Jump to content

Too Many Rules, Too Many Bureaucrats


MastahMatt

Recommended Posts

So I tried to post a new Challenge cache today.... not the new and rather shallow "Challenge" garbage geocaching.com is attempting to force us to swallow, but an actual cache that requires a specific task be completed. Here is the text (much of it anyhow) for that challenge I wanted to create:

 

--------------------

"To complete this challenge, you must have a single FIRST TO FIND of ANY BENCHMARK in the United States that can currently be found on geocaching.com (look here). The benchmark must have NO LOGS BEFORE YOURS and you MUST take a picture of the benchmark and post it on your log to prove that you were there. Due to the varying nature benchmarks, I will *try* to be lenient when it comes to the picture, however, blurry pictures which make it impossible to see the mark in question - and I've seen a few like this - will disqualify you from this challenge. Cameras are ubiquitous. If you have a cell phone from 1863 and your camera sucks, borrow a camera from someone, or upgrade that beast. I will be reasonable, but a picture of a watertower a mile away will not qualify.

 

The flipside to this picture requirement is as follows: if you find a benchmark that has already been logged as found but no previous finder has posted a picture of any kind, I will consider this benchmark as unfound for the purposes of this challenge. What this means is that if YOU go out and get a picture of said benchmark, that will qualify as a FTF for you, assuming that you post a picture yourself.

 

NOTE (PLEASE READ!): PREVIOUS FINDS *WILL* COUNT BUT THERE IS A SLIGHT TWIST. PREVIOUS FINDS WILL ONLY QUALIFY YOU AFTER THREE PEOPLE HAVE FOUND THIS CACHE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE A BENCHMARK FIRST TO FIND IN THE PAST, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE IT TO QUALIFY HERE UNTIL AFTER THE THIRD FINDER. KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO GO OUT AND GET FTF ON ANOTHER BENCHMARK TO QUALIFY. THIS PUTS EVERYONE ON AN EVEN FOOTING INITIALLY AND GIVES EVERYONE A CHANCE AT FTF, STF, AND TTF."

--------------------

 

There are hundreds of thousands of benchmarks on geocaching.com, giving everyone the chance to complete this with very little effort.

 

Here is what I received from the reviewer: FTF's are no nonger allowed (a contest), Requiring the posting pictures no longer allowed (Additional logging requirement) , the previous find requirement cannot be included.

 

So basically this challenge is out the window. The first requirement makes it pointless, the second means there is NO WAY to prove anyone has ever been to a benchmark, and I am not ENTIRELY clear here, but I think the third means I can't tell someone they have to find a benchmark in order to find this one.

 

THESE NEW "RULES" NEED TO BE ELIMINATED. Here is why:

 

We have become the absolute WORST KIND of democracy here at geocaching.com. There was a story written a few years ago by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. In this story, which takes place in the near future, everyone was required to be equal, to the point where those with better hearing had to wear earphones that blasted sound into their ears and those who were faster had to carry weights in order to be 'equal' to the least "gifted" person in their society. It was the desire for 'equality' taken to extremes.

 

How does this apply to my (formerly) beloved site? The idea behind these new rules seems to be that *someone, somewhere* might not be able to qualify for this one. A contest? My cache is a contest in a sense, yes, only hundreds of thousands of people would be able to qualify, and gee, that's not fair now is it, because there are technically six billion people in the world.

 

The new, crappy challenge type - which I from time to time engage in in the hope that I'll start enjoying it - REQUIRES a photo by its very nature. There is no difference between that and this. It seems to be a transparent effort on the part of the geocaching.com staff to force us to "migrate" to the new challenge type. Therefore we are now forbidden from requiring photos on caches in order to prevent mystery cache-based challenges from being created.

 

I do not desire that the new challenge type be eliminated. It's a fun diversion, but it DOES NOT INVOLVE GEOCACHING, and thus holds little interest for me.

 

I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that soon there will be a requirement that caches cannot be in trees, or underwater. Perhaps the well-meaning bureaucracy that is slowly taking over GC HQ will decide that someone might break some tree branches, or another bureaucrat in some state will require that no caches be allowed in lakes, because, hey, lakes are for fish, not people and we can't have people going in lakes where they wouldn't normally go, so GC will suggest a new rule banning underwater caches... you know... for the habitat, oh, and because someone might not know how to swim and that wouldn't be fair to them, thus making this a contest for them.

 

I will not deny that I am furious about this. I have spent the past several months fulfilling "pointless" geocaching challenges and having a spectacularly good time because it's a personal high to me to complete an esoteric, difficult challenge. Now I see that many of those challenges that I absolutely loved are never going to be allowed here again because the bureaucrats over at GC HQ decided on some new "rules" without consulting anyone but their own high-minded personal ideals.

 

This is a "feature request" in the sense that I am requesting these rules be removed, or at least heavily amended. I joined up here with the idea that I could contribute to the community in my own way, as long as it didn't involve illegal or highly dangerous, suspect activity. Why am I being restricted? Why the ridiculous "requirements" GC? Why are you FORCING me to make sure that everyone else has fun YOUR way, when this is fun MY way and for many others who feel as I do? It seems in your efforts to please everyone, all the time, you have made me very angry to the point of protest, so somewhere you may have failed.

 

My desire to post this challenge and it's refusal is indicative of a *much* greater problem than it appears on the surface. Rules are now being made for the sake of rules AT THE SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION, and this, in my mind is absolutely, 100% unacceptable.

 

I will have MUCH more to say about this, if not on the forums necessarily, then in person, and at every meeting I decide to attend in the future.

 

I have over 4,500 cache finds recorded on this site. Because of that, I can't simply "give up caching here" though if there were a way to save my stats, I would do so. Therefore, in protest for what I feel is an undue burden upon my hobby, I am doing the following: I will NOT post a single new cache or challenge on geocaching.com until I feel there is an effort to revamp these rules. Rules covering illegal and/or highly suspect activity (i.e. caches on railroad tracks or under highway bridges) are just fine for me to follow. Rules for the sake of rules are a big problem for me. I've got enough bureaucrats trying to up my taxes and impose curfews and tell me how often I need to mow my lawn and shovel my driveway. I don't need bureaucrats telling me I can't post a picture or first-to-find requirement. I will be posting my new caches on other geocaching sites from this point forward.

 

Thank you for listening. I don't like the new bureaucratic and rules for the sake of rules driven trends, but also, thank you for the GOOD things you have accomplished.

Link to comment

So I tried to post a new Challenge cache today.... not the new and rather shallow "Challenge" garbage geocaching.com is attempting to force us to swallow, but an actual cache that requires a specific task be completed. Here is the text (much of it anyhow) for that challenge I wanted to create:

 

--------------------

"To complete this challenge, you must have a single FIRST TO FIND of ANY BENCHMARK in the United States that can currently be found on geocaching.com (look here). The benchmark must have NO LOGS BEFORE YOURS and you MUST take a picture of the benchmark and post it on your log to prove that you were there. Due to the varying nature benchmarks, I will *try* to be lenient when it comes to the picture, however, blurry pictures which make it impossible to see the mark in question - and I've seen a few like this - will disqualify you from this challenge. Cameras are ubiquitous. If you have a cell phone from 1863 and your camera sucks, borrow a camera from someone, or upgrade that beast. I will be reasonable, but a picture of a watertower a mile away will not qualify.

