Jump to content

Little known challenge rule


benh57

Recommended Posts

Once you have over approximately 15,000 finds, any challenge requirements become optional. Only the most cursory of examination of the cache's requirements need be made, and a half hearted attempt at mentioning that you 'meet the requriements easily' (even if you, in fact, do not) need be made.

 

Pretty sure this is in the fine print somewhere in the guidelines.

 

Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?

Link to comment

Once you have over approximately 15,000 finds, any challenge requirements become optional. Only the most cursory of examination of the cache's requirements need be made, and a half hearted attempt at mentioning that you 'meet the requriements easily' (even if you, in fact, do not) need be made.

 

Pretty sure this is in the fine print somewhere in the guidelines.

 

Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?

There is apparently some more background to the question. There is nothing in the guidelines about being qualified for any challenge at a certain find level. As an example someone that never cached in the mid-Atlantic states would probably not qualify for the Rhode Island Delorme challenge. So mind telling us the whole story?

Link to comment

Here's another apparently "Little known challenge rule", 3.1 Logging of All Physical Geocaches:

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing.

 

 

;)..no sarcasm, no salvaging humor, just the boring reality....if the cache owner is troubled by, 'meet the requriements easily' from a finder of any find count, they can enforce the verification instructions....

Link to comment

Once you have over approximately 15,000 finds, any challenge requirements become optional. Only the most cursory of examination of the cache's requirements need be made, and a half hearted attempt at mentioning that you 'meet the requriements easily' (even if you, in fact, do not) need be made.

 

Pretty sure this is in the fine print somewhere in the guidelines.

 

Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?

 

I agree with jholly. It sure seems like there's some angsy backstory we aren't being told.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

I presume that what the OP was trying to convey is that with the recent change in the challenge "guidelines" that preclude limiting past finds (all finds are mandated to be eligible) at some point, for the vast majority of challenges, by the sheer volume of finds you have, you will automatically qualify for nearly every challenge.

 

I have seen the same phenomenon where in my area with several very clever challenges and the hard-core cachers will log them as fast as any other traditional FTF.

 

I think that they added the prohibition against "previous finds don't count" rules to level out the "fairness" of challenges between newer and experienced cachers, but I think it has swung that pendulum so far to the other side that rather than balancing it out, it has made it significantly unfair to newer cachers.

 

Plus I think less fun for doing challenges. Where is the challenge if you already have met the criteria? At least that's my opinion.

Link to comment

Well I did some digging to find more of the back story. You don't own a challenge and I did not see any logs on any of the challenges in the first 10 pages of puzzle caches that matched so that didn't pan out.

 

I think it highly depends on the challenge. I have findstatgen on my profile page and will point to that in lots of basic challenges because it has so many things there. For example if I did a Busy Day that was not limited to the state I could just say "look at my profile I have found 9 cache types in one day". Now if the challenge has very specific requirements they do need to be pointed out.

 

The challenge owner is the one who must verify every log. Maybe the cacher emailed the CO the requirements.

Link to comment

dont know, I can name a lot of challenges where 15,000 finds won't help...(but I know you were being sarcastic)

 

50 regulars in a row

100 virtuals, LBH, earth caches

25 wherigos, webcams

365 days in a row

history challenge of your state or where you need so many old ones

delorme, thomas guide, or county challenges of a given state

100 counties

jasmer challenge

a fizzy which requires a certain publication date

 

had a challenge in mind (which am not going to advertise here) which I am working on for my own experience first and only 1 of our state's top 20 would be able to armchair it, and none of the cachers with 20k finds qualify today (at least in my state).

Link to comment

I have a feeling there are people logging local challenge caches as Found just becuase they have so many finds, "they probably meet the requirements", without actually checking them.

 

Bingo!

I don't know what Ben's specific issue/cache concerns, but I live in the same area and these have been my observations. A lot of new challenge caches have popped up and some of them have very unique sets of criteria that must be met in order to complete the challenge. In some cases, simply figuring out and documenting that you have met the challenge is the most challenging part. For a few of these, I was certain that I qualified as soon as it was published, but it took several hours, or even days to massage the data out of GSAK to satisfy to myself, and later the cache owner, that I actually did qualify. I haven't really been watching, but I assume some of these caches are getting logs similar to, 'I have 15,000 finds, so I must qualify'. I guess if the CO lets it stand, one can get the impression that it cheapens the rest of our efforts.

Link to comment

I don't know what Ben's specific issue/cache concerns, but I live in the same area and these have been my observations. A lot of new challenge caches have popped up and some of them have very unique sets of criteria that must be met in order to complete the challenge. In some cases, simply figuring out and documenting that you have met the challenge is the most challenging part. For a few of these, I was certain that I qualified as soon as it was published, but it took several hours, or even days to massage the data out of GSAK to satisfy to myself, and later the cache owner, that I actually did qualify. I haven't really been watching, but I assume some of these caches are getting logs similar to, 'I have 15,000 finds, so I must qualify'. I guess if the CO lets it stand, one can get the impression that it cheapens the rest of our efforts.

