The Challenge concept was neither.

 

SO MUCH recent development at Groundspeak has apparently been based on incorrect assumptions of what we users really want...far too much.

 

Don't EVEN get me started on the Feedback forums...an 'official response' of 'This item has been added to our internal que' is just so much lip-service. If nothing is done after six, seven, eight months, do they really expect us to believe they are really listening?

[+Viajero Perdido]

It's wildly successful. There are fully eight times as many Challenges as there are OpenCaches in my fair city.

 

8 vs. 1

[AZcachemeister]

I stand corrected.

All OpenCache users should now flock to Edmonton.

 

Are we not comparing peaches to pears?

 

What is an OpenCache, anyway?

[+Borst68]

I think this log shows there to be some value in challenges. Mom and kids got to enjoy time together in the outdoors.

 

I had so much fun today flying a kite with my mom and my brother! I am a kite flying expert now! This was the best day ever!

 

There's some value in scanning electron microscopy too.

 

But it ain't geocaching.

 

Didn't claim it was.

 

And this is probably the entire problem with Challenges. It ain't geocaching. I think that its great that some mom took her kids out to fly a kite and had a ball. The fact that Gof had to lure her into doing it is somewhat alarming. I know Gof has been a big proponent of Challenges. However, I personally feel I know my kids well enough to pick activities that we can have fun as a family with out his help. (No offense meant towards Gof.) And I don't need a smiley or a point or what ever to do it. Today, for instance, we went to a University of Buffalo football game (Go Bulls) with some people from our church. Afterwards, we (wife, kids and I) went out for pizza. My kids (both girls) had a blast! We had a great day. I don't need a smiley for it. And it certainly isn't geocaching. Last weekend, I took my daughters out to get a hard cache 35 feet up in a spruce tree. I usually cache alone and felt it best to have someone capable of dialing 911 on a cell phone when I fall my fat arse out of a pine tree. Both girls loved the trip and eagerly climbed. My oldest got the cache and my youngest and myself put it back. We had a blast and it was caching. IMO, much of the negatives surrounding the challenges is due to the fact that it isn't caching. It's the same reason why Waymarking is not appreciated by the masses. Just my 2 cents. Not trying to call you out Gof. Peace.

Edited October 9, 2011 by Borst68

[+Borst68]

It's wildly successful. There are fully eight times as many Challenges as there are OpenCaches in my fair city.

 

8 vs. 1

 

Which OpenCaching? .Com or .US?

[Schnitzle]

It's wildly successful. There are fully eight times as many Challenges as there are OpenCaches in my fair city.

 

8 vs. 1

 

Which OpenCaching? .Com or .US?

.com

[GOF and Bacall]

I think this log shows there to be some value in challenges. Mom and kids got to enjoy time together in the outdoors.

 

I had so much fun today flying a kite with my mom and my brother! I am a kite flying expert now! This was the best day ever!

 

There's some value in scanning electron microscopy too.

 

But it ain't geocaching.

 

Didn't claim it was.

 

And this is probably the entire problem with Challenges. It ain't geocaching. I think that its great that some mom took her kids out to fly a kite and had a ball. The fact that Gof had to lure her into doing it is somewhat alarming. I know Gof has been a big proponent of Challenges. However, I personally feel I know my kids well enough to pick activities that we can have fun as a family with out his help. (No offense meant towards Gof.) And I don't need a smiley or a point or what ever to do it. Today, for instance, we went to a University of Buffalo football game (Go Bulls) with some people from our church. Afterwards, we (wife, kids and I) went out for pizza. My kids (both girls) had a blast! We had a great day. I don't need a smiley for it. And it certainly isn't geocaching. Last weekend, I took my daughters out to get a hard cache 35 feet up in a spruce tree. I usually cache alone and felt it best to have someone capable of dialing 911 on a cell phone when I fall my fat arse out of a pine tree. Both girls loved the trip and eagerly climbed. My oldest got the cache and my youngest and myself put it back. We had a blast and it was caching. IMO, much of the negatives surrounding the challenges is due to the fact that it isn't caching. It's the same reason why Waymarking is not appreciated by the masses. Just my 2 cents. Not trying to call you out Gof. Peace.

