Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
JJnTJ

Challenge geocaches should have their own type

Recommended Posts

I think this is a very good suggestion and have thought about this often. I like challenges but not puzzles and would like to be able to filter them in the system as well as at a glance via icon.

Share this post


Link to post

A GSAK filter set to eliminate caches with the word "Challenge" in the title would filter out the Challenges in a jiffy.

 

Not much good for those who don't use GSAK.

 

Yep, it would be really nice if functionality could be provided within Groundspeak's systems rather than endlessly relying on third party software to do the job properly.

Share this post


Link to post

A GSAK filter set to eliminate caches with the word "Challenge" in the title would filter out the Challenges in a jiffy.

 

Not much good for those who don't use GSAK.

 

Yep, it would be really nice if functionality could be provided within Groundspeak's systems rather than endlessly relying on third party software to do the job properly.

 

 

Have Clyde and/or a programming team port GSAK to a version with a web interface.

 

These instances would run on machines in the Groundspeak data centre where the sessions would have direct access to the cache database.

 

An extended version of the API could be offered to these sessions which would include search functionality.

 

File I/O could be done through Dropbox.

 

As a "cloud" version, the software would always be up to date.

 

For this extra functionality I would pay more than what I pay for a single standalone instance of GSAK.

Share this post


Link to post

I think challenge caches should have their own icon too. I'm not a puzzler, as to me, geocaching is an adventure played outdoors, not sitting at a computer for hours solving hard puzzles, just to go to a light pole to claim the find. A good challenge, gives me a goal to work for, and makes the game more interesting. I understand there are Cachers who don't like them. But, that falls under, " Not every cache is for every cacher." We all play differently, and that should be respected. If someone doesn't like a cache, or a certain type of cache, find something different!

 

Keep Calm and Cache On!

Share this post


Link to post

I would agree it should be excellent if a Challenge is new type of Geocache, instead of a Mystery with the word Challenge in its subject.

Share this post


Link to post

Shouldn't we merge this thread with this current one, I wonder?

 

It's getting off topic over there. So I'll repost my website-related post from there, here:

 

If Challenge Caches get split off into a new type (a good idea) I am wondering if there's also potential to create an enhanced Found It log?

 

Specifically, it would be a negative-option log. The finder posts it like a note, but it doesn't get converted to a Found It until the CO clicks some sort of approval button.

 

The approval would be given by the CO if they are satisfied that the requirements of the challenge have been met.

 

If not approved, the log could stay as a note.

 

I suggest this after seeing a challenge cache where users were logging finds without completing the requirements and the CO wasn't deleting them.

 

Further, the process could be automated, where the CO could apply an SQL-like requirement at publication, that would allow auto-approval if the parameters are met. This would work for challenges like Fizzys and Jasmers.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps Groundspeak will use their experience with the new Giga-Event type to sort out what would be required to add a new type for Challenge Caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd certainly support the implementation of a Challenge Cache type. The other thread definitely went wild. But one of the suggestions, for the new cache type, is one I'd get behind, if Groundspeak deemed the work necessary to implement it was worth the benefit of the new type. I think it would be, and hope that it is something that perhaps they're even working on even as we type :) (sort of like as they were working on giga events while other things were being discussed =P)

Share this post


Link to post

I'd certainly support the implementation of a Challenge Cache type. The other thread definitely went wild. But one of the suggestions, for the new cache type, is one I'd get behind, if Groundspeak deemed the work necessary to implement it was worth the benefit of the new type. I think it would be, and hope that it is something that perhaps they're even working on even as we type :) (sort of like as they were working on giga events while other things were being discussed =P)

 

Not sure I see any added "benefit" of a "Giga Event". One could argue far more cachers would directly "benefit" from breaking out Challenges into their own - and hopefully "virtual" - type than from a Giga Event that probably only happens on Earth once or twice a year.

Share this post


Link to post

YMMV, grouchy. YMMV.

 

ETA:

For clarity prompted by the reply below - "Your mileage may vary". ie, subjective; opinion. What is "benefit"? Yes, one could argue that generally speaking certain cache types could 'benefit' more individuals. But it's argumentative, and clearly the quantity of individuals worldwide subjectively 'benefiting' from a new addition isn't a significant parameter for Groundspeak in determining feature development priority.

Yes, this ETA was added after the response below, to clarify the "YMMV" line without adding a new straying comment to the thread, and because ironically the comment below is no less a "useless response" than this comment within this thread.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

YMMV, grouchy. YMMV.

 

oooookayyyy...

 

Moving on from that cryptic and useless response...

