Challenge Caches updated 3/12/12

[+niraD]

The Challenge Caches guidelines in Groundspeak's Help Center (fka knowledge books) were recently updated. Some of the changes appear to be minor clarifications. The following appear to be new restrictions.

Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication.

This appears related to the existing restriction on challenge caches that require logging disabled/archived caches, and to the new restriction on challenge caches that require past accomplishments.

 

The challenge criteria [...] must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published. Cache owners will need to ensure that geocachers can verify that they have completed the cache requirements without compromising their privacy.

This appears to be a clarification of the original restriction that requirements be "logistically viable".

 

A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular cache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the cache will not be published.

Others have already pointed out that wheelchair users are a "segment of geocachers". Thus, the phrase "may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" could be interpreted as banning challenge caches that wheelchair users cannot complete (e.g., Fizzy Challenges that require high-terrain caches). However, I don't think that's the intent, based on the context of the following sentence.

 

The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document. A lengthy list of "rules" would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published.

In other words, the challenge should be completing the requirements, not understanding the requirements.

 

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: [...] Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

In other words, challenge caches cannot "level the playing field" by making current geocachers start over.

 

Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time while the cache is active. A cache that requires "100 multi-caches found in 2011" would not be publishable, as would not be attainable by someone new to the game.

Just as you can't penalize experienced geocachers, you can't penalize new geocachers.

 

One should not have to 'give up' finding other caches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of caches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

This appears to be a clarification of the original restriction on requirements based on "non-accomplishments".

 

If a challenge cache is submitted within an area where a similar challenge cache already exists, then it will need to have a unique list of qualifying criteria (geocaches, waymarks, etc.).

In other words, just as you can't "stack" events, you can't "stack" challenge caches.

[+benh57]

Bravo! As an avid challenge cache completer, i approve of these changes. They get rid of many of the 'annoying' requirements that many owners like to create.

[GOF and Bacall]

Never mind. I was bring things into this from elsewhere. I'll claim lack of sleep as I was up all night. Sorry.

Edited March 13, 2012 by GOF and Bacall

[+DanOCan]

I think these are excellent updates to the guidelines. Any word on whether existing challenge caches which do not meet the new criteria are grandfathered?

[Pup Patrol]

I think these are excellent updates to the guidelines. Any word on whether existing challenge caches which do not meet the new criteria are grandfathered?

 

From CacheDrone's announcement in the Canada forums:

 

Already existing challenge caches are grandfathered, as is the standard procedure with other updates.

 

CacheDrone's announcement:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=292123

 

Sandy's post in the "Knowledge Books: Updates and Additions" thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=263944

 

 

B.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+OZ2CPU]

>Any word on whether existing challenge caches which do not meet the new criteria are grandfathered?

 

it is not common for Groundspeak, to dis-allow any kinds of old and active caches, just becourse they change the rules,

just too bad :-) I like to see all those disabled where you need a % of different cache types and such in your total log score,

that is just insane.

[+Ike 13]

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: [...] Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

This was always one of my least favorite parts of lots of challenges. It usually made the challenge much easier for a new cacher and much harder for a veteran.

 

Overall the extra clarity is a good thing.

 

The only one I am worried about is:

A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular cache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the cache will not be published.

I like the idea of no average (I've seen the average a 2/2 challenges and know I would never qualify due to my power runs). But if a reviewer did not take the two sentences as a whole and just used the first one any challenge that required some 5/5 would be out.

[+rosebud55112]

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: [...] Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

This was always one of my least favorite parts of lots of challenges. It usually made the challenge much easier for a new cacher and much harder for a veteran.

 

 

Having some challenges that were easier for new cachers than established cachers was a benefit in my mind. It helped get new cachers involved. It also tended to even out the field as far as difficulty goes, in the sense of a person seeing the challenge for the first time thinking "How much work am I going to have to put into this?" You don't wind up with a chunk of cachers saying "Oh look, another gimme." Admittedly, sometimes the established cachers can be overly penalized by this, but I prefer giving the newer cachers a bit of a break.

 

Strictly interpreted, wouldn't this restriction kill a challenge like "Find a cache every day in January"?