 

The flipside to this picture requirement is as follows: if you find a benchmark that has already been logged as found but no previous finder has posted a picture of any kind, I will consider this benchmark as unfound for the purposes of this challenge. What this means is that if YOU go out and get a picture of said benchmark, that will qualify as a FTF for you, assuming that you post a picture yourself.

 

NOTE (PLEASE READ!): PREVIOUS FINDS *WILL* COUNT BUT THERE IS A SLIGHT TWIST. PREVIOUS FINDS WILL ONLY QUALIFY YOU AFTER THREE PEOPLE HAVE FOUND THIS CACHE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE A BENCHMARK FIRST TO FIND IN THE PAST, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE IT TO QUALIFY HERE UNTIL AFTER THE THIRD FINDER. KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO GO OUT AND GET FTF ON ANOTHER BENCHMARK TO QUALIFY. THIS PUTS EVERYONE ON AN EVEN FOOTING INITIALLY AND GIVES EVERYONE A CHANCE AT FTF, STF, AND TTF."

--------------------

 

There are hundreds of thousands of benchmarks on geocaching.com, giving everyone the chance to complete this with very little effort.

 

Here is what I received from the reviewer: FTF's are no nonger allowed (a contest), Requiring the posting pictures no longer allowed (Additional logging requirement) , the previous find requirement cannot be included.

 

So basically this challenge is out the window. The first requirement makes it pointless, the second means there is NO WAY to prove anyone has ever been to a benchmark, and I am not ENTIRELY clear here, but I think the third means I can't tell someone they have to find a benchmark in order to find this one.

 

THESE NEW "RULES" NEED TO BE ELIMINATED. Here is why:

 

We have become the absolute WORST KIND of democracy here at geocaching.com. There was a story written a few years ago by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. In this story, which takes place in the near future, everyone was required to be equal, to the point where those with better hearing had to wear earphones that blasted sound into their ears and those who were faster had to carry weights in order to be 'equal' to the least "gifted" person in their society. It was the desire for 'equality' taken to extremes.

 

How does this apply to my (formerly) beloved site? The idea behind these new rules seems to be that *someone, somewhere* might not be able to qualify for this one. A contest? My cache is a contest in a sense, yes, only hundreds of thousands of people would be able to qualify, and gee, that's not fair now is it, because there are technically six billion people in the world.

 

The new, crappy challenge type - which I from time to time engage in in the hope that I'll start enjoying it - REQUIRES a photo by its very nature. There is no difference between that and this. It seems to be a transparent effort on the part of the geocaching.com staff to force us to "migrate" to the new challenge type. Therefore we are now forbidden from requiring photos on caches in order to prevent mystery cache-based challenges from being created.

 

I do not desire that the new challenge type be eliminated. It's a fun diversion, but it DOES NOT INVOLVE GEOCACHING, and thus holds little interest for me.

 

I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that soon there will be a requirement that caches cannot be in trees, or underwater. Perhaps the well-meaning bureaucracy that is slowly taking over GC HQ will decide that someone might break some tree branches, or another bureaucrat in some state will require that no caches be allowed in lakes, because, hey, lakes are for fish, not people and we can't have people going in lakes where they wouldn't normally go, so GC will suggest a new rule banning underwater caches... you know... for the habitat, oh, and because someone might not know how to swim and that wouldn't be fair to them, thus making this a contest for them.

 

I will not deny that I am furious about this. I have spent the past several months fulfilling "pointless" geocaching challenges and having a spectacularly good time because it's a personal high to me to complete an esoteric, difficult challenge. Now I see that many of those challenges that I absolutely loved are never going to be allowed here again because the bureaucrats over at GC HQ decided on some new "rules" without consulting anyone but their own high-minded personal ideals.

 

This is a "feature request" in the sense that I am requesting these rules be removed, or at least heavily amended. I joined up here with the idea that I could contribute to the community in my own way, as long as it didn't involve illegal or highly dangerous, suspect activity. Why am I being restricted? Why the ridiculous "requirements" GC? Why are you FORCING me to make sure that everyone else has fun YOUR way, when this is fun MY way and for many others who feel as I do? It seems in your efforts to please everyone, all the time, you have made me very angry to the point of protest, so somewhere you may have failed.

 

My desire to post this challenge and it's refusal is indicative of a *much* greater problem than it appears on the surface. Rules are now being made for the sake of rules AT THE SLIGHTEST JUSTIFICATION, and this, in my mind is absolutely, 100% unacceptable.

 

I will have MUCH more to say about this, if not on the forums necessarily, then in person, and at every meeting I decide to attend in the future.

 

I have over 4,500 cache finds recorded on this site. Because of that, I can't simply "give up caching here" though if there were a way to save my stats, I would do so. Therefore, in protest for what I feel is an undue burden upon my hobby, I am doing the following: I will NOT post a single new cache or challenge on geocaching.com until I feel there is an effort to revamp these rules. Rules covering illegal and/or highly suspect activity (i.e. caches on railroad tracks or under highway bridges) are just fine for me to follow. Rules for the sake of rules are a big problem for me. I've got enough bureaucrats trying to up my taxes and impose curfews and tell me how often I need to mow my lawn and shovel my driveway. I don't need bureaucrats telling me I can't post a picture or first-to-find requirement. I will be posting my new caches on other geocaching sites from this point forward.

 

Thank you for listening. I don't like the new bureaucratic and rules for the sake of rules driven trends, but also, thank you for the GOOD things you have accomplished.

:drama:

Link to comment

I think it would be helpful to keep Challenge Caches separate from the new Geocaching Challenges. They really don't have much to do with each other other than the word "challenge" in their names. Just because Geocaching Challenges (like Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches before them) require a photo doesn't mean that physical geocaches (even Challenge Caches) are allowed to require photos. That's been the case since 2009 when Additional Logging Requirements were eliminated.

 

I'm not sure why you think the challenge cache guidelines were changed "at the slightest justification". My observation is that Groundspeak changes the guidelines in response to observed problems.

 

When Additional Logging Requirements were eliminated, people started trying to list such caches as Challenge Caches. Groundspeak needed to clarify the distinction between a banned Additional Logging Requirement and an allowed Challenge Cache. For better or for worse, the current Challenge Cache guidelines are the result.

 

I don't think eliminating these guidelines is an option at this point. There were reasons for the elimination of Additional Logging Requirements. But eliminating Challenge Caches entirely might be an option though, if distinguishing between banned Additional Logging Requirements and allowed Challenge Caches becomes too much of a burden. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them go, since I think there are better ways to reward geocaching achievements of various kinds than Challenge Caches. But I get the impression that others like them, even if the current Challenge Cache guidelines ruffle some feathers occasionally.