Share this post


Link to post

I'd certainly support the implementation of a Challenge Cache type. The other thread definitely went wild. But one of the suggestions, for the new cache type, is one I'd get behind, if Groundspeak deemed the work necessary to implement it was worth the benefit of the new type. I think it would be, and hope that it is something that perhaps they're even working on even as we type :) (sort of like as they were working on giga events while other things were being discussed =P)

 

Not sure I see any added "benefit" of a "Giga Event". One could argue far more cachers would directly "benefit" from breaking out Challenges into their own - and hopefully "virtual" - type than from a Giga Event that probably only happens on Earth once or twice a year.

I think the point your missing is the Giga event translates directly to increased revenue for the frog. Nano size, challenge cache and all the other useful requests that have been made for many years do not enhance the revenue stream, hence the frog is not interested.

Share this post


Link to post

Some very recent examples of how this crap has gotten out of hand...there's a little pi**ing contest going on here in Atlanta:

 

http://coord.info/GC57PN4

http://coord.info/GC57KV7

http://coord.info/GC56WD4

http://coord.info/GC57P33

 

I mean...this is just becoming a way of bragging instead of a fun challenge. They're all on my ignore list...but I reject the notion that I should have to "ignore" them. These clearly are not open to every geocacher...but instead only to the psychotically obsessed cachers in the area. This sort of thing ought to be relegated to a corner of the site for people who are interested in this sort of thing. Screw the "just don't do it" attitude. This is no longer in the true - and fun - spirit of geocaching in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, grouchy grouchy. Sounds to me, that you are just not a "MASTER" cacher, as they so eloquently worded in one of the descriptions. So what?! Those are really hard accomplishments to reach, and Cachers have a right to brag about those if they want. You've been in this game around 4 years, don't you have your own goals and Geo-accomplishments that you are proud of? This is what is awesome about geocaching....you can set your own goals, you play how you want to play. Don't worry so much about how others play, just play how you think is fair and morally right, to you.

 

But yet again, this is getting off topic. If we really want Groundspeak to consider Challenges as their own icon, we need to stop posting p***y comments, and keep it positive, on why Challenge Icons are a good idea.

 

I still would LOVE to see Challenges have their own icon. But until, and IF, that happens, I will continue working on challenges I like, and I'm happy to add more ?? finds to my profile, as I suck at puzzles, and Challenges give me a way to have more Mysteries under my belt.

 

As always, KEEP CALM AND CACHE ON!

Share this post


Link to post

But yet again, this is getting off topic. If we really want Groundspeak to consider Challenges as their own icon, we need to stop posting p***y comments, and keep it positive, on why Challenge Icons are a good idea.

 

That's just it, they aren't. I don't think they should be considered "caches" at all. I have no problem whatsoever with people bragging about how awesome they are. I do have a problem when they create challenges that exclude people who can't or won't go to the lengths they do. Seriously, I don't think many of these challenges are within the spirit of the rules of challenges. How is a "quint fizzy" challenge available to a significant number of caches? At some point it goes beyond challenging others and becomes "I'm more awesome than anyone" braggadocio.

Share this post


Link to post

You do make a good point. We all have opinions on what should and shouldn't be done, and I value everyone's perspective.

Share this post


Link to post

They are probably rated that way, as an average of what it takes to actually qualify for the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the 2nd one is a legitimate 5 star terrain. The first - not so sure. If it's an average of what it takes to qualify, it'd be rated a 3. :laughing:

 

It doesn't make sense to rate a cache that you're supposed to find with a different terrain rating than it takes to actually find the cache container. But I guess that's an argument for a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post

The arguments against Challenges themselves in the context of this thread, should be considered for them having their own icon.

 

With their own type, they could be filtered out by the everyone-should-have-an-equal-chance Harrison-Bergeron and leave the fun for the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is about giving challenge caches their own type.

 

If you'd like to see challenge caches be replaced with some sort of online badge system, that thread is here:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=306936

 

If you'd like to see challenge caches just go away, then I don't think there's a thread for that yet. You'll need to start your own. But keep in mind that a lot of people LIKE challenges, and you'll have an uphill battle to eliminate them completely.

 

Personally, I'd like to see them replaced with some sort of online badge system, but I think giving them their own type is more likely. Giving them an attribute would be a poor substitute for giving them their own type, but it would be better than the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post

Some very recent examples of how this crap has gotten out of hand...there's a little pi**ing contest going on here in Atlanta:

 

http://coord.info/GC57PN4

http://coord.info/GC57KV7

http://coord.info/GC56WD4

http://coord.info/GC57P33

 

I mean...this is just becoming a way of bragging instead of a fun challenge. They're all on my ignore list...but I reject the notion that I should have to "ignore" them. These clearly are not open to every geocacher...but instead only to the psychotically obsessed cachers in the area. This sort of thing ought to be relegated to a corner of the site for people who are interested in this sort of thing. Screw the "just don't do it" attitude. This is no longer in the true - and fun - spirit of geocaching in my opinion.