 

Howdy Borst.

 

I don't look at it like I lured anyone. More like sparked an idea. I think a mother saw the challenge and thought "Hey, what a good idea!". I'm just glad they had fun.

[+Alkhalikoi]

Sex with your significant other doesn't add to your find count but you still do it

 

FTF!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I stand corrected.

All OpenCache users should now flock to Edmonton.

 

Are we not comparing peaches to pears?

 

What is an OpenCache, anyway?

 

A container with a soggy log book.

[+addisonbr]

Challenges should go the way of the dinosaur , not much interest shown in these in my part of the world.

 

We have Earth caches, why cant we have History caches, Nature caches and Science caches

 

and who would be the authority governing such caches?

I do not make a habit of hunting containerless caches, but I think that the Earthcache implementation has worked well. I think something like (say) Historycaches moderated by a historical body similar to how Earthcaches are moderated by the GSA would work well. If there is no institution interested or willing to do that at this time... I think waiting / not implementing until there is one that is, is perfectly acceptable.

[+GrateBear]

There could be several different factors - a surge if interest when they were new; people trying it out; the number that were done before completions were separated from geocache finds; the lack of ownership; and people discovering that challenges have no real relation to caching or the type of experience that the old virtuals provide.

As well, some people completed challenges by using old photographs that they had laying around; no need to actually visit these challenge sites. Now they've finished completing many of those easy desktop challenges, leaving more challenges that require going outside.

I don't really see what's wrong with that. As long as it's a photo the person actually took, why not?

[+CanadianRockies]

There could be several different factors - a surge if interest when they were new; people trying it out; the number that were done before completions were separated from geocache finds; the lack of ownership; and people discovering that challenges have no real relation to caching or the type of experience that the old virtuals provide.

As well, some people completed challenges by using old photographs that they had laying around; no need to actually visit these challenge sites. Now they've finished completing many of those easy desktop challenges, leaving more challenges that require going outside.

I don't really see what's wrong with that. As long as it's a photo the person actually took, why not?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. I don't do it myself, but I have no problem with others doing it.

 

My point was that this might be one factor that helps explain why the initial surge of Challenge completions has diminished.

Edited October 11, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+ATXTracker]

I haven't read the entire thread but overall I agree with most of the assessments. Challenges could have been cool, if they were a new cache type, rather than a new online game entirely. I definitely complained after the launch, but also made an honest attempt to provide feedback in the suggestion system to make them better. Many of my suggestions and other's suggestions that I supported were simply closed because 'Challenges were designed that way' (not verbatim quote). Which is silly, because I wouldn't be making the suggestion if they were designed that way.

 

Here is my list of how to fix challenges:

1) Ownership: logs should be moderated by the creator/owner. Armchair logging, and IMO logging having completed it in the past don't count and the owner should be able to delete the logs.

- http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2172395-give-challenge-creators-credit-and-control-over-th

 

2) Review: Peer review is fine, but it takes time. If a challenge is archived due to review failure, then the completions prior to that decision have to be cleaned up. I have a few completions to my name for early challenges which didn't meet the requirements. Better yet, maybe the Challenge isn't completable until enough users sign off on it meeting the basic requirements.

- CLOSED (not changed): http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2171401-challenges-need-to-be-reviewed-

- CLOSED (not changed): http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2172981-flagging-challenges-should-allow-for-a-reason-and

 

3) Notification: Owners and subscribers need notification emails.

- http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2173095-challenge-notifications-and-watchlist

 

4) Terrain and Difficulty should apply.

- http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2308539-challenge-should-have-terrain-and-difficulty

 

5) Other Integration: Challenges should show on Maps, PQs, Search (not a separate search), Users finds pages.