[+addisonbr]

Having some challenges that were easier for new cachers than established cachers was a benefit in my mind. It helped get new cachers involved. It also tended to even out the field as far as difficulty goes, in the sense of a person seeing the challenge for the first time thinking "How much work am I going to have to put into this?" You don't wind up with a chunk of cachers saying "Oh look, another gimme." Admittedly, sometimes the established cachers can be overly penalized by this, but I prefer giving the newer cachers a bit of a break.

 

Strictly interpreted, wouldn't this restriction kill a challenge like "Find a cache every day in January"?

I share your gut sense. It does seem like a bit of a bummer that you can't launch a challenge where everyone starts fresh. I have a couple of challenges in mind, and being sensitive to the veteran cachers who have cleared out their local areas I was simply going to allow them to visit previous caches (logging a note) to satisfy the conditions. Ah well.

 

I doubt that the date restriction would be interpreted in the way that's being implied. As long as you could still log a past January as well as a future January, you'd be covered.

Edited March 13, 2012 by addisonbr

[+thebruce0]

>Any word on whether existing challenge caches which do not meet the new criteria are grandfathered?

 

it is not common for Groundspeak, to dis-allow any kinds of old and active caches, just becourse they change the rules,

just too bad :-)

...at least for changes that state previously published caches are grandfathered. They have disabled/archived caches which don't adhere to adjusted guidelines, in cases where they haven't been explicitly grandfathered. In this case, previous challenge caches have been grandfathered in the update wording, so don't worry about those becoming invalid or requiring fixing.

[+lamoracke]

as someone who maintains a bookmark list of challenges and has completed over 100 challenges and owns a few, I like the new rules. I like the fact that the word challenge needs to be in the title, however as a disclaimer just because someone uses the term "challenges" in the title does not mean its really a challenge. Wish the old challenges would be required to add the word challenge.

 

So, DNF and FTF challenges would not be accepted anymore...have done some of each. I can live with that, but would be interested to see what happens with those. Also seen a 2nd to find challenge though I did not go find it as it required climbing a tree to reach the final and I did not feel like doing that on my own.

 

no 10% of puzzles allowed anymore, etc. I have seen such challenges from afar, again, would be interested to see if they will stay or not.

 

no challenges that require GSAK to show completion. This has already been enforced before this update. I know one cacher who had an exception but perhaps going forward they will not allow that.

 

No specific mentioning of blackout challenges, so I guess those are still okay, provided one can prove completion without GSAK (or an exception).

 

Course the biggest change here seems to me to be the fact that a new challenge can't enforce any rules that do not allow past finds to be okay. Sounds good to me.

[+lamoracke]

curious how many of the 110 or so existing challenges in Washington state would fly with the existing rules. Most likely will be grandfathered.

[+CanadianRockies]

I like the fact that the word challenge needs to be in the title...

That requirement has been around for a while now, although some non-compliant titles have slipped through the cracks.

 

So, DNF and FTF challenges would not be accepted anymore...

This requirement also isn't new. Of course, some of these have slipped through as well.

[+niraD]

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: [...] Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

This was always one of my least favorite parts of lots of challenges. It usually made the challenge much easier for a new cacher and much harder for a veteran.

Strictly interpreted, wouldn't this restriction kill a challenge like "Find a cache every day in January"?

Good catch. I had noticed the issue with "any segment of geocachers", but I hadn't noticed the issue with "date found". I think the second half of the sentence (after the semicolon) clarifies the intent, and that streak and calendar challenges are still okay, but I hope they clear up these issues in an upcoming revision.

[+niraD]

The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document. A lengthy list of "rules" would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published.

I think this is my favorite change, just because I've seen challenges where I finish reading the requirements and my reaction is "Huh?" The CO might offer a GSAK macro that can verify whether you've completed the requirements, but that doesn't help you understand what the requirements are and what you need to do to complete them. (And it doesn't help those of us who can't run GSAK, of course.)

[+thebruce0]

My comment in the other thread:

I think the removal of the date-found-after ALR reduces the 'competitive' aspect of the cache find. That is, if the reasoning for having found-after is to level the playing field, that implies veteran cachers are competing with newbie cachers for the quicker finds.