That's been my experience as well. As a purely hypothetical example, a challenge might require one to find 50 caches that contain a mammal name in their title and list them as part of their challenge "Found it" log. I've seen high-find cachers who undoubtedly have found the necessary 50 caches but don't bother providing a list.

 

I'm not thrilled that they skip the list portion of the challenge requirements, but I figure it's up to the cache owner to make sure everyone plays by the same rules.

Link to comment

Way I read it (correc tme if im wrong) is that so long as you sign the logbook GS doesnt care how you got there?

 

That's not true at all. There's a Quad Challenge here locally. The CO states that you can go sign the logbook anytime you want. I guess there's temporary access 0.3 miles from the cache, but once that temp access is over, it's a 5 mile hike. You just can't "claim" the find until you upload your finds to a 3rd party website and your map is filled in.

Link to comment

I have a feeling there are people logging local challenge caches as Found just becuase they have so many finds, "they probably meet the requirements", without actually checking them.

 

Bingo!

I don't know what Ben's specific issue/cache concerns, but I live in the same area and these have been my observations. A lot of new challenge caches have popped up and some of them have very unique sets of criteria that must be met in order to complete the challenge. In some cases, simply figuring out and documenting that you have met the challenge is the most challenging part. For a few of these, I was certain that I qualified as soon as it was published, but it took several hours, or even days to massage the data out of GSAK to satisfy to myself, and later the cache owner, that I actually did qualify. I haven't really been watching, but I assume some of these caches are getting logs similar to, 'I have 15,000 finds, so I must qualify'. I guess if the CO lets it stand, one can get the impression that it cheapens the rest of our efforts.

Since I live in the same area, I'll take the opportunity to restate my personal dislike of the challenge cache format. If you want to challenge someone to meet a certain geocaching challenge there ought to be a better way to do this then by creating an additional logging requirement on a cache.

 

Now, I, with my measly 7,883 caches, have no problem posting a note when I go find a challenge cache whose challenge I haven't met yet. But I can see that a so-called numbers cacher might want to see the smiley on caches they found, regardless of any ALRs on it. Further more, that cacher may truly believe they have met the criteria for the challenge. Forcing them to spend an exorbitant number of hours preparing documentation of the accomplishment in order to log a find may seem, for lack of a better word, "puritanical". New challenges rules have moved in the direction of making challenges that can be verified by Geocaching.com stats. But I have now seen new challenges that, as Don said, are challenge to document.

 

Cheating on a challenge just to get a smiley seems silly to me. Getting upset because you have doubts about someone's "find" on someone else's challenge, seems even sillier.

Link to comment

Way I read it (correc tme if im wrong) is that so long as you sign the logbook GS doesnt care how you got there?

When the guidelines for logging physical caches were added in order to make additional logging requirements void, an exception was made for challenge caches. Since then, the guidelines have been clarified to reiterate this exception, while at the same time, new guidelines have been added clarifying just what a challenge cache is.

 

There is a bit of a problem, in that challenges that would not meet the current definition of challenge, seem to be grandfathered, unlike other ALRs. On top of this the nature challenges are that people will try to "stretch" the guidelines. Sometimes a reviewer will publish a challenge that is borderline. I've seen a few challenges get retracted when guideline issues were pointed out. I can assume that some people modified challenges to get them published and then edited the challenge back to what they wanted after it was published. With all this is is hard to decide which are the caches you can ignore the ALR on and which are valid geocaching challenges.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Forcing them to spend an exorbitant number of hours preparing documentation of the accomplishment in order to log a find may seem, for lack of a better word, "puritanical".

Nobody is forcing anyone to spend a single minute preparing the documentation. Like all other caches, finding a challenge cache is completely voluntary. If a geocacher doesn't want to perform the challenge's requirements, then they don't have to do the challenge.

Link to comment

There is a bit of a problem, in that challenges that would not meet the current definition of challenge, seem to be grandfathered, unlike other ALRs.

 

(Emphasis in original.)

Old challenges are explicitly grandfathered. According to Groundspeak's guidelines:

 

Note: Challenge caches published prior to the guideline update 3/12/12 are grandfathered into the game and do not need to comply with current guidelines.

I don't know how they could make it any clearer than that.

Link to comment

I'm not particularly 'upset' about it, but yes, it does seem to cheapen other folks' efforts somewhat when (As CanadianRockies mentioned) some finders don't bother to provide documentation. Documentation is part of the challenge, IMO. I actually haven't seen too many instances of it, but there have been a few.

 

Anyway, this forum is for rants, so i figured this one would be entertaining to see if other folks have experienced the same, and i see they have. Next time i'll be sure to bring some better drama, with logs and names being called out and such, but none this time, sorry. ;)

Link to comment

Forcing them to spend an exorbitant number of hours preparing documentation of the accomplishment in order to log a find may seem, for lack of a better word, "puritanical".