- PARTIAL: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2172073-display-challenges-on-map

 

6) Virtual Replacement: A more formal way for an owner to propose challenge questions as proof that the Challenge was completed, to be verified by the owner.

- http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/2308517-challenges-workflow-for-responding-to-challenge-qu

 

7) Definition: In order to be an interesting activity, I think there needs to be better definition of what a Challenge is, and what it is not. Taking a picture somewhere and posting it on the internet is not an interesting activity for me (may be for others). I can do that on 100 different sites. I'm not likely to come to geocaching.com to get suggestions on where I should take a picture, regardless of how nice the view/sunset may be. Taking a picture can be the proof that I completed a more intricate challenge in a location, but taking the picture itself should not be the challenge entirely.

 

Ironically, if all the above had been done initially, the grouping of completed Challenges in with the total find count may not have engendered such a backlash.

Edited October 11, 2011 by ATXTracker

[+thebruce0]

Ironically, if all the above had been done initially, the grouping of completed Challenges in with the total find count may not have engendered such a backlash.

This.

[Clan Riffster]

And this is probably the entire problem with Challenges. It ain't geocaching.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but I'm not sure this statement has merit.

I guess we should first try to define what is geocaching, not as a generic term, but as it applies to this website?

Presumably, the simplest answer would be "Finding Geocaches"... Maybe?

If we accept that as the standard, then defining geocaching is fairly easy.

According to my profile, under "All Geocache Finds", I see the following activities:

1 ) Locating a hidden container at the posted coordinates.

2 ) Locating a hidden container at coordinates found in another container.

3 ) Going to a cheesy theme park.

4 ) Locating a hidden container which has a stamp inside.

5 ) Eating hotwings with a gaggle of geeks.

6 ) Picking up litter on the side of the road.

7 ) Schmoozing with nerds on a specific, unique calander date, such as 10-10-10.

8 ) Locating a hidden container by solving riddles to get the coordinates.

9 ) Capyuring my image with a video camera that streams to the Internet.

10 ) Wlking across a bridge and looking at a river.

11 ) Finding a hidden container by playing a game in my GPSr.

12 ) Finding a metal disc embedded in concrete.*

13 ) Getting a picture of a Florida Trail sign.*

(* = Though included in my list of "All Geocache Finds", these two activities do not increase my "Total Find Count")

 

Looking at your profile, I also see certain activities listed which are outside the "Find a container" matrix by which you have defined geocaching.

Specifically;

On 07-27-11 you drove down a road and read a sign.

Is that geocaching?

On 12-03-10 you drove to a hill and took a picture of yourself.

Is that geocaching?

On 05-20-11 you hung out with 500+ geeks.

Is that geocaching?

You've even done a couple challenges, which I find odd.

 

My question for you is thus;

If getting a picture of yourself on a hill is geocaching, how is getting a picture of yourself at a waterfall not geocaching? I guess the same would apply to reading a sign and hanging out with other geeks. How can one be geocaching, and the other not?

[+addisonbr]

At the expense of going all Potter Stewart on folks, I kind of get where the sentiment is coming from. A good debater on these boards could probably prove that an event cache is exactly the same as a FourSquare checkin.

 

But while I'm okay with folks logging event caches, I wouldn't be very excited about Groundspeak and FourSquare combining forces and including checkins as caches. That might make me logically inconsistent, but... I can't really help how it feels to me.

[+Doctroid]

And this is probably the entire problem with Challenges. It ain't geocaching.

 

...

 

Looking at your profile, I also see certain activities listed which are outside the "Find a container" matrix by which you have defined geocaching.

Specifically;

On 07-27-11 you drove down a road and read a sign.

Is that geocaching?

On 12-03-10 you drove to a hill and took a picture of yourself.

Is that geocaching?

On 05-20-11 you hung out with 500+ geeks.