 

Ultimately, I believe they're saying that if a challenge is a challenge, then what does it matter when the cacher fulfilled the challenge? Have you completed the challenge? Great, log the find. Found-after only levels the playing field for the actual finding of the challenge's physical cache - who will find it first, as of its publishing (or previous date)?

 

Essentially they're knocking out "who can accomplish this first" challenges (and "if you've already done it, you have to do it again")

That seems to be the point I'm understanding from that wording change. They want challenges to remain as personal and as individual an accomplishment as possible. If they don't officially recognize FTFs on regular caches, why would they allow challenge requirements and imply that they support competitive accomplishments between cachers?

[+The A-Team]

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: [...] Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

This was always one of my least favorite parts of lots of challenges. It usually made the challenge much easier for a new cacher and much harder for a veteran.

Strictly interpreted, wouldn't this restriction kill a challenge like "Find a cache every day in January"?

Good catch. I had noticed the issue with "any segment of geocachers", but I hadn't noticed the issue with "date found". I think the second half of the sentence (after the semicolon) clarifies the intent, and that streak and calendar challenges are still okay, but I hope they clear up these issues in an upcoming revision.

Yep, it seems pretty clear that the intent is to avoid restrictions like on this one:

No finds before September 23, 2009 are relevant to this Challenge in order to even out the Playing Field for everyone.

[+Dame Deco]

One thing COs could do is award 2 FTFs--one for those who completed it before it was published and one for those who completed it after.

[+Keith Watson]

Out of interest, where does it say existing caches are grandfathered against the new guidelines regarding challenge caches?

[+rosebud55112]

Outside the caching world, a challenge usually refers to a future event, in my opinion. If at today's staff meeting, my boss challenges us to treat our customers with respect and fulfill our orders gracefully, she won't be thrilled if I say "Did that yesterday. Think I'll pass on it today."

 

I know, bad analogy. I just don't think there's anything wrong with a CO saying "Do this post-publication." I wouldn't want to take away the ability of a CO to allow pre-publication completion of a challenge (and that makes it easier to show that a significant population of cachers can complete the challenge), but I don't see the need to tie COs' hands like that.

 

I've seen (and own) a challenge cache published on Jan 1 (or thereabouts) with a challenge for the new year. That type of challenge will go away, and strictly speaking, any 2012 challenges which are grandfathered in will need to be disabled on 12/31/12 or 1/1/13.

Edited March 13, 2012 by rosebud55112

[+Max and 99]

Outside the caching world, a challenge usually refers to a future event, in my opinion. If at today's staff meeting, my boss challenges us to treat our customers with respect and fulfill our orders gracefully, she won't be thrilled if I say "Did that yesterday. Think I'll pass on it today."

 

 

I am a huge fan of challenge caches. Just love them! I love all the requirements except the one that allows pre-publication finds to count. I like the cache publication date to be the start date to make the challenge fair to everyone. I REALLY disagree with the logic on this new requirement.

[+addisonbr]

Out of interest, where does it say existing caches are grandfathered against the new guidelines regarding challenge caches?

Pup Patrol linked to it above. Here is more of the full quote from Cache Drone, originally posted in the Canada forum:

 

Challenge caches, being a sub-set of the Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown Cache type (depending on what you call them) were updated today and as I understand it there are some questions.

 

As far as I know and how the Ontario reviewers understand it is that we will be applying the updated language for any new reviews of unpublished listings only. Already existing challenge caches are grandfathered, as is the standard procedure with other updates. While some may point to the removal of Additional Logging Requirement (ALR) based caches, and their conversion back in 2009, that was an exceptional case. Groundspeak, with the exception of the ALR based caches, uses the grandfathered approach.

 

Examples include

} Moving Caches - existing are grandfathered, no new ones allowed

} Virtual Caches - existing ones remain, no new ones allowed

} Locationless Caches - were closed to new ones, logged until the concept was transferred to Waymarking.com

} Re-dating a certain cache

} Email coordinates (aka DeLorme and Quad Challenges) - existing ones remain, no new ones allowed

} Certain listings that are mislabeled by cache type

} others I'm not going to point out cause I know you people {kidding, mostly... }

None of these can be made today...