Link to comment

I think you may be oversimplifying this whole thing, and assuming this challenge would have been gleefully published without question before March, 2012, and it's all about the "new rules" that took effect then. Unless you were told this, and didn't mention it.

 

As to why these new rules were instituted, I'll agree, there's never been all that good of an explanation there.

Link to comment

So, you have created disallowed rules, and added new requirements for logging your challenge cache and they won't publish it because they have too many rules? :rolleyes:

 

The literal meaning of your words is correct. What is behind them is subtly different. What this comes down to is this:

 

Personally, I love when a new, tough "challenge" comes out. I have found thousands of caches, and find myself a bit bored at times finding another camoed container in a huge patch of buckthorn. Don't get me wrong, my interest level cycles and I'm back to finding hundreds a month in no time. However, the "challenge cache" type is simply a new way of doing things. Like benchmarking, or Waymarking, or events, or multi-caches vs. traditionals, or the new challenge type, it only adds to the vast variety and diversity of activities orbiting this hobby.

 

I do not want to create blanket rules for everyone. I DO want to create blanket rules that apply singularly to the cache *I* have chosen to create. Why should I be told I can't do this? My issue is not one of control, not in the least. My intent is to create a challenge to be completed in a certain way so that others my hopefully find the same experience in benchmarking I have found and then run with it. If, after a year, the cache has a couple of finders and/or there are a lot of complaints, I would absolutely consider eliminating it, as would be reasonable.

 

If I wanted to create a bazillion rules for a cache, then no one is going to find it and it will go away on its own. But by doing so, I hurt only me, and others are free to do as they please. I feel that Groundspeak, though they have the best intentions, has abused their position as cache administrators in this regard.

 

I have never seen a satisfactory answer to the argument, "If you don't like it, ignore it." It seems that as bureaucracy increases, the rule (no pun intended) becomes, "If you don't like it, prevent anyone else from maybe liking it." I spent much time thinking of this challenge I created. Will people enjoy it? I don't know. But Groundspeak SHOULD NOT be deciding that other people won't get a chance to try it to see. I HATE coffee (ducks) but my gosh, I would never try to create a law that says other people shouldn't be drinking coffee.

 

I'm frustrated with the recent state of affairs concerning guidelines and the "pure democracy" form of government these sites tend to create, which is disastrous for minority opinions. I could type for hours on this (and probably will when all is said and done) but Groundspeak and others will certainly hear my opinion on the matter.

 

Edit: Sorry, quoted wrong post :)

Edited by MastahMatt
Link to comment

Yea that's it. They are creating rules just for the sake of creating rules.

 

That's the ticket.

 

You are right. I should not have stated such a thing. What I should say is:

 

"Rules are being created for the sake of trying to please everyone all of the time. What this will lead to is a vast conglomeration of rules, much like the tax code, through which cache owners will have a difficult time navigating, and which, will in the end lead to frustration and a apathy where it comes to publishing new caches. Fortunately, unlike the tax code, we cannot yet be jailed for failing to adhere to these rules.... yet."

Link to comment

I think it would be helpful to keep Challenge Caches separate from the new Geocaching Challenges. They really don't have much to do with each other other than the word "challenge" in their names. Just because Geocaching Challenges (like Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches before them) require a photo doesn't mean that physical geocaches (even Challenge Caches) are allowed to require photos. That's been the case since 2009 when Additional Logging Requirements were eliminated.

 

I disagree. If I want to create a geocache that requires a photo, but does not invade the privacy of others by requiring they post themselves or personal information on a cache log, why should I be told that I cannot?

 

I'm not sure why you think the challenge cache guidelines were changed "at the slightest justification". My observation is that Groundspeak changes the guidelines in response to observed problems.

 

Of course, much of my original post was written in a state of frustration. You are right that rules are not changed 'at the slightest justification.' Instead these particular rules were changed because people didn't like being told they couldn't log MY cache in the way I intended. If other people didn't like it, they were free to not find it.

 

When Additional Logging Requirements were eliminated, people started trying to list such caches as Challenge Caches. Groundspeak needed to clarify the distinction between a banned Additional Logging Requirement and an allowed Challenge Cache. For better or for worse, the current Challenge Cache guidelines are the result.

 

I did not create my challenge to get around ALRs. I created my challenge for the purposes of a challenge, which should be obvious. The picture requirement is in place because anyone could waltz along and say they completed the challenge when they had not. There is no other way to weed out such despicable behavior, and it would be very unfair to those that had gone out of their way to complete the challenge as intended.

 

I don't think eliminating these guidelines is an option at this point.

 

I think moderating their effects so they don't apply with blanket force (haha) would be in order.

 

But eliminating Challenge Caches entirely might be an option though.

 

Sure but there are people who can't climb - eliminate caches in trees perhaps? People who can't swim (or do not like the idea of the underwater habitat being "disturbed") - eliminate scuba caches.

 

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing them go.

 

Of course not. You have no interest, so why would you concern yourself with my being restricted in what I wish to do?

 

The fact remains that with challenge caches allowed (as they were, perhaps) I am free to create them and you are free to ignore them. With such caches banned, that freedom is restricted. With absolute respect, I am free not to create new caches on geocaching.com.

Link to comment

I think the rules are pretty simple. You are just steamed because you can't hide the type of cache you want to hide, so you are making a big deal about this and trying to pull the "slippery slope" cliche.

 

Good observation there about me being steamed. You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Good job. And I like how you've labeled the "slippery slope" effect as a cliche in hopes of convincing others by implication (since cliches are often foolish) that it doesn't apply here because the concept has been used too many times. I find it interesting though that you see exactly where I am going without me pointing the way.

 

All of us now understand that you don't like challenge caches and that you like restricting my activity so you don't have to see challenge caches on your map. Please say something constructive. Thank you.

Link to comment

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

Link to comment

Your first mistake is thinking that groundspeek is a democracy. They have proven time and again that this is not the case at all. They are free to completely ignore what we want all they want.

 

And I have to say that it is my personal opinion that they have been moving in the wrong direction for some time. There seems to be a disconnect between tptb and their customer base. Again, just my personal opinion and I do not wish to hash that out here.

 

But, having said all of that, geocaching is supposed to be a fun, positive experience. When I read your challenge as you posted it in the OP, it had a very negative, repressive feel to it. You may have simply been trying to make a tough challenge that would make it harder than normal to complete, but the way you worded it felt very negative to me. One thing groundspeek does try to do is at least keep the fun factor a number one priority. And when you are creating any cache, that should be a primary concern of yours as well.

 

I hear you. I only posted approximately a third of the original cache posting for the sake of brevity, as I didn't want to bog down the post with extraneous information. Thus you only see the requirements and restrictions. But since that is what is pertinent here, it was what I needed to show.

 

As for the 'democracy' issue, geocaching.com moves along with the waves of the masses making demands upon it. This is a 'pure democracy' and is a dangerous state of affairs, since the requirements always flow with the majority opinion. If that majority opinion ends up being 51% (or if the minority is far more vocal), the the other group is completely suppressed. I like challenges, and since I seem to be either the minority opinion (or the less vocal party) I don't get to create this challenge.