Is that geocaching?

You've even done a couple challenges, which I find odd.

 

Why 'odd'? They've probably done lots of things that aren't geocaching.

 

Borst68 never said "I refuse to participate in, or to log a 'find' for, anything that isn't 'finding a container'". Nor would I. Indeed, I've done 1 virtual and 31 benchmarks. They were generally enjoyable experiences, and I see no reason not to have logged finds for them once I'd done them. But in my personal view, neither benchmarks nor virtuals are really geocaches. And there's the problem: since they aren't really geocaches, they don't really fit here. New virtuals are no longer permitted and old ones are getting archived, and benchmarks, well, TPTB don't count them as finds, are neglecting the benchmarking features of this site, and, by shoving the benchmarks link deep into the bottom of the footer, are trying to make sure everyone else neglects them too. Which they pretty much do.

 

Events, of course, don't suffer that kind of neglect; that's because geocachers, or at least some geocachers, like hanging out with other geocachers. Events are not geocaches, even if they count as such, but they are certainly strongly connected with traditional geocaching.

 

But benchmarks, virtuals, Whereigos, webcams... they're all non-geocaching ideas that they've sort of attempted to graft onto geocaching with little success. Challenges look to be another of the same.

[+bflentje]

I think interest may increase as features increase: If you could download a .gpx file, if they showed up as "nearest challenges", if you could PQ for them, if there were notifications....

 

While I think I understand the point of view of "no ownership", I think it drives "no interest in creating" - no email when "your" challenge is logged, no easy way to do anything about the armchair logging, and having your challenge just disappear because X number of people flagged it, all make challenge creation less interesting then it might be.

 

The most found challenges around me don't need coords to do - pictures at the pro sports stadiums. Once you've read those challenges, it's not that hard to remember, or get a shot that's appropriate.

 

You've hit the nail on the head with exactly why I personally have no interest.

[+thebruce0]

I'm personally actually getting sort of excited about challenges, with the hope that some improvements are coming down the line. I've got a lot of ideas for interesting, educational, entertaining, location-based themes for challenges that I'm working on... Hopefully, by putting more of those out, it'll help set a tone and encourage others to look at them more often, and think about them more when creating them.

 

The biggest problem at the moment, IMO, is the lack of easy access to challenges. The UI for the section on the site is dramatically different from geocaches, and still missing vital components, like a map view (or better, integration with the geocache maps and searches).

 

I think just like geocaches having LPCs, Challenges will always have "go to X building and take a picture" listings that really have no geocaching relation. But the more people think about them, and put more effort into creating worthwhile ones, the higher the bar will be raised.

 

IMO, don't give up on them, but start creating some good ones, populate your area, set a bar, spread the word.

 

They can be great. Do we need to wait for Groundspeak to improve the system before it gets there? I don't think so.

If you're worried about undeserving archival, just keep a backup of the challenge text somewhere, and republish it

[+geodarts]

Why 'odd'? They've probably done lots of things that aren't geocaching.

. . . . .

 

But benchmarks, virtuals, Whereigos, webcams... they're all non-geocaching ideas that they've sort of attempted to graft onto geocaching with little success. Challenges look to be another of the same.

 

Benchmarks have never been part of this game, like challenges and waymarks. Perhaps the lesson is that most of us are not looking for something else to play. We have plenty to keep us busy in the context of this game, other hobbies and activities, and our personal lives. Groundspeak believed that virtuals were popular because they invited us to "go somewhere, do something." Accordingly, they gave us challenges as a replacement. I do not need, and did not want, one more game that gets me going somewhere to do something.