 

So getting back to challenge caches, those that were published before today that were based on dates, averages, percentages, et. al., are grandfathered and those CO's have every right to, and should, continue to maintain the same rigorous checking that they always have to ensure validation of "Found It" logs. Bogus logs that do not meet the criteria should be deleted once the person claiming the find cannot provide the proof.

 

New challenge caches will follow the guidelines as available as of today's update.

 

CD

 

link to announcement

[+The A-Team]

I've seen (and own) a challenge cache published on Jan 1 (or thereabouts) with a challenge for the new year. That type of challenge will go away, and strictly speaking, any 2012 challenges which are grandfathered in will need to be disabled on 12/31/12 or 1/1/13.

To be honest, I don't think such a challenge is in keeping with the spirit of the guidelines anyway. From the guidelines:

Geocache Permanence: Geocaches are placed for the long term. Geocachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time.

Placing a cache with the intention of it lasting only a year seems contrary to the spirit. Don't get me wrong, if I lived in Minnesota, I'd probably be working on your challenge. I just think the new Challenge guideline now fits better with the existing permanence guideline.

 

As a suggestion, why not change your challenge to allow for cachers to complete it for any particular year, rather than just a single one? That would allow for a cacher that joins late this year to be able to work on it in 2013.

[+Keith Watson]

I have looked at what has been posted in the forums. I was wondering where it is posted in the guidelines about grandfathering.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Keith Watson

[+CanadianRockies]

I think the removal of the date-found-after ALR reduces the 'competitive' aspect of the cache find. That is, if the reasoning for having found-after is to level the playing field, that implies veteran cachers are competing with newbie cachers for the quicker finds.

That might be one of the reasons for the "date found" requirement, but it certainly isn't the only reason.

 

People often hide the types of caches that they enjoy finding, and this applies to challenge caches as well as an ammo can on top of a mountain. The challenges I most enjoy are those where I make a special effort to complete the challenge requirements.

 

Finding 26 caches whose titles begin with different letters isn't particularly challenging to me since I've already found them. For me, that challenge cache essentially is a regular cache that I just need to find. I don't have to go out of my way to complete its requirements.

 

Finding 26 alphabetic caches that were published in 2012 or later would be more challenging for me, especially if I wanted to push myself to complete the requirements in a short period of time.

 

As you noted, removing the "date found" requirement reduces the competitive aspect of certain challenge caches. Unfortunately, it reduces the self-competitive aspect as well as the FTF-competitive aspect.

[+addisonbr]

I have looked at what has been posted in the forums. I was wondering where it is posted in the guidelines about grandfathering.

I don't see anything in the guidelines specifically addressing already-published caches... All I'm going on are posts by reviewers in the forums clarifying the policy as they understand it (and intend to enforce it).

[+Lil Devil]

I have looked at what has been posted in the forums. I was wondering where it is posted in the guidelines about grandfathering.

Sigh. Read two posts above yours.

[+M 5]

Not sure how an average challenge excludes anymore than a high terrain single cache does. You don't have to exclude 1's, just offset them with 3's. Looks like another institutional decree to pander to the almight powertrail and png cachers out there to me.

[+addisonbr]

Placing a cache with the intention of it lasting only a year seems contrary to the spirit. Don't get me wrong, if I lived in Minnesota, I'd probably be working on your challenge. I just think the new Challenge guideline now fits better with the existing permanence guideline.

I thought the permanence guideline came into play at about the 3-month level?

 

There are some who argue that caches should be voluntarily archived after a year or so to reduce environmental impact / geotrails. I have never done that with one of my caches, but I do have one that I move every six months or so, for that reason.

[+nikcap]

Outside the caching world, a challenge usually refers to a future event, in my opinion. If at today's staff meeting, my boss challenges us to treat our customers with respect and fulfill our orders gracefully, she won't be thrilled if I say "Did that yesterday. Think I'll pass on it today."

 

 

I am a huge fan of challenge caches. Just love them! I love all the requirements except the one that allows pre-publication finds to count. I like the cache publication date to be the start date to make the challenge fair to everyone. I REALLY disagree with the logic on this new requirement.