Link to comment

I love Challenge Caches. And I love the idea of Geocaching Challenges and have enjoyed a few. Not only that, but I love finding benchmarks. Being FTF on a benchmark was one of my proudest "geocaching" moments. (That said, I don't enjoy logging benchmarks, so you'll not find many in my profile)

 

Now, I am quite capable of ignoring things I do not enjoy. And like you, I'm all for others having freedom to do things that I can simply ignore. (I'll spare you the speech about business owners also having this freedom)

 

Here's the thing:

Rules define the boundaries. Sure, it is sometimes frustrating when we believe the rules should be different. But playing by the rules is the only way to keep it fun. And while rules can be evaluated and improved over time, there's a right way to go about it. (not sure this is it)

 

Oh, and if Groundspeak is actually hearing your opinion in this venue, then this might be a good place to say that I appreciate the rules that apply in this case.

Link to comment
If I want to create a geocache that requires a photo, but does not invade the privacy of others by requiring they post themselves or personal information on a cache log, why should I be told that I cannot?
If you want to create such a geocache, then go for it. Just be aware that you cannot list it here. But frankly, I see the photo issue as something of a red herring in this case. The bigger issue is that you're trying to create a challenge based on winning a contest (FTF). AFAICS, you're including the photo requirement only in an attempt to verify your FTF-based challenge.

 

Which also relates to the "verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website" part of the guidelines, FWIW.

 

I don't think eliminating these guidelines is an option at this point.
I think moderating their effects so they don't apply with blanket force (haha) would be in order.
I think you'll have better luck if you propose specific changes, with an explanation of how your specific proposals will improve Challenge Caches as a tool for acknowledging geocaching-related accomplishments. Complaining that your Challenge Cache (which violated multiple guidelines) was denied isn't going to be productive. Demanding a major (but non-specific) overhaul isn't going to be productive. Proposing that cache owners once again have carte blanche to impose any arbitrary logging requirements isn't going to be productive.

 

But eliminating Challenge Caches entirely might be an option though.
Sure but there are people who can't climb - eliminate caches in trees perhaps? People who can't swim (or do not like the idea of the underwater habitat being "disturbed") - eliminate scuba caches.
No, I think it would be more like the way Virtual Caches went away. Or the way Additional Logging Requirements went away (with the sole exception of Challenge Caches).
Link to comment

As for the 'democracy' issue, geocaching.com moves along with the waves of the masses making demands upon it. This is a 'pure democracy' and is a dangerous state of affairs, since the requirements always flow with the majority opinion. If that majority opinion ends up being 51% (or if the minority is far more vocal), the the other group is completely suppressed. I like challenges, and since I seem to be either the minority opinion (or the less vocal party) I don't get to create this challenge.

 

Hi, Matt!

 

I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them.

Link to comment

As for the 'democracy' issue, geocaching.com moves along with the waves of the masses making demands upon it. This is a 'pure democracy' and is a dangerous state of affairs, since the requirements always flow with the majority opinion. If that majority opinion ends up being 51% (or if the minority is far more vocal), the the other group is completely suppressed. I like challenges, and since I seem to be either the minority opinion (or the less vocal party) I don't get to create this challenge.

 

Hi, Matt!

 

I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them.

 

Then I guess the question might become, why don't we have an ALR cache type? And give individuals the opportunity to always display these caches or never display them. Then those that like challenges with ALR's can have them show up as accomplishments, and those who don't like them don't ever have to see them (and thus don't have to push for restricting someone else's idea of fun). Unfortunately, the basic issue still remains, and no one ever provides an answer to it: should you be allowed to restrict someone else's activity because you yourself don't enjoy engaging in said activity. I would remind you that restricting my ability to put out a challenge cache does not increase my desire to put out a traditional cache, so really, no one is winning.

Link to comment

As for the 'democracy' issue, geocaching.com moves along with the waves of the masses making demands upon it. This is a 'pure democracy' and is a dangerous state of affairs, since the requirements always flow with the majority opinion. If that majority opinion ends up being 51% (or if the minority is far more vocal), the the other group is completely suppressed. I like challenges, and since I seem to be either the minority opinion (or the less vocal party) I don't get to create this challenge.

 

Hi, Matt!

 

I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them.

 

Then I guess the question might become, why don't we have an ALR cache type? And give individuals the opportunity to always display these caches or never display them. Then those that like challenges with ALR's can have them show up as accomplishments, and those who don't like them don't ever have to see them (and thus don't have to push for restricting someone else's idea of fun). Unfortunately, the basic issue still remains, and no one ever provides an answer to it: should you be allowed to restrict someone else's activity because you yourself don't enjoy engaging in said activity. I would remind you that restricting my ability to put out a challenge cache does not increase my desire to put out a traditional cache, so really, no one is winning.

Once again, Matt... the "you" that you reference is Groundspeak, and from all that I've seen over the years they do NOT follow the majority opinion. They make their own decisions. As to why no ALRs any longer, that is well documented in the forums, but essentially it is because they got out of control with silly or impossible to meet requirements.

Link to comment

As for the 'democracy' issue, geocaching.com moves along with the waves of the masses making demands upon it. This is a 'pure democracy' and is a dangerous state of affairs, since the requirements always flow with the majority opinion. If that majority opinion ends up being 51% (or if the minority is far more vocal), the the other group is completely suppressed. I like challenges, and since I seem to be either the minority opinion (or the less vocal party) I don't get to create this challenge.

 

Hi, Matt!

 

I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them.

 

Then I guess the question might become, why don't we have an ALR cache type? And give individuals the opportunity to always display these caches or never display them. Then those that like challenges with ALR's can have them show up as accomplishments, and those who don't like them don't ever have to see them (and thus don't have to push for restricting someone else's idea of fun). Unfortunately, the basic issue still remains, and no one ever provides an answer to it: should you be allowed to restrict someone else's activity because you yourself don't enjoy engaging in said activity. I would remind you that restricting my ability to put out a challenge cache does not increase my desire to put out a traditional cache, so really, no one is winning.

Once again, Matt... the "you" that you reference is Groundspeak, and from all that I've seen over the years they do NOT follow the majority opinion. They make their own decisions. As to why no ALRs any longer, that is well documented in the forums, but essentially it is because they got out of control with silly or impossible to meet requirements.

ALRs granted too much power to the cache owner. If an owner decided that you didn't fulfill the "requirement" to their satisfaction they could delete your log. Some owners were stupid about it and Groundspeak didn't have a lot of leverage there. They had upset cachers who kept getting their logs deleted and no real way to require the owner to leave the log in place.

 

Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type.

Link to comment

My intent is to create a challenge to be completed in a certain way so that others my hopefully find the same experience in benchmarking I have found and then run with it.

If your goal is to encourage people to try benchmarking, then have you considered creating a challenge cache that requires people to find 25 (or 50 or 100) benchmarks?

 

Absolutely!