 

Virtuals? I think they were very successful (on a user level as opposed to administration). I have done hundreds of them, second only to traditionals in terms of my numbers. They are first on my "to do" list and I go out of my way for them. They often receive a large number of favorite votes. Challenges were developed because a significant number of people wanted virtuals brought back into this game, but for all the reasons that have been stated in this thread and others, challenges are not a true "replacement." Challenges do not necessarily require use of the gpsr, they do not involve finding things, they do not require site visits by the creator, there is no ownership or corresponding responsibility, the ALR type of activity inherent in many challenges have nothing to do with virtuals -- either conceptually or as a matte of find counts, they are not part of this game. Even the world wide challenges, which might have been a replacement for locationless caches, miss the mark.

 

Wherigo caches of course ultimately involve finding a physical container -- the problems associated with them have often been technical (building or playing) so perhaps they are less of a "non-geocaching" idea than a caching idea that requires a fair amount of work and is consequently less popular.

 

I suppose we all define "geocaching" differently. The game on this website seems to be however Groundspeak chooses to define it. Based on the current definitions, I suspect that challenges will not crash and burn as much as they will fail to take off and limp along as another side activity.

Edited October 12, 2011 by geodarts

[+thebruce0]

It seems that Groundspeak's flavour of "geocaching" is being more promoted as a theme, more than a specific activity. I think that's the way Groundspeak is moving with the features and gameplay activities they're supporting on this website. I agree - "Geocaching Challenges" aren't (traditionally) geocaching. But, much like sideshows and related themed activities at an event for something specific, they can indeed be something else fun that can be related to the activity of geocaching, and can be promoted as such.

...Note the abundance of "can be". The implementation leaves much to be desired - but they can be something else fun to do while geocaching... or provide goal-oriented activities that are related to geocaching... or exercise geocaching-related skills.

 

This geocaching theme just needs to be given more focus and emphasis in challenges if it wants to be taken seriously (aside from a better interface and web experience in that entire section of the site) -- especially in the worldwides which undoubtedly get the most visibility. For PMs that create them, again, put more thought and effort into the content.

 

If you don't want to complete them, then don't. Ignore them. Many geocachers also choose to filter out unknown/puzzle caches. Or Wherigos. Or Earthcaches. Or caches with specific attributes.

Whatever your flavour of geocaching - the traditional activity or the thematic pastime - do that. Do whatever makes you happy

[+hzoi]

I stand corrected.

All OpenCache users should now flock to Edmonton.

 

Are we not comparing peaches to pears?

 

What is an OpenCache, anyway?

 

A container with a soggy log book.

 

Like the one in question here, then?

[GOF and Bacall]

Why 'odd'? They've probably done lots of things that aren't geocaching.

. . . . .

 

But benchmarks, virtuals, Whereigos, webcams... they're all non-geocaching ideas that they've sort of attempted to graft onto geocaching with little success. Challenges look to be another of the same.

 

Benchmarks have never been part of this game, like challenges and waymarks. Perhaps the lesson is that most of us are not looking for something else to play. We have plenty to keep us busy in the context of this game, other hobbies and activities, and our personal lives. Groundspeak believed that virtuals were popular because they invited us to "go somewhere, do something." Accordingly, they gave us challenges as a replacement. I do not need, and did not want, one more game that gets me going somewhere to do something.

 

Virtuals? I think they were very successful (on a user level as opposed to administration). I have done hundreds of them, second only to traditionals in terms of my numbers. They are first on my "to do" list and I go out of my way for them. They often receive a large number of favorite votes. Challenges were developed because a significant number of people wanted virtuals brought back into this game, but for all the reasons that have been stated in this thread and others, challenges are not a true "replacement." Challenges do not necessarily require use of the gpsr, they do not involve finding things, they do not require site visits by the creator, there is no ownership or corresponding responsibility, the ALR type of activity inherent in many challenges have nothing to do with virtuals -- either conceptually or as a matte of find counts, they are not part of this game. Even the world wide challenges, which might have been a replacement for locationless caches, miss the mark.

 

Wherigo caches of course ultimately involve finding a physical container -- the problems associated with them have often been technical (building or playing) so perhaps they are less of a "non-geocaching" idea than a caching idea that requires a fair amount of work and is consequently less popular.