 

1000 caches in a day? Wow. Just wow. Given the people who own such huge powertrails probably don't even check the logs I guess anyone could armchair log the lot, then claim the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

Some very recent examples of how this crap has gotten out of hand...there's a little pi**ing contest going on here in Atlanta:

 

http://coord.info/GC57PN4

http://coord.info/GC57KV7

http://coord.info/GC56WD4

http://coord.info/GC57P33

 

I mean...this is just becoming a way of bragging instead of a fun challenge. They're all on my ignore list...but I reject the notion that I should have to "ignore" them. These clearly are not open to every geocacher...but instead only to the psychotically obsessed cachers in the area. This sort of thing ought to be relegated to a corner of the site for people who are interested in this sort of thing. Screw the "just don't do it" attitude. This is no longer in the true - and fun - spirit of geocaching in my opinion.

 

1000 caches in a day? Wow. Just wow. Given the people who own such huge powertrails probably don't even check the logs I guess anyone could armchair log the lot, then claim the challenge.

 

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

Share this post


Link to post

Some very recent examples of how this crap has gotten out of hand...there's a little pi**ing contest going on here in Atlanta:

 

http://coord.info/GC57PN4

http://coord.info/GC57KV7

http://coord.info/GC56WD4

http://coord.info/GC57P33

 

I mean...this is just becoming a way of bragging instead of a fun challenge. They're all on my ignore list...but I reject the notion that I should have to "ignore" them. These clearly are not open to every geocacher...but instead only to the psychotically obsessed cachers in the area. This sort of thing ought to be relegated to a corner of the site for people who are interested in this sort of thing. Screw the "just don't do it" attitude. This is no longer in the true - and fun - spirit of geocaching in my opinion.

 

1000 caches in a day? Wow. Just wow. Given the people who own such huge powertrails probably don't even check the logs I guess anyone could armchair log the lot, then claim the challenge.

 

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

 

It won't take the creation of a new cache type for the increased proliferation of the numbers players and their trails -- that's already happening, no?

 

I think some of the challenge trails to which you refer could be eliminated off the map if there was an ignore-by-owner feature?

 

Meanwhile, again, your objection is actually an argument for having their own cache type, so you can easily filter them off your map and queries.

Share this post


Link to post

The most recent update should provide ample proof that new cache types are something that is really hard to do. If changing unknown to mystery breaks 3rd party software and hardware, just think what adding a whole new type will do. No thanks, the boat sailed and we pretty well are stuck with what we have. Unless, of course, you can convince Garmin, Delorme, Magellan and all the other hardware vendors to support the new types. And don't forget all the 3rd party software vendors.

Share this post


Link to post

Some very recent examples of how this crap has gotten out of hand...there's a little pi**ing contest going on here in Atlanta:

 

http://coord.info/GC57PN4

http://coord.info/GC57KV7

http://coord.info/GC56WD4

http://coord.info/GC57P33

 

I mean...this is just becoming a way of bragging instead of a fun challenge. They're all on my ignore list...but I reject the notion that I should have to "ignore" them. These clearly are not open to every geocacher...but instead only to the psychotically obsessed cachers in the area. This sort of thing ought to be relegated to a corner of the site for people who are interested in this sort of thing. Screw the "just don't do it" attitude. This is no longer in the true - and fun - spirit of geocaching in my opinion.

 

1000 caches in a day? Wow. Just wow. Given the people who own such huge powertrails probably don't even check the logs I guess anyone could armchair log the lot, then claim the challenge.

 

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

 

It won't take the creation of a new cache type for the increased proliferation of the numbers players and their trails -- that's already happening, no?

 

I think some of the challenge trails to which you refer could be eliminated off the map if there was an ignore-by-owner feature?

 

Meanwhile, again, your objection is actually an argument for having their own cache type, so you can easily filter them off your map and queries.

 

It's the gobbling up of prime trails for powertrails and now challenge powertrails that has me concerned. I was going to drive out to a trailway in the Hills where there was an AQ letterbox and thought while I'm out there I'll find caches on that trail. Checked the map and saw that the whole thing is not only a powertrail of micros, but a challenge cache powertrail of micros. First, if I qualified for any I would have to spend a few hours at the computer to figure out. Second, I would be rewarded with a pill bottle and a damp logbook. And right next to the challenge power trail is another power trail of micros (not challenges). Guess it will help all those people who are trying to build numbers to do the challenge power trail. Just turned me off driving out to that area.