Nobody is forcing anyone to spend a single minute preparing the documentation. Like all other caches, finding a challenge cache is completely voluntary. If a geocacher doesn't want to perform the challenge's requirements, then they don't have to do the challenge.

True "force" is perhaps too strong of a word. When challenges come out, if I see that it's going to take more than 1 minute to determine my qualification using GSAK, it goes on my ignore list (or if I find it, I'm going to write a note because I'm too lazy to gather the proof just to get a smiley). But from a so-called "numbers" cacher's perspective, where keeping track of what you found using online logs is important, creating a challenge that is harder to document than actually do, would seem burdensome.

 

There is a bit of a problem, in that challenges that would not meet the current definition of challenge, seem to be grandfathered, unlike other ALRs.

 

(Emphasis in original.)

Old challenges are explicitly grandfathered. According to Groundspeak's guidelines:

 

Note: Challenge caches published prior to the guideline update 3/12/12 are grandfathered into the game and do not need to comply with current guidelines.

I don't know how they could make it any clearer than that.

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that. I put "seem to" because it seems inconsistent to grandfather something just because someone called it a geocaching challenge (not even that - some older challenge caches didn't even use the term) while making all other ALRs to be null and void. But Groundspeak has been inconsistent before, so it doesn't surprise me.

Link to comment

The silliest thing is talking out of one side of the mouth to let people cache how they want and whining incessantly out of the other in numerous long winded diatribes for years and years about ALRs

Sorry. I haven't call for a ban on Challenge caches (outside of a typo in a thread I started a while back). I'm expressing my opinion that there should be better ways to "challenge" other cachers that don't have the same inconsistencies with other ALRS. To me, challenge caches are just another way for cache owners who want to delete someone's log to do so. I have found many challenge caches because I enjoy looking for hidden boxes. And while they may be listed as unknown type so I have to read the page before I look, I'm not going to stop looking just because some control freak cache owner wants to delete my log. When ALRs existed, I would find ALR caches and write notes if I didn't want to do the ALR. For challenges the problem is often not that I don't want to do the challenge but that it would be too difficult or too time consuming for me; I congratulate the people who have done these accomplishments. I certainly have no problem with cache owners who want to give tribute to cachers who have achieved some geocaching accomplishment. While I am personally able to accept logging a Note instead of a Find because I haven't achieved some requirement, I find I have more sympathy for those who see the smiley as a record of what caches they have found rather than as some prize given out by the cache owner.

Link to comment

Forcing them to spend an exorbitant number of hours preparing documentation of the accomplishment in order to log a find may seem, for lack of a better word, "puritanical".

Nobody is forcing anyone to spend a single minute preparing the documentation. Like all other caches, finding a challenge cache is completely voluntary. If a geocacher doesn't want to perform the challenge's requirements, then they don't have to do the challenge.

True "force" is perhaps too strong of a word. When challenges come out, if I see that it's going to take more than 1 minute to determine my qualification using GSAK, it goes on my ignore list (or if I find it, I'm going to write a note because I'm too lazy to gather the proof just to get a smiley). But from a so-called "numbers" cacher's perspective, where keeping track of what you found using online logs is important, creating a challenge that is harder to document than actually do, would seem burdensome.

I think you missed my point. It's only burdensome if the geocacher opts to accept the challenge. If they feel it's too much work, then they can add that particular challenge cache to their Ignore List, just like you do.

Link to comment

Forcing them to spend an exorbitant number of hours preparing documentation of the accomplishment in order to log a find may seem, for lack of a better word, "puritanical".

Nobody is forcing anyone to spend a single minute preparing the documentation. Like all other caches, finding a challenge cache is completely voluntary. If a geocacher doesn't want to perform the challenge's requirements, then they don't have to do the challenge.

True "force" is perhaps too strong of a word. When challenges come out, if I see that it's going to take more than 1 minute to determine my qualification using GSAK, it goes on my ignore list (or if I find it, I'm going to write a note because I'm too lazy to gather the proof just to get a smiley). But from a so-called "numbers" cacher's perspective, where keeping track of what you found using online logs is important, creating a challenge that is harder to document than actually do, would seem burdensome.

I think you missed my point. It's only burdensome if the geocacher opts to accept the challenge. If they feel it's too much work, then they can add that particular challenge cache to their Ignore List, just like you do.

The defenders of challenges always make the point that you don't have to do the challenge cache. Well, it's true you don't have to do any cache. It's been posted over and over again that if you end up in front of a lightpole in a parking lot, you don't have to lift the skirt. You can just leave. Yet people still complain about finding LPCs.

 

Nowadays most challenge caches are at the posted coordinate. If you're looking for nearby caches, nothing stops you from looking for a challenge cache. The only difference with challenge caches is that after you find it, you're still not allowed to log it online without providing some proof that you met the challenge.