 

Here is why I did not:

 

#1 There are already two challenges in my local area that require 100 benchmarks. Another requires one benchmark a day (WITH A PHOTO REQUIREMENT FOR EACH BENCHMARK) for 31 days. Two of these I have completed and one of them I am on the verge of completing. Yet another 100 benchmarks challenge would have been almost superfluous.

 

#2 100 benchmarks found means that, as usual, only those marks that have been found countless times will simply be found again. I could say, past finds don't count (maybe that's not allowed anymore though), but again, the superfluity comes into play here. What this means is that all of the benchmarks in the outlying metro (I live south of St. Paul, Minnesota) will still go unfound. Frankly, my main goal for this challenge was to get people out to find a benchmark that hasn't yet been logged. There are literally tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands like that, many within a close distance from where I live.

 

My only regret is that I didn't publish this last year, when I was free to do so. Now of course, other people have decided for me that other people shouldn't have to put up with what they themselves don't like, never mind if the latter don't get a chance to ever determine for themselves.

 

<sarcasm>

I would like to point out that IT'S GOOD TO KNOW that many challenges I would be soon undertaking with great pleasure will now never see the light of day and that I won't have to be burdened with knowing about them. I assume that those of you who agree with the current state of affairs will be pleased that I am not pleased. Gotta stop those control-freak challenge publishers and after all, think of ALL THE YEARS you spent in rabid frustration that you couldn't tell me 'NO, SIR, you may NOT publish that challenge requirement, for the good of everyone who would otherwise be FORCED to complete it!' Everyone will now, for the moment, be safe from my cache-based predations.

</sarcasm>

Link to comment

Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type.

 

Thank you for the positive response about my challenge. I acknowledge what you are saying, but what your statement, in essence, comes down to is this: "There are some cache-nazis out there who abuse their power to enforce requirements, therefore, we had to take away the power of they and everyone else to create said requirements, regardless of how reasonable they may or may not seem on a case-by-case basis." This type of argument is the absolute death of every single free society in the history of all of humankind, whether we are talking about entire nations or little geocaching communities run by a central body.

 

And still, no one has posited a proper response to: "Why should you be allowed to stop me from engaging in a legal activity simply because you don't like it?" Legal of course meaning law-abiding.

Link to comment

Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type.

 

Thank you for the positive response about my challenge. I acknowledge what you are saying, but what your statement, in essence, comes down to is this: "There are some cache-nazis out there who abuse their power to enforce requirements, therefore, we had to take away the power of they and everyone else to create said requirements, regardless of how reasonable they may or may not seem on a case-by-case basis." This type of argument is the absolute death of every single free society in the history of all of humankind, whether we are talking about entire nations or little geocaching communities run by a central body.

 

 

Because the reviewers didn't want to deal with the "Why did you allow their ALR, and not mine? They are just about the same!" types of complaints that would certaily follow with the guideline saying approval of ALRs were up to the reviewer on a case by case basis.

 

And still, no one has posited a proper response to: "Why should you be allowed to stop me from engaging in a legal activity simply because you don't like it?" Legal of course meaning law-abiding.

 

No one is stopping you from engaging in a legal activity (such as benchmarking). GS just won't let you list the cache on their website.

Edited by BBWolf+3Pigs
Link to comment

Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type.

 

Thank you for the positive response about my challenge. I acknowledge what you are saying, but what your statement, in essence, comes down to is this: "There are some cache-nazis out there who abuse their power to enforce requirements, therefore, we had to take away the power of they and everyone else to create said requirements, regardless of how reasonable they may or may not seem on a case-by-case basis." This type of argument is the absolute death of every single free society in the history of all of humankind, whether we are talking about entire nations or little geocaching communities run by a central body.

 

And still, no one has posited a proper response to: "Why should you be allowed to stop me from engaging in a legal activity simply because you don't like it?" Legal of course meaning law-abiding.

As was mentioned previously, Groundspeak is not a democracy. Why would they want to put themselves in a position where they are forced to arbitrate whether a cacher fulfilled the challenge? Because I guarantee that the moment you start deleting logs someone will be firing off emails to GS headquarters complaining that their logs were unfairly or arbitrarily deleted. It's a lot easier for them to say, "If you find the cache you earn the :) ".

 

If this were my business I'd sure go that way.

Link to comment
I would like to point out that IT'S GOOD TO KNOW that many challenges I would be soon undertaking with great pleasure will now never see the light of day and that I won't have to be burdened with knowing about them
If you would enjoy a given challenge, then go ahead and complete it. You don't need to wait for someone to post a Challenge Cache for it. For example, I recently completed my "Finds for Each Day of the Year" grid. I started working on it last year not because there was a Challenge Cache for completing the grid, but because I thought it would be fun.

 

And still, no one has posited a proper response to: "Why should you be allowed to stop me from engaging in a legal activity simply because you don't like it?" Legal of course meaning law-abiding.
No one is stopping you from completing your benchmark FTF challenge, or from encouraging others to complete it. The only issue is whether you can publish your benchmark FTF challenge on geocaching.com as a Challenge Cache. Given that it does not abide by their guidelines for Challenge Caches, you cannot. None of us are stopping you from publishing the Challenge Cache. Groundspeak has the right to stop you from publishing the Challenge Cache because it is their web site.
Link to comment

If your goal is to encourage people to try benchmarking, then have you considered creating a challenge cache that requires people to find 25 (or 50 or 100) benchmarks?

There are already quite a few quantity-based benchmarking challenges in MastahMatt's area (it's my area too).

 

Edit: whoops. I shouldn't wait so long to type a reply.

Edited by JJnTJ
Link to comment

As for the 'democracy' issue, geocaching.com moves along with the waves of the masses making demands upon it. This is a 'pure democracy' and is a dangerous state of affairs, since the requirements always flow with the majority opinion. If that majority opinion ends up being 51% (or if the minority is far more vocal), the the other group is completely suppressed. I like challenges, and since I seem to be either the minority opinion (or the less vocal party) I don't get to create this challenge.

 

Hi, Matt!

 

I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them.

 

Then I guess the question might become, why don't we have an ALR cache type? And give individuals the opportunity to always display these caches or never display them. Then those that like challenges with ALR's can have them show up as accomplishments, and those who don't like them don't ever have to see them (and thus don't have to push for restricting someone else's idea of fun). Unfortunately, the basic issue still remains, and no one ever provides an answer to it: should you be allowed to restrict someone else's activity because you yourself don't enjoy engaging in said activity. I would remind you that restricting my ability to put out a challenge cache does not increase my desire to put out a traditional cache, so really, no one is winning.

Once again, Matt... the "you" that you reference is Groundspeak, and from all that I've seen over the years they do NOT follow the majority opinion. They make their own decisions. As to why no ALRs any longer, that is well documented in the forums, but essentially it is because they got out of control with silly or impossible to meet requirements.

ALRs granted too much power to the cache owner. If an owner decided that you didn't fulfill the "requirement" to their satisfaction they could delete your log. Some owners were stupid about it and Groundspeak didn't have a lot of leverage there. They had upset cachers who kept getting their logs deleted and no real way to require the owner to leave the log in place.

