Challenges: Crash and burn?

[+popokiiti]

Events and CITOs earn a smiley, and are listed separately - I was hoping challenges would have been the same. I still think the idea is good, but needs improvement. Time will tell......

[+EdrickV]

The problem I have with challenges is that there are no controls. Challenges are pure anarchy. At least one of the World Wide Challenges created by Groundspeak got automatically archived until someone found out about that from a feedback thread. Now while that won't likely happen to Groundspeak's challenges anymore, (they can "lock" them to avoid that) that does go to show that the "good" challenges could get auto-archived as well, not just the "bad" challenges. If one person had a personal grudge against another, and wanted to get rid of a challenge they created, all they need is enough friends (or sock puppets) to vote it down until it's auto-archived. Granted, admin can unarchive it (if the creator were to post a feedback thread) but that might not prevent it from getting archived again.

 

Because challenges do not have owners, and apparently never will, there is no reliable way to verify completions. Thus it could be a bad thing if they were counted in your total finds, since people could go through and log completions on every challenge they can find, without making any attempt to actually do any of them. Just to raise their total find count. I mean, if people will armchair log Geocaches, then they'd certainly do the same with challenges. Making challenges not be a part of your total find count just removes some of the incentive do do that. Challenge completions are still tracked on this site, and a total challenges icon does appear on Geocache logs, so those who feel they need to get some sort of "reward" for doing a challenge still have something to get.

 

Challenges were talked about as the replacement of Virtual Caches. But without ownership, and without controls, they are nothing like Virtual Caches. Waymarks, from what I've seen, are still a better replacement for Virtual Caches. Since obviously real Virtual Caches will not be coming back. And none of the 5 challenges near me are interesting enough to consider doing.

[+DonB]

We just returned from a trip to Gettysburg and did six virtuals in Gettysburg and four in Indiana. Enjoyed doing all of them, didn't bother looking for any challenges to do.

[+sbell111]

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:

2) Review:

3) Notification:

4) Terrain and Difficulty

5) Other Integration:

6) Virtual Replacement:

7) Definition:

 

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.

I disagree. I believe taht history has shown that similar backlash would have occured no matter how tptb attempted to reintroduce Virt and LC analogues.

[+thebruce0]

The problem I have with challenges is that there are no controls. Challenges are pure anarchy. At least one of the World Wide Challenges created by Groundspeak got automatically archived until someone found out about that from a feedback thread. Now while that won't likely happen to Groundspeak's challenges anymore, (they can "lock" them to avoid that) that does go to show that the "good" challenges could get auto-archived as well, not just the "bad" challenges. If one person had a personal grudge against another, and wanted to get rid of a challenge they created, all they need is enough friends (or sock puppets) to vote it down until it's auto-archived. Granted, admin can unarchive it (if the creator were to post a feedback thread) but that might not prevent it from getting archived again.

 

Because challenges do not have owners, and apparently never will, there is no reliable way to verify completions. Thus it could be a bad thing if they were counted in your total finds, since people could go through and log completions on every challenge they can find, without making any attempt to actually do any of them. Just to raise their total find count. I mean, if people will armchair log Geocaches, then they'd certainly do the same with challenges. Making challenges not be a part of your total find count just removes some of the incentive do do that. Challenge completions are still tracked on this site, and a total challenges icon does appear on Geocache logs, so those who feel they need to get some sort of "reward" for doing a challenge still have something to get.

 

Challenges were talked about as the replacement of Virtual Caches. But without ownership, and without controls, they are nothing like Virtual Caches. Waymarks, from what I've seen, are still a better replacement for Virtual Caches. Since obviously real Virtual Caches will not be coming back. And none of the 5 challenges near me are interesting enough to consider doing.

I believe the general responses to all that (not that I agree at all) is that:

...cheaters will cheat

...you cheat no one but yourself

...what does it bother you if someone completes a challenge illegitimately?

...it's not about the numbers.

...just have fun doing them and don't worry about other people.

etc etc.

 

While all true, that's still why, imo, in its current iteration challenges will never realize their full potential here...

Edited October 13, 2011 by thebruce0

[+geodarts]

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.

 

Actually, some of the best virtuals I have found have since been archived. When I started to compile my favorites list I was disappointed with how many of them are gone - the ones that are remaining are not necessarily the best and often are not the best. My disappointment lies not so much in comparing individual virtuals with the challenges, but in the concept of challenges and how the are designed.

 

I always enjoyed locationless caches but am equally disappointed by the worldwides. The best of the locationless focused on particular objects, often obscure. It was a challenge to find things that were not yet logged. It usually took a fair amount of research and always involved a site visit. Taking a hike (or having taken a hike in the past), picking up trash, or taking a picture with local flora or fauna don't replace that experience for me.

 

I do not think that challenges need to be the same as the old virtuals or locationless, but thus far they seem like a step backwards - replacing the "language of location" with "go somewhere, do something;" replacing a specific focus with an ALR type of game.

[+addisonbr]

I disagree. I believe taht history has shown that similar backlash would have occured no matter how tptb attempted to reintroduce Virt and LC analogues.

Was there a backlash when Earthcaches were re-introduced? I wasn't here so wouldn't know one way or another.

[DannyCaffeine]

They seem a bit silly to me. I did the ten pieces of trash one though.

[+thebruce0]

Some of them are silly.

Watch for the good ones

[I!]

To very crude first approximation, it looks like Challenges have settled down to a rate of one log posted every 100 seconds or so.

 

The graph below is taken from looking at challenges CX400, CX401, CX500, CX501, CX600, CX601, ... etc. up to CX2C01, and noting the exact log timestamps for all logs of any type. This turned up 1044 unique timestamps spanning a 60+ day period. Plotting timestamp index (rank) against actual timestamp, you get the green line below: rapid growth for the first ~4 weeks, then entering a steady(ish) period.

 

 

It will be interesting to see how this changes over a long timescale, bearing in mind the shape of the corresponding graph for geocaching logs.

Edited October 24, 2011 by I!