 

I suppose we all define "geocaching" differently. The game on this website seems to be however Groundspeak chooses to define it. Based on the current definitions, I suspect that challenges will not crash and burn as much as they will fail to take off and limp along as another side activity.

 

I think one of the problems fans of virtuals have with accepting the challenges is that they expect them to be like the virtuals they have found. The thing is that those virtuals that are still out there are usually the best of what there was. Most of the average or sub-par virtuals have long sense been archived.

[+JJnTJ]

I'm using them to add benchmarks that do not exist in the GC.com database.

 

They'd be more interesting to me if they

 

1) could be viewed on a map for trip planning purposes (also GPX, etc.)

2) had something useful in the HTML title, so that they didn't all show up as "Geocaching - The Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site" in my browser history.

 

Why are the coordinates formatted differently in challenges? Why is nearly everything about challenges different than the rest of GC.com? It's like they were developed by an external company and shoehorned in.

[GOF and Bacall]

Why are the coordinates formatted differently in challenges? Why is nearly everything about challenges different than the rest of GC.com? It's like they were developed by an external company and shoehorned in.

 

That's what I asked from the start. I don't get it. I think that it is the other big problem people have with them. They don't work with the existing site infrastructure. Can't view them on a map with caches. Can't load 'em up on your GPS with your caches. Can't run a PQ on 'em. They just don't fit.

[+cache_test_dummies]

They don't work with the existing site infrastructure. Can't view them on a map with caches. Can't load 'em up on your GPS with your caches. Can't run a PQ on 'em. They just don't fit.

Kinda like the same issues that marginalized Waymarking.

 

At least Challenges were fortunate enough to still be listed on the geocaching.com web site, and share the same forums.

[+JJnTJ]

Challenges have the Challenges app, which (at least on Android) puts them way above waymarks on the usability scale.

[Clan Riffster]

Why 'odd'? They've probably done lots of things that aren't geocaching.

Not to dogpile on Borst, but to answer your question;

I saw this line in Borst's anti-challenge rant.

I personally feel I know my kids well enough to pick activities that we can have fun as a family with out his help. (No offense meant towards Gof.) And I don't need a smiley or a point or what ever to do it.

In reading this, I surmised that Borst is not into logging things that are not "geocaching".

Then I look at his profile and see he logs all kind of things that are not "geocaching".

That's all. I just thought it was a quirky viewpoint.

[+tozainamboku]

I suppose we all define "geocaching" differently. The game on this website seems to be however Groundspeak chooses to define it. Based on the current definitions, I suspect that challenges will not crash and burn as much as they will fail to take off and limp along as another side activity.

Historically, there has always been a debate over what is included in "geocaching". Even before Geocaching.com existed there were discussions as to just what constituted a cache. No less a person that Dave Ulmer, who hid the first geocache, proposed other alternatives to the hidden container and log book. Dave proposed something he called the wondert game - looking for places where just being there is the reward. He thought of all the places where you couldn't hide a container. He already found that he enjoyed caches that brought him to interesting places and felt that if you got rid of the container you'd have a better game where you'd still get that feeling of "wow" when you found that place you wouldn't have known about or visited otherwise. Of course everyone else told him where he could take his new idea - geocaches were physical containers with logbooks and swag.

 

When Jeremy started the Geocaching.com website, there were still not many caches. He needed some way to expand the activity to encourage new players and grow his user base if this was going to be successful. One idea to was to revive Dave's Wondert idea. Geocaching.com began to allow virtual cache to be listed. Intially these hade few guidelines other than it should be for places where you couldn't hide a physical cache. Soon after came the idea of a virtual cache that was locationless. These could be found anywhere in the world.