 

Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type.

Actually they have a very good way of leaving the log in place. They can re-instate the log and then lock it. The CO can not delete that log. But I suspect that with the other reasons mentioned, the lackeys and reviewers just got tired of moderating logging wars.

Link to comment

As for the 'democracy' issue, geocaching.com moves along with the waves of the masses making demands upon it. This is a 'pure democracy' and is a dangerous state of affairs, since the requirements always flow with the majority opinion. If that majority opinion ends up being 51% (or if the minority is far more vocal), the the other group is completely suppressed. I like challenges, and since I seem to be either the minority opinion (or the less vocal party) I don't get to create this challenge.

 

Hi, Matt!

 

I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them.

 

Then I guess the question might become, why don't we have an ALR cache type? And give individuals the opportunity to always display these caches or never display them. Then those that like challenges with ALR's can have them show up as accomplishments, and those who don't like them don't ever have to see them (and thus don't have to push for restricting someone else's idea of fun). Unfortunately, the basic issue still remains, and no one ever provides an answer to it: should you be allowed to restrict someone else's activity because you yourself don't enjoy engaging in said activity. I would remind you that restricting my ability to put out a challenge cache does not increase my desire to put out a traditional cache, so really, no one is winning.

Once again, Matt... the "you" that you reference is Groundspeak, and from all that I've seen over the years they do NOT follow the majority opinion. They make their own decisions. As to why no ALRs any longer, that is well documented in the forums, but essentially it is because they got out of control with silly or impossible to meet requirements.

ALRs granted too much power to the cache owner. If an owner decided that you didn't fulfill the "requirement" to their satisfaction they could delete your log. Some owners were stupid about it and Groundspeak didn't have a lot of leverage there. They had upset cachers who kept getting their logs deleted and no real way to require the owner to leave the log in place.

 

Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type.

Actually they have a very good way of leaving the log in place. They can re-instate the log and then lock it. The CO can not delete that log. But I suspect that with the other reasons mentioned, the lackeys and reviewers just got tired of moderating logging wars.

Exactly.
Link to comment

.

 

Set aside for the moment whether this challenge would appeal to you personally or not, here is the $100,000,000 question. Someone tell me how the geocaching community (the customers) benefit from the rejection of this challenge?

 

.

It isn't the challenge. It's the expectation that GS will mediate if a problem arises between a cacher and the owner.
Link to comment

"To complete this challenge, you must have a single FIRST TO FIND of ANY BENCHMARK in the United States....The benchmark must have NO LOGS BEFORE YOURS

 

Try instead, You must have a find on the same day as the first finder of any benchmark. All logs from that first day count towards this challenge.

I'm reasonably confident that this will fly.

 

and you MUST take a picture of the benchmark and post it on your log to prove that you were there.

 

No, and this is a problem with using benchmarks for Challenge caches, ie, nobody is policing those logs. But you don't get to police them either. You'll just have live with a few cheaters, or hey, be optimistic! maybe nobody cheats.

 

You can certainly encourage posting a photo. The happier you make this, the more about rising to the challenge, and braggin' rights, the better. But it's a request, not requirement. Sorry, I have no workaround for this one.

 

The flipside to this picture requirement is as follows: if you find a benchmark that has already been logged as found but no previous finder has posted a picture of any kind, I will consider this benchmark as unfound for the purposes of this challenge. What this means is that if YOU go out and get a picture of said benchmark, that will qualify as a FTF for you, assuming that you post a picture yourself.

 

Try instead, If you find a benchmark that has already been logged as found but no previous finder has posted a picture of any kind, I will consider this benchmark as a find for the purposes of this challenge, if you post a picture of the benchmark.

 

I think this might fly. You aren't requiring a picture absolutely, you're allowing a find on a previously found benchmark, if the finder posts a picture.

I could be wrong on this. I could be wrong about it, but I'd try to work with the reviewer on it, or go to appeals.

Appeals staff works from a "get it published" mentality. The business is based on caches getting published.

 

NOTE (PLEASE READ!): PREVIOUS FINDS *WILL* COUNT BUT THERE IS A SLIGHT TWIST. PREVIOUS FINDS WILL ONLY QUALIFY YOU AFTER THREE PEOPLE HAVE FOUND THIS CACHE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE A BENCHMARK FIRST TO FIND IN THE PAST, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE IT TO QUALIFY HERE UNTIL AFTER THE THIRD FINDER. KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO GO OUT AND GET FTF ON ANOTHER BENCHMARK TO QUALIFY. THIS PUTS EVERYONE ON AN EVEN FOOTING INITIALLY AND GIVES EVERYONE A CHANCE AT FTF, STF, AND TTF."

 

You're attaching ALR to cachers based upon find position. This is a no fly zone, completely. All cachers attempting the challenge must be looking at the same rules, they don't change over find position.

 

----------------

 

Challenge caches are built around upon logs on other things: geocaches, benchmarks, waymarks, trackables, challenges, and the challenge cache owner can't attach ALR to those other things, which is what you're trying to do.

 

The no photo requirement and the no FTF requirement aren't particularly new to the Challenge cache type, ie, you couldn't have listed this last year either.

Early in the post-ALR period, probably yes, but what challenges are has been evolving, and those two things, no FTF challenges (also no DNF challenges) and no added photo requirements happened pretty early on. Older challenges may have them (photo requirements etc) they're grandfathered.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

I'm sorry you weren't able to create this challenge cache. I would normally never do a challenge cache, but this one sounds like fun. This biggest issues I see are the fact that benchmark posts are unmoderated, so they can easily be backdated. Also, in my neck of the woods, a lot of benchmarks (that are unfound on GC) have recent photos uploaded over on the NGS benchmark page. That makes finding them easy, and IMHO, pointless.

Link to comment

.

 

Set aside for the moment whether this challenge would appeal to you personally or not, here is the $100,000,000 question. Someone tell me how the geocaching community (the customers) benefit from the rejection of this challenge?

 

.

It isn't the challenge. It's the expectation that GS will mediate if a problem arises between a cacher and the owner.

 

I will agree. Since we didn't see any kind of major public backlash against originally allowed things like picture requirements, FTF contests, or "all finds have to be after the publish date of this challenge", I can only assume there were many private complaints emailed in to HQ, and drama-filled mediation disputes coming in. And who knows what chatter was going in in the reviewer only forum. :)

Link to comment

At a casual glance, I like the premise of a FTF Benchmark Challenge thing. You did the 3rd or 4th finder so no one can armchair. I get it, it was a nice idea. If I was in your area and you created it, I would have logged it (3rd or 4th most likely). I do have a FTF on 2 benchmarks, so I can appreciate it, they were a year or so ago on an island.