 

Many people will accept that you can log a puzzle cache if you happen to stumble upon it while looking for a place to hide a cache. Or even that it's acceptable to brute force a puzzle. But if you stumble upon challenge cache looking for a place to hide another cache, how many challenge owners would allow a find. Wouldn't there be an outcry that allowing such a find would "cheapen" the reward for the people who actually did the challenge?

 

On the other hand, what if you had someone that achieved a difficult challenge and traveled some distance to log a challenge cache. What if they did not find the cache? It this fair to them that they spent all the effort documenting their achievement but couldn't log a find because a cache was missing? Perhaps they should have brought a throw down replacement just in case.

 

Using smileys as rewards for something other than finding caches causes all sorts of strange behavior as witnessed both by this thread on the one on streak cheating. I think it is better to leave online find logs for recording that the cache was found, and find some other way to challenge geocachers and recognize their achievements.

Link to comment

By permission I copied the Do you know your local cacher challenge.

At the time there was no date limit. I put mine at the beginning of the year and it was almost the middle when it went published.

That way it leveled the playing field. Number cachers had to find more caches somewhere else and newbies didn't but they were new to the game.

It was a newer cacher who was FTF on it.

I also recently did a Comfort Zone Challenge where many cacher qualified who didn't have them many numbers.

Link to comment

The defenders of challenges always make the point that you don't have to do the challenge cache. Well, it's true you don't have to do any cache. It's been posted over and over again that if you end up in front of a lightpole in a parking lot, you don't have to lift the skirt. You can just leave. Yet people still complain about finding LPCs.

Nobody is saying you can't complain about challenge caches...or most anything else that irks you.

 

Nowadays most challenge caches are at the posted coordinate. If you're looking for nearby caches, nothing stops you from looking for a challenge cache. The only difference with challenge caches is that after you find it, you're still not allowed to log it online without providing some proof that you met the challenge.

I don't know many people who search for nearby Unknown-type caches without first reading the cache descriptions. If you blindly go after a nearby challenge cache and find it, then there's nobody to blame other than yourself for the "wasted" time if you don't want to provide proof that you've met the challenge requirements.

 

Many people will accept that you can log a puzzle cache if you happen to stumble upon it while looking for a place to hide a cache. Or even that it's acceptable to brute force a puzzle. But if you stumble upon challenge cache looking for a place to hide another cache, how many challenge owners would allow a find. Wouldn't there be an outcry that allowing such a find would "cheapen" the reward for the people who actually did the challenge?

Groundspeak's policy is you're allowed to log puzzle caches if you sign the container's log book. Groundspeak's policy is you're allowed to log a challenge cache if you sign the container's log book AND meet the challenge's requirements. So, yes, there likely would be grumbling if challenge cache owners allowed people to log finds when requirements aren't met.

 

On the other hand, what if you had someone that achieved a difficult challenge and traveled some distance to log a challenge cache. What if they did not find the cache? It this fair to them that they spent all the effort documenting their achievement but couldn't log a find because a cache was missing? Perhaps they should have brought a throw down replacement just in case.

I've made long hikes up mountains only to DNF traditional caches hidden up there. I don't think that's unfair. It's a risk I voluntarily accepted before making the efforts.

 

The possibility of an archived cache is one of the risks you accept when you take on a challenge cache, as is the possibility of DNFing it. Sometimes you can mitigate these risks by finding the challenge cache and signing its log before you get very involved with the challenge. (All my challenges caches allow you to do this.) Often, you also can delay any documentation efforts until after you've signed the log. If the risks are still unacceptable to you, then you don't have to do the challenge. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

 

Using smileys as rewards for something other than finding caches causes all sorts of strange behavior as witnessed both by this thread on the one on streak cheating. I think it is better to leave online find logs for recording that the cache was found, and find some other way to challenge geocachers and recognize their achievements.

Using smileys to record traditional (and many other) caches as found causes all sorts of strange behavior. For examples, see hundreds of threads on this forum, including this one: Found It = Didn't Find It.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Forcing them to spend an exorbitant number of hours preparing documentation of the accomplishment in order to log a find may seem, for lack of a better word, "puritanical".

Nobody is forcing anyone to spend a single minute preparing the documentation. Like all other caches, finding a challenge cache is completely voluntary. If a geocacher doesn't want to perform the challenge's requirements, then they don't have to do the challenge.

 

I have some minor problem with that "if you don't like 'em, you don't have to do 'em" attitude that we run into so much around here. The problem I have with it goes along with the "take it to its logical conclusion" logic. If all caches became challenge caches and we don't do the caches we don't like, those of us (and yes, I'm one) that don't like challenge caches would be forced out of the game.

 

So, you're right... nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. It is all voluntary. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't speak up about aspects that we don't like.

Link to comment

Forcing them to spend an exorbitant number of hours preparing documentation of the accomplishment in order to log a find may seem, for lack of a better word, "puritanical".