 

Virtuals and locationless caches were wildly successful. But there were plenty of people who complained that they shouldn't count as geocaches. Soon the complaint was too many of these were not at very interesting locations. Or that every manhole cover or historic marker would eventually be listed. A guideline was proposed that the location for a virtual cache be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Virtual cache locations should be worthy of inclusion in a coffee table book or should "wow" the finder. This fix just caused a new problem, in that reviewers were now being told to judge just what was "wow". There were also issue with locationless caches, in particular that many had so many logs that it cause a performance issue for Geocaching.com. So a moratorium on new locationless caches was put in place and one of the most popular locationless caches (the yellow jeep) was archived to prevent new logs.

 

The success of virtual and locations led to other types as well. Someone came up with the idea of posting the coordinates of webcams and requiring that people have a friend capture there image on the webcam as "proof" of a find. At about the same time, someone discovered the USGS database of benchmarks. Groundspeak loaded the database on to the Geocaching.com and allow users to search for these and log their finds. However, Groundspeak decide that since this was a separate database from the geocaching database, that these finds would not count as geocaches.

 

A little later, the Geological Society of America proposed a new cache type. These would be locations of geological (or Earth science) significance. The purpose of visiting these sites was to encourage learning about geology and Earth science. Groundspeak accepted the proposal, perhaps because the US National Park Service was a co-sponsor and this was seen as a way of getting Geocaching recognized by the National Parks.

 

In the meantime, traditional geocaching was growing and there were few places that need these non-traditional caches as a way to jump start the game anymore. Instead Groundspeak was looking to start some new websites that would be related to GPS usage but not be geocaching. One idea, spurred by promises that Groundspeak would find a solution for locationless caches, was the Waymarking site. Here categories could be proposed and run by premium members. Then any member could post waymarks that fit that category. Some categories would be interesting enough to some people that they might visit locations in these categories just as Dave Ulmer thought people would visit Wonderts. Since Waymarking seemed to be a replacement for locationless caches and new "virtual" caches could be created as Waymarks in some category, the existing locationless caches were all archived and no new virtual caches were allowed. Another idea, was based on Jeremy and Elias's experience with early adventure style games on the PC. They imagined playing such games in the real world with the GPS providing your location to game instead of a joystick or mouse. The result was Wherigo. The biggest problem with Wherigo was it was ahead of its time. Not until the advent of GPS enabled smartphones was there a widely available device that would work. Of course, to promote Wherigo, the obvious idea was to have a physical cache whose location would be revealed only by playing the Wherigo game. Thus the Wherigo cache type was born.

 

Waymarking had a big disadvantage. It was not on the Geocaching.com site. Geocachers would find the grandfathered virtual caches and want to hide their own. But if they created a waymark, nobody would find these. Not only didn't they count as caches anymore, but they required you to go to another site to find them. And this new site didn't have all the tools that the geocaching site had. The search feature was completely different (in part because of the many categories of waymarks), and while eventually there was a way of loading the search results onto a GPS, it was lacking the details you could get with a GPX file of geocaches. Because of these and other issues, there was a constant request to bring back virtuals to Geocaching.com

 

Challenges are Groundspeak's new response. They clearly feel that virtual and locationless caches are activities that geocachers enjoy and that can be done in conjunction with finding traditional geocaches. But they did not want to bring them back as they used to be with all the problems they caused before. Instead they developed a new concept of challenges. These involve going to a location (possibly using a GPS device) and performing a task there (other than finding a container or signing a logbook). This definition is probably intentionally broad. As geocachers experiment we will find that some challenges are successful and other are not. My guess is that there will be some refinements over the next few months in the guidelines so that most challenges will be have a quality that appeals to geocachers in the way the "wow" virtuals appeal to them.

[+holazola]

Thanks TOZ, very interesting reading. I think you have hit it pretty square on the head, so to speak. I actually have just started considering some challenges, especially for some things in our area that can't have a cache, or there are semi-permanent proximity issues. I do feel that the challenge site and apps will evolve to have many similar tools and features like caches, given time to ripen a bit...