 

Nothing is stopping you from making all of your finds post publication. You are free to play that way.

 

Others have noted the advantages of this new guideline and I agree with them. It's better for the game on a whole.

[+Keith Watson]

I have looked at what has been posted in the forums. I was wondering where it is posted in the guidelines about grandfathering.

Sigh. Read two posts above yours.

 

Did that and found nothing to answer my question. Apparently there is nothing in the guidelines about it and only local reviewers take on the guidelines.

[+thebruce0]

I've seen (and own) a challenge cache published on Jan 1 (or thereabouts) with a challenge for the new year. That type of challenge will go away, and strictly speaking, any 2012 challenges which are grandfathered in will need to be disabled on 12/31/12 or 1/1/13.

I don't think that type of challenge (including an end date) would have been published even before these updates. When was it published?

 

People often hide the types of caches that they enjoy finding, and this applies to challenge caches as well as an ammo can on top of a mountain. The challenges I most enjoy are those where I make a special effort to complete the challenge requirements.

Oh I'm in full agreement - I personally love challenges that have me focus on a goal, even if I've already inadvertently accomplished that goal in the past. Then, it was accidental. It doesn't have the same value as if I were to do it now.

However, having said that, there'd be nothing stopping me from doing it again anyway, even if the date restriction weren't there, since my view of the challenge (I want to do it intentionally) might be different than another's (I've already done it).

 

Finding 26 caches whose titles begin with different letters isn't particularly challenging to me since I've already found them. For me, that challenge cache essentially is a regular cache that I just need to find. I don't have to go out of my way to complete its requirements.

 

Finding 26 alphabetic caches that were published in 2012 or later would be more challenging for me, especially if I wanted to push myself to complete the requirements in a short period of time.

For sure. But again, there's nothing stopping you from putting your personal parameter on the challenge and doing again in 2012 and on. Note that in your log =)

 

As you noted, removing the "date found" requirement reduces the competitive aspect of certain challenge caches. Unfortunately, it reduces the self-competitive aspect as well as the FTF-competitive aspect.

I disagree. It doesn't reduce the self-competitive aspect (whatever that is, heh) because you can still set your own parameters on the challenge for your own goal.

 

I took on the 365-day challenge. I know many have already cached for 365 and far more consecutive days... so to give the challenge a little more umph for myself, I made it 366 unique consecutive days and logging the challenge itself on Feb 29th, day 366, as find #1337. None of that would have been publishable in a challenge, let alone enforceable, but I chose to put those challenge parameters on myself. Doesn't reduce the value of the 365 completion for anyone else, and no one else's extreme completion and continuation of the challenge (1000+ consecutive days, anyone? Or whatever the current record is? ) is any less impressive -- but it makes the challenge and the goal personal. Nothing stops anyone from doing that.

 

If found-after-date is no longer allowed in challenges, that doesn't mean cachers can't set their own found-after date. But if the concern is about the fact other cachers don't have that restriction, then it does become a competitive challenge, rather than a personal one.

 

Remove the found-after date, and it promotes it less, officially, as a competitive challenge.

 

I still love challenges that encourage me to focus, now, on a goal, rather than just logging it because I'm already done. But that is a personal goal, not a competitive one. Being among the first to complete a challenge - that's competitive.

Edited March 13, 2012 by thebruce0

[+The A-Team]

Placing a cache with the intention of it lasting only a year seems contrary to the spirit. Don't get me wrong, if I lived in Minnesota, I'd probably be working on your challenge. I just think the new Challenge guideline now fits better with the existing permanence guideline.

I thought the permanence guideline came into play at about the 3-month level?

Yes, the guideline does mention a 3-month level, but that really isn't the spirit of the guideline. Here's what it says:

Geocaches are placed for the long term...temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for events) will not be published

I think the most important part of this is not the "3 month" limit, but rather the word "temporary". If a cache is hidden with the intention of it only being out for a specified, limited period of time, I'd consider it temporary. Whether that's 1 day, 3 months, or 1 year, I still think it's temporary and contrary to the spirit of the guideline.

 

Now, that's just how I interpret the guideline. Every reviewer will interpret it differently, and their's is really the only interpretation that will matter.