Nobody is forcing anyone to spend a single minute preparing the documentation. Like all other caches, finding a challenge cache is completely voluntary. If a geocacher doesn't want to perform the challenge's requirements, then they don't have to do the challenge.

I have some minor problem with that "if you don't like 'em, you don't have to do 'em" attitude that we run into so much around here. The problem I have with it goes along with the "take it to its logical conclusion" logic. If all caches became challenge caches and we don't do the caches we don't like, those of us (and yes, I'm one) that don't like challenge caches would be forced out of the game.

 

So, you're right... nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. It is all voluntary. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't speak up about aspects that we don't like.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't speak up about aspects of challenge caches (or LPCs, power trail caches, etc.) that you don't like. There are plenty of valid arguments why individuals might not like these types of caches. But suggesting that someone is forcing you to do them is not one of those valid arguments. At least nobody has ever held a gun to my head and ordered me to find a cache.

 

Arguing that if all caches were challenge caches means some geocachers would no longer participate in this activity isn't taking the issue to its "logical conclusion." Indeed, such an appeal to extremes is a logical fallacy. Nobody is saying all caches should be challenge caches.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

 

On the other hand, what if you had someone that achieved a difficult challenge and traveled some distance to log a challenge cache. What if they did not find the cache? It this fair to them that they spent all the effort documenting their achievement but couldn't log a find because a cache was missing? Perhaps they should have brought a throw down replacement just in case.

I've made long hikes up mountains only to DNF traditional caches hidden up there. I don't think that's unfair. It's a risk I voluntarily accepted before making the efforts.

 

The possibility of an archived cache is one of the risks you accept when you take on a challenge cache, as is the possibility of DNFing it. Sometimes you can mitigate these risks by finding the challenge cache and signing its log before you get very involved with the challenge. (All my challenges caches allow you to do this.) Often, you also can delay any documentation efforts until after you've signed the log. If the risks are still unacceptable to you, then you don't have to do the challenge. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

I sort of get the idea that the challenge is put out there and you can accept the challenge or not (the way Geocaching Challenges work). You seem to argue that if I go find a challenge cache and write in the physical log I'm accepting the challenge and I shouldn't complain that I can't log online if don't complete it.

 

Other that I don't feel like I'm accepting the challenge when I post a note on the page saying I found the caches, that's pretty much how it works for me. If I haven't done the challenge, and later on in the course of my normal geocaching I happen to complete it, I would go back and change my log to a find. But I'm not going out of my way to accept challenges and jump through hoops for a smiley.

 

Again, all I've said here is that I sympathize with the high number cacher who believe that he must have qualified given all the caches he found, but doesn't have the documentation that the cache owner requires. I understand that the guidelines allow the cache owner to delete this find log just I understand that the guidelines allow a cache owner to delete a find on a traditional cache under certain circumstances.

Using smileys as rewards for something other than finding caches causes all sorts of strange behavior as witnessed both by this thread on the one on streak cheating. I think it is better to leave online find logs for recording that the cache was found, and find some other way to challenge geocachers and recognize their achievements.

Using smileys to record traditional (and many other) caches as found causes all sorts of strange behavior. For examples, see hundreds of threads on this forum, including this one: Found It = Didn't Find It.

I suppose that it is true that people will have different definitions of a find for all kinds of caches. Certainly someone could interpret a streak to mean you looked for cache every day, not necessarily found one; or that you maintained the rate of at least one cache per day over some period, meaning you could skip a day or two and still qualify. I'm pretty sure most streak challenges are clear about a find each day, but someone who interprets streaks differently may think it justified to date logs so there is one find per day even though this isn't really the case.

 

 

I have some minor problem with that "if you don't like 'em, you don't have to do 'em" attitude that we run into so much around here. The problem I have with it goes along with the "take it to its logical conclusion" logic. If all caches became challenge caches and we don't do the caches we don't like, those of us (and yes, I'm one) that don't like challenge caches would be forced out of the game.

 

So, you're right... nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. It is all voluntary. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't speak up about aspects that we don't like.

Nobody is saying you shouldn't speak up about aspects of challenge caches (or LPCs, power trail caches, etc.) that you don't like. There are plenty of valid arguments why individuals might not like these types of caches. But suggesting that someone is forcing you to do them is not one of those valid arguments. At least nobody has ever held a gun to my head and ordered me to find a cache.

 

Arguing that if all caches were challenge caches means some geocachers would no longer participate in this activity isn't taking the issue to its "logical conclusion." Indeed, such an appeal to extremes is a logical fallacy. Nobody is saying all caches should be challenge caches.

Certainly it's not the case that challenges are ever going threaten traditional caches, and probably not even traditional puzzles. Of course if Groundspeak were to give challenge caches there own icon, that could open a flood gate of people wanting to own a challenge cache. Already in my area there are streak challenges for 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 365, 365+1 days. For some streaks, there may be more than one challenge cache in the area. Soon will have streaks of every integral value between 1 and 500 along with streaks for finding a cache every Wednesday for some period of Wednesdays.