 

However, as I have said before in other forums, I am supportive of these new rules on Challenge caches or just in general. FTFs cause so much contention, requiring them for a cache is problematic. My benchmark FTF was with someone so we were CoFTFs, perhaps you do not like CoFTFs, so my log could be deleted due to that? Not saying you would but so many folks on this site are against the word Co-FTF as if such a thing cannot exist on our planet. Benchmarks have no owners so if I logged a benchmark in Helena, Montana today 9/27/2012, someone could log it on 9/22/2012 2 months later and it becomes a fight...(hey, I saw that benchmark months ago, I was just slow loading my log!). FTFs are too contentious for so many reasons, I can see why they are removed from the challenge cache language.

 

A.L.R.s with the picture not being allowed? I can understand that as well.

 

Yes, I will agree with you, it IS harder to write a Challenge Cache now, but that does not mean you cannot write a nice one, it just means you are limited a bit more in what you can create.

Link to comment

.

 

Set aside for the moment whether this challenge would appeal to you personally or not, here is the $100,000,000 question. Someone tell me how the geocaching community (the customers) benefit from the rejection of this challenge?

 

.

It isn't the challenge. It's the expectation that GS will mediate if a problem arises between a cacher and the owner.

 

And this is a huge part of the problem. The moment groundspeek started mediating deleted logs, they opened a can of worms that could not be closed.

 

If they had just remained a listing service only and not meddled in cache owner affairs, they would not have been overwhelmed to the point of needing to make more rules to lighten their workload. They could have treated ALRs the same way they treat power trails and LPCs; don't like 'em, don't do 'em.

Link to comment

My intent is to create a challenge to be completed in a certain way so that others my hopefully find the same experience in benchmarking I have found and then run with it.

If your goal is to encourage people to try benchmarking, then have you considered creating a challenge cache that requires people to find 25 (or 50 or 100) benchmarks?

 

Absolutely!

 

Here is why I did not:

 

#1 There are already two challenges in my local area that require 100 benchmarks. Another requires one benchmark a day (WITH A PHOTO REQUIREMENT FOR EACH BENCHMARK) for 31 days. Two of these I have completed and one of them I am on the verge of completing. Yet another 100 benchmarks challenge would have been almost superfluous.

 

#2 100 benchmarks found means that, as usual, only those marks that have been found countless times will simply be found again. I could say, past finds don't count (maybe that's not allowed anymore though), but again, the superfluity comes into play here. What this means is that all of the benchmarks in the outlying metro (I live south of St. Paul, Minnesota) will still go unfound. Frankly, my main goal for this challenge was to get people out to find a benchmark that hasn't yet been logged. There are literally tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands like that, many within a close distance from where I live.

 

My only regret is that I didn't publish this last year, when I was free to do so. Now of course, other people have decided for me that other people shouldn't have to put up with what they themselves don't like, never mind if the latter don't get a chance to ever determine for themselves.

 

<sarcasm>

I would like to point out that IT'S GOOD TO KNOW that many challenges I would be soon undertaking with great pleasure will now never see the light of day and that I won't have to be burdened with knowing about them. I assume that those of you who agree with the current state of affairs will be pleased that I am not pleased. Gotta stop those control-freak challenge publishers and after all, think of ALL THE YEARS you spent in rabid frustration that you couldn't tell me 'NO, SIR, you may NOT publish that challenge requirement, for the good of everyone who would otherwise be FORCED to complete it!' Everyone will now, for the moment, be safe from my cache-based predations.

</sarcasm>

With those concerns in mind, have you thought of doing a Lonely Benchmark challange? Something like "Find 10 benchmarks that have been found less than 10 times". Sounds like you will either have to lighten up on the photo issue, or get rid of it altogether. Remember that the other challange you mentioned that requires photos will not work as president. That is one of the first rules of Groundspeak "there is no president".

Link to comment

Some of the challenges got to be pretty controlling. Often they seemed to be of the type "I did this obscure series of geocaching things, so you have to too to log my cache." Yeah, whatever. I'd like to see "find the cache, log a find" rule on all caches. The fact that I did something else shouldn't impact whether I can log a find on the cache. Just give me a badge or something for the challenge part.

 

That is one of the first rules of Groundspeak "there is no president".

 

Well there is, I just don't happen to agree with him most of the time. But we should keep politics out of this. Oh wait, you mean precedent? Nevermind.

Link to comment

Set aside for the moment whether this challenge would appeal to you personally or not, here is the $100,000,000 question. Someone tell me how the geocaching community (the customers) benefit from the rejection of this challenge?

 

I believe the greatest benefit is the resource drain avoidance. I honestly did not read through all of the lengthy posts/quotes in this thread and only made it through about 1/3 of the OP. I'm not saying that it is impossible for this one to live without drama, but there are more rules and bureaucracy on the submitted cache page than I have ever seen. My guess is it is framed somewhere at GS as the poster child for why they disallow the things they do.

Link to comment

Why are you surprised. You clicked I read the rules and regulations before submitting it" or do you feel that rule is a waste of time.

 

These rules have been around for years and years and you just heard about them. Frankly I am glad they are there. Sending pictures is a long disallowed ALR and the whole FTF thing is ridiculous.

 

So hurray for the rule makers who keep this hobby sane.

Link to comment

.

 

Set aside for the moment whether this challenge would appeal to you personally or not, here is the $100,000,000 question. Someone tell me how the geocaching community (the customers) benefit from the rejection of this challenge?

 

.

It isn't the challenge. It's the expectation that GS will mediate if a problem arises between a cacher and the owner.

 

And this is a huge part of the problem. The moment groundspeek started mediating deleted logs, they opened a can of worms that could not be closed.

 

If they had just remained a listing service only and not meddled in cache owner affairs, they would not have been overwhelmed to the point of needing to make more rules to lighten their workload. They could have treated ALRs the same way they treat power trails and LPCs; don't like 'em, don't do 'em.

 

I agree with this to an extent but I also know that while it's not about "the numbers", an awful lot of people get upset when their find count isn't accurate.

 

Also, when people bring complaints about deleted logs on any type of cache to the forums a lot of people recommend that they contact GC.com. I suppose GS could ignore these complaints but they do have paying customers and I'm not sure ignoring them or telling them "You're on your own here." would make good business sense.

Link to comment

"To complete this challenge, you must have a single FIRST TO FIND of ANY BENCHMARK in the United States....The benchmark must have NO LOGS BEFORE YOURS

 

Try instead, You must have a find on the same day as the first finder of any benchmark. All logs from that first day count towards this challenge.

I'm reasonably confident that this will fly.

 

and you MUST take a picture of the benchmark and post it on your log to prove that you were there.

 

No, and this is a problem with using benchmarks for Challenge caches, ie, nobody is policing those logs. But you don't get to police them either. You'll just have live with a few cheaters, or hey, be optimistic! maybe nobody cheats.

 

You can certainly encourage posting a photo. The happier you make this, the more about rising to the challenge, and braggin' rights, the better. But it's a request, not requirement. Sorry, I have no workaround for this one.

 

The flipside to this picture requirement is as follows: if you find a benchmark that has already been logged as found but no previous finder has posted a picture of any kind, I will consider this benchmark as unfound for the purposes of this challenge. What this means is that if YOU go out and get a picture of said benchmark, that will qualify as a FTF for you, assuming that you post a picture yourself.