[+addisonbr]

Hunh. I never thought of a one-year cache being temporary. Interesting.

[+CanadianRockies]

If found-after-date is no longer allowed in challenges, that doesn't mean cachers can't set their own found-after date. But if the concern is about the fact other cachers don't have that restriction, then it does become a competitive challenge, rather than a personal one.

I think you missed my point. Yes, we can always impose additional challenges on ourselves, even for regular caches. I could find a cache while hopping on one foot, for example.

 

My point is that people often hide the types of caches that they enjoy finding. I enjoy hiking in the mountains, and I've hidden a cache that requires people to hike five kilometres up a mountain to find it. One of the reasons I did so was to encourage people to do the hike and maybe enjoy some of the things I enjoyed there. I could have hidden the cache at the bottom of the mountain, and those geocachers who want to hike the trail could do so if they wish, but one of my purposes is to get more people up the mountain.

 

Similarly, I've created challenge caches with found-after dates. My purpose is to encourage more people to focus on a goal, since that's an aspect of challenge caches that I enjoy. If my alphabetic title challenge didn't have a found-after date, then I'm fairly certain some people wouldn't have received the experiences that they did.

 

The found-after dates can be used to encourage people to compete against themselves (i.e., focus on a goal). They have purposes other than those related to the FTF playing field.

 

That said, I understand Groundspeak's reason for removing found-after dates. While it makes it harder for challenge cache owners to encourage people to challenge themselves, it doesn't make it impossible. For instance, I created a challenge to find a cache in every Alberta "county," and it didn't need a found-after date. The same thing applies to my Unknown Baker's Dozen Challenge.

Edited March 13, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

My point is that people often hide the types of caches that they enjoy finding. I enjoy hiking in the mountains, and I've hidden a cache that requires people to hike five kilometres up a mountain to find it. One of the reasons I did so was to encourage people to do the hike and maybe enjoy some of the things I enjoyed there. I could have hidden the cache at the bottom of the mountain, and those geocachers who want to hike the trail could do so if they wish, but one of my purposes is to get people up the mountain.

 

Similarly, I've created challenge caches with found-after dates. My purpose is to encourage people to focus on a goal, since that's an aspect of challenge caches that I enjoy. If my alphabetic title challenge didn't have a found-after date, then I'm fairly certain some people wouldn't have received the experiences that they did.

 

The found-after dates can be used to encourage people to compete against themselves (i.e., focus on a goal). They have purposes other than those related to the FTF playing field.

 

That said, I understand Groundspeak's reason for removing found-after dates. While it makes it harder for challenge cache owners to encourage people to challenge themselves, it doesn't make it impossible. For instance, I created a challenge to find a cache in every Alberta "county," and it didn't need a found-after date. The same thing applies to my Unknown Baker's Dozen Challenge.

I completely agree. However, again, as a CO (and having just published two potentially extreme challenge caches), if I want to encourage people to challenge themselves, I'll have to encourage it in the description, and with perhaps a little more work, reward those who accomplish more than the minimum requirements in some way (usually description recognition, or some reward), as per my recent challenges (neither of which, by the way, would have been published now, and they were intended for Feb 29th). But both have a minimum logging requirement, which is much less than I'd hope people would strive for.

 

So I'm with you - on everything I guess except for whether allowing the found-after-date requirement is fair 'enough' for Groundspeak's goals...

Edited March 13, 2012 by thebruce0

[+The A-Team]

Hunh. I never thought of a one-year cache being temporary. Interesting.

That's the thing. Everyone caches differently, and therefore will interpret the guidelines differently. In the end, though, it's only the reviewers' interpretation that matters.

[+jellis]

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: [...] Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

This was always one of my least favorite parts of lots of challenges. It usually made the challenge much easier for a new cacher and much harder for a veteran.

 

 

Having some challenges that were easier for new cachers than established cachers was a benefit in my mind. It helped get new cachers involved. It also tended to even out the field as far as difficulty goes, in the sense of a person seeing the challenge for the first time thinking "How much work am I going to have to put into this?" You don't wind up with a chunk of cachers saying "Oh look, another gimme." Admittedly, sometimes the established cachers can be overly penalized by this, but I prefer giving the newer cachers a bit of a break.