 

Most challenges out there are reasonable geocaching achievements, even if some are are a little difficult for most people to attain. The newer guidelines limit the more silly and often abusive challenges. But still, geocachers are creative people, and they continue to come up with challenges that are harder to understand, harder to document, and more likely to be controversial. It was the difficulty to control abusive ALRs that led to their ban. It was the difficulty in defining "wow" that lead to virtuals being grandfathered. I don't doubt that some see the same issues occurring with challenges. I have seen a number of challenges retracted after the reviewer decided that they didn't comply with guidelines. For now, the ones out there that I don't like I'm able to ignore (or find and log with a note).

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

On the other hand, what if you had someone that achieved a difficult challenge and traveled some distance to log a challenge cache. What if they did not find the cache? It this fair to them that they spent all the effort documenting their achievement but couldn't log a find because a cache was missing? Perhaps they should have brought a throw down replacement just in case.

I've made long hikes up mountains only to DNF traditional caches hidden up there. I don't think that's unfair. It's a risk I voluntarily accepted before making the efforts.

 

The possibility of an archived cache is one of the risks you accept when you take on a challenge cache, as is the possibility of DNFing it. Sometimes you can mitigate these risks by finding the challenge cache and signing its log before you get very involved with the challenge. (All my challenges caches allow you to do this.) Often, you also can delay any documentation efforts until after you've signed the log. If the risks are still unacceptable to you, then you don't have to do the challenge. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

I sort of get the idea that the challenge is put out there and you can accept the challenge or not (the way Geocaching Challenges work). You seem to argue that if I go find a challenge cache and write in the physical log I'm accepting the challenge and I shouldn't complain that I can't log online if don't complete it.

I'm not saying you accept a challenge cache simply by signing its log book. I'm saying that if you do intend to take on a challenge and you want to reduce the risk of DNFing the challenge after putting forth lots of effort, then you sometimes can sign the log book before you put forth much effort.

 

I'm also saying that if you don't sign the log first, then a DNF is a risk that you voluntarily accept if you do opt to take on a challenge. Just like a DNF is a possibility after walking several hours to a traditional cache. People are free to whine if they DNF a cache. Maybe it makes them feel better.

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

Link to comment

There are different tiers of challenges for me.

 

First tier is something that's currently out of reach, but obtainable, that spurs me to go places or do things I wouldn't normally do. I probably wouldn't have been inspired to visit all 67 counties in Alabama, but I did it for a challenge cache and I'm glad I was spurred to see parts of the state I doubt I'd've seen otherwise. Same thing with a challenge in Germany that got me to visit all of the cities and "counties" in Germany that used to make up the Kurpfalz, part of the Holy Roman Empire. I'm not an avid boater, but I sure had fun canoeing to a cache last Saturday morning that was part of a state park series. And while I was at it, I found a couple others on that same little lake that I'd previously written off.

 

Second tier is less inspiring. Normally a challenge I'm already qualified for, perhaps inadvertantly, like a 100-cache streak. I found a cache a day for 102 days back when we started caching, just for the heck of it. Didn't do it for a challenge, just did it to see if I could. I've also had three separate days where I found six different cache icons. Didn't even mean to. Nowadays these accomplishments apparently qualify me to log certain caches. If I happen to be in an area where there is one, I'll do it, but I don't make it a priority. This tier contains a few challenges that were in my top tier at first but are no longer a priority, like the Well Rounded Cacher challenges. Once I qualified for my first one, it lost the mystique.

 

Third tier contains the challenges I have no interest in finding, those that in my opinion border on the herculean or the absurdly technical. Find a cache a day for the next 10 years. Find eleventeen caches with names that contain three M's and a silent Q. Whatever. I got better things to do. And I certainly have more personal integrity than to try and lie my way into one of these.

 

Everyone's tier system is going to be different, some folks only have the first, some folks only the third.

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

That pretty well sums up the way I feel about them as well. It does bother me, though, that there are some large areas in my territory that have no caches that are not challenge caches. I'm not talking about one or two of them.

Link to comment

Cool, I figure I'll reach 15,000 in about a year. I have a whole bunch of challenges I'm not currently qualified for.

Have you noticed not only does THIS cacher hold the longest streak record, is that he is not a Premium Member.

 

Never bothered asking....were you ever one?

If not then you are getting FTF messages from someone who is. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

That pretty well sums up the way I feel about them as well. It does bother me, though, that there are some large areas in my territory that have no caches that are not challenge caches. I'm not talking about one or two of them.

 

Is this any different than an area with a saturation of regular puzzle caches, multis that are actually puzzles, PMO caches, micro LPC caches, nanos in guardrails? All disagree with someones ideas of geocaching. At least with most of these including challenge caches, you know where the 528' exclusion zone lies.