 

Try instead, If you find a benchmark that has already been logged as found but no previous finder has posted a picture of any kind, I will consider this benchmark as a find for the purposes of this challenge, if you post a picture of the benchmark.

 

I think this might fly. You aren't requiring a picture absolutely, you're allowing a find on a previously found benchmark, if the finder posts a picture.

I could be wrong on this. I could be wrong about it, but I'd try to work with the reviewer on it, or go to appeals.

Appeals staff works from a "get it published" mentality. The business is based on caches getting published.

 

NOTE (PLEASE READ!): PREVIOUS FINDS *WILL* COUNT BUT THERE IS A SLIGHT TWIST. PREVIOUS FINDS WILL ONLY QUALIFY YOU AFTER THREE PEOPLE HAVE FOUND THIS CACHE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE A BENCHMARK FIRST TO FIND IN THE PAST, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE IT TO QUALIFY HERE UNTIL AFTER THE THIRD FINDER. KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO GO OUT AND GET FTF ON ANOTHER BENCHMARK TO QUALIFY. THIS PUTS EVERYONE ON AN EVEN FOOTING INITIALLY AND GIVES EVERYONE A CHANCE AT FTF, STF, AND TTF."

 

You're attaching ALR to cachers based upon find position. This is a no fly zone, completely. All cachers attempting the challenge must be looking at the same rules, they don't change over find position.

 

----------------

 

Challenge caches are built around upon logs on other things: geocaches, benchmarks, waymarks, trackables, challenges, and the challenge cache owner can't attach ALR to those other things, which is what you're trying to do.

 

The no photo requirement and the no FTF requirement aren't particularly new to the Challenge cache type, ie, you couldn't have listed this last year either.

Early in the post-ALR period, probably yes, but what challenges are has been evolving, and those two things, no FTF challenges (also no DNF challenges) and no added photo requirements happened pretty early on. Older challenges may have them (photo requirements etc) they're grandfathered.

Great post! Great suggestions too.

 

To the OP....

 

Isonzo Karst is giving good advice here. The underlying message is that you should work with your reviewer(s) to figure out how to make this work. Good luck!

Link to comment

Actually, I think it's a great Challenge Cache concept. I take great pride in my finds of benchmarks for which no one else has logged a recovery, since they were momumented. (Sometimes I think I'm the only one who's ever hunted a benchmark in Sullivan County, New York!)

Yes. I agree that a photo should be required to prove that the finder has found the proper benchmark. Far too many benchmark finds are claimed by people who have found the wrong benchmark. Photos are proof.

How to get it approved is the question?

1st) You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Coming in here grousing and complaining is not going to solve anything. Have you tried working with your reviewer? "How can I get this to work?"

2nd) There is an appeals process. One can go to a higher authority, make the presentation, and ask for help getting it to work. On rare occasions, exemptions are made to the guidelines. Personally, I think this one would be a good example.

But, you have to work with the reviewers, not against them.

 

In thirty years since monumentation, my caching companion and I are the only ones ever to have logged this benchmark:

 

cefa8159-c847-4bd5-afe7-30a1780117cc.jpg

 

And, we're proud of it!

 

Good luck.

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the good feedback people have given here. Although I the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?' my feeling is that most people will avoid this question because there is no answer that will not make them look like a tool. The other side issue is that geocaching.com is definitely moving toward a state of mediocre bureaucracy - something that most of us in the modern world should be gradually and sadly becoming familiar with and something that every single one of us without exception should fear as we would fear an invading army bent on our complete destruction. I do not say this lightly. If nothing else, bureaucracy will be the end of geocaching using this site as we know it. Though I absolutely cannot wave it about as any sort of "proof", I have had SEVERAL people tell me via private email and on the phone that I am NOT alone in this along with the caveat that posting it here is a worthless endeavor. I don't agree with that last part, so here I am. Take that as you will, but it is simple truth.

 

As one would expect, I have cooled down quite a bit from my earlier emotional state. I will put the excellent suggestions of Isonzo Karst into practice and perhaps I can get something of the original spirit of the cache into play. But I seriously chafe at the idea of others making rules curtailing my freedom to cache the way I want to cache. Though I appreciate the friendly and thoughtful responses of almost everyone here, I am still going to be putting most if not all of my future caches into play through a different medium than geocaching.com. I will not say where in this forum because I don't want it to appear that I am advertising for anyone else, but suffice to say that simply swallowing the status quo and continuing as things were because it has recently become the status quo is unacceptable to me. Therefore I must move elsewhere when I can and when it is practical to do so. If the individuals who complained loudly in order to create this sad state of affairs had simply accepted their own status quo, we would not be having this discussion, I would be caching how I want to cache, and you would simply be ignoring me if you didn't like my challenges. That seems like the way it should be to me.

 

Thanks all, and I can only hope this discussion will make even one other person think before they decide to impose more bureaucracy on us all.

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the good feedback people have given here. Although I the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?'

 

Every organization as well as society in general has the right to restrict activity. In the world you see people could use drugs, assault others and generally damage all others around them and you would think it was ok because they had no right to restrict what you do. Basically you are advocating anarchy.

Link to comment

If your goal is to encourage people to try benchmarking, then have you considered creating a challenge cache that requires people to find 25 (or 50 or 100) benchmarks?

There are already quite a few quantity-based benchmarking challenges in MastahMatt's area (it's my area too).

You just said a mouthful!! :lol:

 

Just take a look at SparkyFry's St. Paul cluster, not to mention so many others! http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=40861821-1835-4e11-b666-8d41064d03fe&lat=44.944033&lng=-93.133900

Link to comment

I appreciate all of the good feedback people have given here. Although I the underlying issue here is NOT resolved, namely 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it?'

 

Every organization as well as society in general has the right to restrict activity. In the world you see people could use drugs, assault others and generally damage all others around them and you would think it was ok because they had no right to restrict what you do. Basically you are advocating anarchy.

 

I wasn't going to respond anymore, but I couldn't let this one go. Really? If you read some of the posts above I made about this issue (a lengthy proposition, I understand) you would have seen where I repeatedly state that illegal activity restrictions are absolutely acceptable. What isn't, to me, are restrictions on my activity based on someone's dislike of the way I cache.

 

A society has the right to restrict activity... I agree with this when it comes to said society protecting itself from harm. "Damage to others" is operative here. My geocache challenge suggestion does not "damage others". Instead, some people get angry because they can't (or don't want) to complete a challenge a certain way, and they PERCEIVE this as damage to themselves, and thus worthy of a new rule or restriction.

 

I should have said, for the tenth time, 'What gives you the right to restrict my activity because you or someone else doesn't like it, as long as it doesn't involve illegal or highly suspect activity?' Since I'd already said this multiple times, I figured repeating myself would have been pointless. I guess not.

 

But in any case, I am glad, Walts, that you feel that the restrictions in place protect you from my challenge cache, which would damage you if it wasn't otherwise restricted. Well played!

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...