 

Strictly interpreted, wouldn't this restriction kill a challenge like "Find a cache every day in January"?

I agree with that. But when I did my first Challenge (Know Your Local Cacher Challenge) that I had taken from one in WA, I didn't start from the publish date or the open end. I gave about 6 months, at the beginning of the year.

That way I felt it the veterans might have some already but the newbies might too. From there it seemed more fair. But the rest of my Challenges I left open ended.

[+jellis]

Hunh. I never thought of a one-year cache being temporary. Interesting.

depends on if it is a specific year to any year.

[+CanadianRockies]

So I'm with you - on everything I guess except for whether allowing the found-after-date requirement is fair 'enough' for Groundspeak's goals...

Prohibiting found-after dates might make challenges fairer to veteran geocachers. But it could result in requirements that are less fair to other geocachers.

 

If I were to create an alphabetic title challenge today, for example, I might require that all 26 finds be made within any 3-month period. That would be less fair to casual geocachers, even those who otherwise would enjoy focusing on this type of goal. And many veteran geocachers still would be at a considerable disadvantage.

 

Edited to add: It will be interesting to see how strictly Groundspeak reviewers interpret the "date found" and "may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" portions of the revised guidelines.

Edited March 13, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Ike 13]

 

Having some challenges that were easier for new cachers than established cachers was a benefit in my mind. It helped get new cachers involved. It also tended to even out the field as far as difficulty goes, in the sense of a person seeing the challenge for the first time thinking "How much work am I going to have to put into this?" You don't wind up with a chunk of cachers saying "Oh look, another gimme." Admittedly, sometimes the established cachers can be overly penalized by this, but I prefer giving the newer cachers a bit of a break.

 

The No finds before the publication only made it easier on new cachers because they hadn't found everything around them. For example if I publish a challenge for finding 10 Letterbox caches in SC after 3/13/12 since I have found all the ones within 30 miles I have a very difficult task. A new cacher has an easier task. Remove the date and both new and old have the same amount of work to do. The only difference is the veteran cacher may already qualify and FTF the challenge cache. So all the ALR did was make it easy for a newer cacher to FTF.

[+addisonbr]

Hunh. I never thought of a one-year cache being temporary. Interesting.

depends on if it is a specific year to any year.

No, I mean the general idea of putting out a cache for one year (regardless of whether or not it's a challenge). I've encountered folks who think that it's good ecological behavior to archive caches after a year or so. It never would have dawned on me to think of caches in place for a year as temporary (per the guidelines)... It's just interesting is all.

[+rosebud55112]

 

Having some challenges that were easier for new cachers than established cachers was a benefit in my mind. It helped get new cachers involved. It also tended to even out the field as far as difficulty goes, in the sense of a person seeing the challenge for the first time thinking "How much work am I going to have to put into this?" You don't wind up with a chunk of cachers saying "Oh look, another gimme." Admittedly, sometimes the established cachers can be overly penalized by this, but I prefer giving the newer cachers a bit of a break.

 

The No finds before the publication only made it easier on new cachers because they hadn't found everything around them. For example if I publish a challenge for finding 10 Letterbox caches in SC after 3/13/12 since I have found all the ones within 30 miles I have a very difficult task. A new cacher has an easier task. Remove the date and both new and old have the same amount of work to do. The only difference is the veteran cacher may already qualify and FTF the challenge cache. So all the ALR did was make it easy for a newer cacher to FTF.

 

It's not an ALR any more than saying "Must be Letterbox" or "Must be in SC" is. The timing issue is geocaching-related. The issue being that you and I would essentially be looking at a different set of caches available to fulfill the challenge. That's an implication of having cleaned out your home base area. So what if I find that clearing everything around me has some disadvantages? Don't go for the challenge that has the time restriction on it. I still don't see why giving newer cachers a break compared to veteran cachers is such a bad thing.

[+addisonbr]

It's not an ALR any more than saying "Must be Letterbox" or "Must be in SC" is. The timing issue is geocaching-related. The issue being that you and I would essentially be looking at a different set of caches available to fulfill the challenge. That's an implication of having cleaned out your home base area. So what if I find that clearing everything around me has some disadvantages? Don't go for the challenge that has the time restriction on it. I still don't see why giving newer cachers a break compared to veteran cachers is such a bad thing.