 

I'd personally like to see all of the blue question marks wiped right off the map. I can't solve most of them and they are just in the way. When someone puts 50 puzzles in a 5 X 3 mile square, he basically excludes the entire square from me for hiding caches. Playing Battleship with my reviewer is not my idea for the best use of his time. He should be reviewing caches, not helping me find places to hide them. A saturation of puzzle caches absolutely affects my ability to geocache as I would like, yet they seem to be the Holy Grail of this forum, so if one questions them, they are told to deal with it.

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

Now just asking you. Would you say a series of caches you have to find to log so you're able to get a final is much different then finding a Challenge cache final, and either having found or finding caches to qualify?

Link to comment

 

Anyway, this forum is for rants, so i figured this one would be entertaining to see if other folks have experienced the same, and i see they have. Next time i'll be sure to bring some better drama, with logs and names being called out and such, but none this time, sorry. ;)

 

You might want to check the forum guidelines and the other pinned threads at the top of the page.

The forums are for everyones enjoyment, to share our common love of this game, not to call each other out and rant.

 

Why don't you go outside and find some caches for a while and come back when you're more ready to share your joy of the game?

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

i pretty well sums up the way I feel about them as well. It does bother me, though, that there are some large areas in my territory that have no caches that are not challenge caches. I'm not talking about one or two of them.

 

Is this any different than an area with a saturation of regular puzzle caches, multis that are actually puzzles, PMO caches, micro LPC caches, nanos in guardrails? All disagree with someones ideas of geocaching. At least with most of these including challenge caches, you know where the 528' exclusion zone lies.

 

I'd personally like to see all of the blue question marks wiped right off the map. I can't solve most of them and they are just in the way. When someone puts 50 puzzles in a 5 X 3 mile square, he basically excludes the entire square from me for hiding caches. Playing Battleship with my reviewer is not my idea for the best use of his time. He should be reviewing caches, not helping me find places to hide them. A saturation of puzzle caches absolutely affects my ability to geocache as I would like, yet they seem to be the Holy Grail of this forum, so if one questions them, they are told to deal with it.

 

I'm not good at puzzle caches either but I don't think my way of playing the game is the only way.

Some people really love those puzzles. I say the more power to them for getting mind exercise as well as body exercise in finding caches.

 

I'm glad there are many ways to entertain us all with this one game.

Link to comment

I really enjoy many of the challenge caches. It's fun to go back through my database of finds and see what weird things I have accomplished; sometimes it leads me to discover a new set of caches. For example, after working to complete a "lonely caches" challenge that required finding 12 caches that had not been found for a year, I discovered the joy of seeking those caches out. Now I regularly search for long-unfound caches everywhere I travel. Those caches tend to be good ones in interesting places, believe it or not. They tend to be lonely because they involve a puzzle or some kind of hike, both of which I consider good things.

 

And I will admit to enjoying the process of figuring out how to query my DB of finds to see if I qualify for a challenge. It's fun to go back over old finds and reminisce.

 

But the idea of posting a find without any supporting evidence, just because I somehow think I must have qualified? Nope. That is lame.

Link to comment

I really enjoy many of the challenge caches. It's fun to go back through my database of finds and see what weird things I have accomplished; sometimes it leads me to discover a new set of caches. For example, after working to complete a "lonely caches" challenge that required finding 12 caches that had not been found for a year, I discovered the joy of seeking those caches out. Now I regularly search for long-unfound caches everywhere I travel. Those caches tend to be good ones in interesting places, believe it or not. They tend to be lonely because they involve a puzzle or some kind of hike, both of which I consider good things.

 

<b>And I will admit to enjoying the process of figuring out how to query my DB of finds to see if I qualify for a challenge. It's fun to go back over old finds and reminisce.</b>

 

But the idea of posting a find without any supporting evidence, just because I somehow think I must have qualified? Nope. That is lame.

 

I spent about an hour trying to come up with a list of found caches needed for completion of a challenge cache the other day. Some would say that i wasted an hour of my life doing this but i don't see that at all. This was a challenge in itself that i enjoyed doing!

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

Now just asking you. Would you say a series of caches you have to find to log so you're able to get a final is much different then finding a Challenge cache final, and either having found or finding caches to qualify?

Yes I do find that different. The series of caches is set by the same CO (or in agreement with others) and the feeder/final caches form a coherent set (often akin to a multi with physical stages).

 

Most Challenge Caches that I've come across feel more parasitic, feeding off semi-random caches that have little or no relationship to the Challenge CO. Just to qualify some of that:


  •  
  • Parasitic has more negative connotations than I intend to convey, but it more accurately describes the relationship as I see it!
  • D/T-type challenges are very nearly random (no two people (on a forum ;)) tend to agree on the subjective ratings!).
  • More objective Challenges are less random of course, but still rarely have the coherent caching relationship that means that one should depend on the other IMO.
     

Let each cache stand on its own merits.

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

Now just asking you. Would you say a series of caches you have to find to log so you're able to get a final is much different then finding a Challenge cache final, and either having found or finding caches to qualify?

Yes I do find that different. The series of caches is set by the same CO (or in agreement with others) and the feeder/final caches form a coherent set (often akin to a multi with physical stages).

 

Most Challenge Caches that I've come across feel more parasitic, feeding off semi-random caches that have little or no relationship to the Challenge CO. Just to qualify some of that:


  •  
  • Parasitic has more negative connotations than I intend to convey, but it more accurately describes the relationship as I see it!
  • D/T-type challenges are very nearly random (no two people (on a forum ;)) tend to agree on the subjective ratings!).
  • More objective Challenges are less random of course, but still rarely have the coherent caching relationship that means that one should depend on the other IMO.
     

Let each cache stand on its own merits.

A series with a bonus is specifically addressed in the challenge guidelines

Challenge caches based on a specific list of caches, such as caches placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

Thus it is unlikely that a someone could call the bonus cache a challenge, put it at the posted coordinated, and require that people have logged the other caches in the series in order to post a find on the bonus.

 

Instead bonus caches must be true mystery caches with bogus posted coordinated and the hints you need to discover the real coordinates hidden in the other caches in the series. If someone figures out the coordinates for the bonus without finding all of the series and finds the cache, they should be able to log the cache. Even if you just stumbled upon the bonus cache, most people would agree that you should be able to log it as found.

 

Challenge caches are the only caches where you have to do something beyond finding the cache and signing the log in order to log it as found online.

Link to comment

Challenge caches are part of a box-ticking meta-game that doesn't greatly interest me. I expect a cache to stand on its own merits and relate strongly to its CO, not feed off a semi-random collection of other COs' caches. If the challenge cache's final was greater than the sum of its parts (or for example was just 'better' in some way than any of the feeder caches) that might tempt me, but in the few challenge caches I've looked at, that hasn't appeared to be the case (I may be wrong of course in some cases). Instead, challenge caches seem primarily to be a slightly contrived way to record some geocaching statistic or other, by recording another find.

 

I'm not criticising those who like challenge caches; I'm just explaining why the ones I've seen don't appeal to me.

That pretty well sums up the way I feel about them as well. It does bother me, though, that there are some large areas in my territory that have no caches that are not challenge caches. I'm not talking about one or two of them.

 

Challenge caches are just like any other caches out there. Yes, they have an alr but a person can simply ignore them if they aren't interested in going for them. The only arguement i've seen for maybe mot wanting them is that they might take up a "good" spot that a regular cache could occupy. Not much of an arguement to my thinking since the proliferation of lame (this is subjective of course) caches that take up these good spaces far outweigh challenge caches. Imo, these are the real nuisance.

 

I was getting ready to submit the above when i realized what the bigger problem probably is. Too many cachers are smile greedy these days so it doesn't matter how lame or uninteresting a cache is,,, as long as it can be had quickly and easily. The OP hit the nail on the head. Some cachers don't bother satisfying a challenge the correct way because they have so many finds and figure they just automatically qualify. Too much time spent trying to actually make sure would slow them down too much. I figure they'd just move on to the next easy cache if a cache owner called them on it..

Link to comment

The silliest thing is talking out of one side of the mouth to let people cache how they want and whining incessantly out of the other in numerous long winded diatribes for years and years about ALRs

Sorry. I haven't call for a ban on Challenge caches (outside of a typo in a thread I started a while back). I'm expressing my opinion that there should be better ways to "challenge" other cachers that don't have the same inconsistencies with other ALRS. To me, challenge caches are just another way for cache owners who want to delete someone's log to do so. I have found many challenge caches because I enjoy looking for hidden boxes. And while they may be listed as unknown type so I have to read the page before I look, I'm not going to stop looking just because some control freak cache owner wants to delete my log. When ALRs existed, I would find ALR caches and write notes if I didn't want to do the ALR. For challenges the problem is often not that I don't want to do the challenge but that it would be too difficult or too time consuming for me; I congratulate the people who have done these accomplishments. I certainly have no problem with cache owners who want to give tribute to cachers who have achieved some geocaching accomplishment. While I am personally able to accept logging a Note instead of a Find because I haven't achieved some requirement, I find I have more sympathy for those who see the smiley as a record of what caches they have found rather than as some prize given out by the cache owner.

Personally, as a Challenge Cache owner, I HATE deleting logs (I haven't had to on that cache yet, but it's a granfathered "email the co-ords to the final" type). By insiting that you can find any cache without limits is more of an indication of a power hungry, control freak personality then the ability to delete bogus logs given to cache owners. And putting everybody who doesn't agree with you in some group with a derogatory title ("puritan", "control freak owner", etc.) is an even bigger indicator, and has gotten tiresome.

Link to comment

Challenge caches are the only caches where you have to do something beyond finding the cache and signing the log in order to log it as found online.

So what? Variation is the spice of life, if all caches were the same most people would leave the game.

+1. Vive la différence!

 

Earthcaches and most virtual caches also make you do something other than find a cache and sign a log.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...