I think the least angsty-way to solve something like that is to simply allow veteran cachers to revisit and log a cache (presumably with a note) to count towards completing the challenge.

 

If you made challenge caches "this date forward" only, but allowed veteran cachers to revisit Found caches for the purposes of completing the challenge, I'd think everyone would be on pretty equal footing.

[+lamoracke]

Can't imagine many folks wanting to revisit a cache they have already found just to complete a challenge. I would not.

 

The date restriction thing could have made it easier for a long time cacher on a given challenge, or harder. Have seen some challenges where the date of finds was going forward which effectively left no caches to be found within my state. For instance, there was a challenge where you needed to find 30 caches of a given type. I had them all pretty much done in the state so I had to drive 1 1/2 states to complete the challenge. Seems silly to be penalized because I had already found said caches.

 

A challenge should be listed because its a fun challenge, not because folks are worried about it being unfair to old vs new cachers.

[+addisonbr]

Can't imagine many folks wanting to revisit a cache they have already found just to complete a challenge. I would not.

I can see it. If there was a "get 6 icons in one day" challenge and I had already visited the only Webcam cache within 100 miles, I wouldn't mind visiting it again for the purposes of knocking that challenge out.

 

If it was that, or never get to log the "get 6 icons in one day" challenge, I'd probably do it. Others might refuse, and that's okay.

[+lamoracke]

Can't imagine many folks wanting to revisit a cache they have already found just to complete a challenge. I would not.

I can see it. If there was a "get 6 icons in one day" challenge and I had already visited the only Webcam cache within 100 miles, I wouldn't mind visiting it again for the purposes of knocking that challenge out.

 

If it was that, or never get to log the "get 6 icons in one day" challenge, I'd probably do it. Others might refuse, and that's okay.

 

one cache for an icon challenge, maybe. I can certainly empathize with having no webcams to find for a long distance, but that is the point, an icon challenge that only allows future finds is very hard for me. No virtuals around. No webcams. Course, many cachers already have 8 icons in a day or 9 icons in a day (or more) when they had the opportunity. If all those opportunities were squandered, then yes, I imagine I could do one again for that. No idea how I would log said duplicate cache, I guess as a note. However, I was thinking more of a physical cache when I was saying that, like being required to find a cache in each county and you have already done that county but your finds were before the publish date, or the caches you found are archived (Personally I HATE when an archived cache is a penalty).

Edited March 13, 2012 by lamoracke

[+DanOCan]

A challenge should be listed because its a fun challenge, not because folks are worried about it being unfair to old vs new cachers.

True.

 

Besides, what is this fairness thing about anyway? It's not like only ten people get to log the cache before it disappears or something. Hide the challenge. Some veterans might be able to log it Day One, some newbies might take more than a year before they qualify. How is that "less fair" for the newbie? It's still the exact same cache and still worth the same smiley.

 

I really like this guideline. Shame it isn't applied retroactively.

[+geodarts]

 

I think the least angsty-way to solve something like that is to simply allow veteran cachers to revisit and log a cache (presumably with a note) to count towards completing the challenge.

 

If you made challenge caches "this date forward" only, but allowed veteran cachers to revisit Found caches for the purposes of completing the challenge, I'd think everyone would be on pretty equal footing.

 

The least angsty way is what the revision in the guidelines has adopted. Visiting a cache that I have already done just to satisfy an arbitrary date requirement would cause me a lot of angst, since I abhor waste and useless gestures.

[+addisonbr]

The least angsty way is what the revision in the guidelines has adopted. Visiting a cache that I have already done just to satisfy an arbitrary date requirement would cause me a lot of angst, since I abhor waste and useless gestures.

Different strokes I guess. I entered the New York Marathon for the second time this year. Even though I had already run the exact same course before, it was an angst-free day for me!

 

A new icon challenge would suck if you couldn't revisit (say) a webcam cache, but for those who would on principle never do something twice, I would respect their decision not to complete the challenge.