 

I don't mind a lot of caches in one area but I like variety and sharing the land. It's clique-ish, miles and miles of a nice trail gobbled up so that only uber numbers cachers can enjoy caching. New cachers who want to hide a regular size cache can forget trailways in Ontario. If you're lucky enough to find a spot you will not be rewarded with good online logs. They'll all be cut-n-paste logs thanking the PT owner(s) for their contribution to a 200+ cache day.

Share this post


Link to post

The most recent update should provide ample proof that new cache types are something that is really hard to do. If changing unknown to mystery breaks 3rd party software and hardware, just think what adding a whole new type will do. No thanks, the boat sailed and we pretty well are stuck with what we have. Unless, of course, you can convince Garmin, Delorme, Magellan and all the other hardware vendors to support the new types. And don't forget all the 3rd party software vendors.

 

But the introduction of the Giga Event type didn't cause any problems, so I don't think introducing a new cache type is that big a deal.

Share this post


Link to post

The most recent update should provide ample proof that new cache types are something that is really hard to do. If changing unknown to mystery breaks 3rd party software and hardware, just think what adding a whole new type will do. No thanks, the boat sailed and we pretty well are stuck with what we have. Unless, of course, you can convince Garmin, Delorme, Magellan and all the other hardware vendors to support the new types. And don't forget all the 3rd party software vendors.

 

But the introduction of the Giga Event type didn't cause any problems, so I don't think introducing a new cache type is that big a deal.

Yeah there are really a lot of Giga events and the use of a gps to find them is imperative. So I guess everyone was able to successfully filter for giga events on their gps units and they displayed the correct icon on the map.

Share this post


Link to post

The most recent update should provide ample proof that new cache types are something that is really hard to do. If changing unknown to mystery breaks 3rd party software and hardware, just think what adding a whole new type will do. No thanks, the boat sailed and we pretty well are stuck with what we have. Unless, of course, you can convince Garmin, Delorme, Magellan and all the other hardware vendors to support the new types. And don't forget all the 3rd party software vendors.

 

But the introduction of the Giga Event type didn't cause any problems, so I don't think introducing a new cache type is that big a deal.

Yeah there are really a lot of Giga events and the use of a gps to find them is imperative. So I guess everyone was able to successfully filter for giga events on their gps units and they displayed the correct icon on the map.

 

Regardless of the quantity, their introduction doesn't seem to have broken anything (yet).

 

I don't think that introduction of new features should be hampered by concerns that the implementation left hand doesn't know what the development right hand is doing. Which is maybe what happened with the unknown/mystery fail.

Share this post


Link to post

Some very recent examples of how this crap has gotten out of hand...there's a little pi**ing contest going on here in Atlanta:

 

http://coord.info/GC57PN4

http://coord.info/GC57KV7

http://coord.info/GC56WD4

http://coord.info/GC57P33

 

I mean...this is just becoming a way of bragging instead of a fun challenge. They're all on my ignore list...but I reject the notion that I should have to "ignore" them. These clearly are not open to every geocacher...but instead only to the psychotically obsessed cachers in the area. This sort of thing ought to be relegated to a corner of the site for people who are interested in this sort of thing. Screw the "just don't do it" attitude. This is no longer in the true - and fun - spirit of geocaching in my opinion.

 

1000 caches in a day? Wow. Just wow. Given the people who own such huge powertrails probably don't even check the logs I guess anyone could armchair log the lot, then claim the challenge.

 

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

 

It won't take the creation of a new cache type for the increased proliferation of the numbers players and their trails -- that's already happening, no?

 

I think some of the challenge trails to which you refer could be eliminated off the map if there was an ignore-by-owner feature?

 

Meanwhile, again, your objection is actually an argument for having their own cache type, so you can easily filter them off your map and queries.

 

It's the gobbling up of prime trails for powertrails and now challenge powertrails that has me concerned. I was going to drive out to a trailway in the Hills where there was an AQ letterbox and thought while I'm out there I'll find caches on that trail. Checked the map and saw that the whole thing is not only a powertrail of micros, but a challenge cache powertrail of micros. First, if I qualified for any I would have to spend a few hours at the computer to figure out. Second, I would be rewarded with a pill bottle and a damp logbook. And right next to the challenge power trail is another power trail of micros (not challenges). Guess it will help all those people who are trying to build numbers to do the challenge power trail. Just turned me off driving out to that area.

 

I don't mind a lot of caches in one area but I like variety and sharing the land. It's clique-ish, miles and miles of a nice trail gobbled up so that only uber numbers cachers can enjoy caching. New cachers who want to hide a regular size cache can forget trailways in Ontario. If you're lucky enough to find a spot you will not be rewarded with good online logs. They'll all be cut-n-paste logs thanking the PT owner(s) for their contribution to a 200+ cache day.

 

Your concerns are valid. I am not seeing how creation of a new cache type would exacerbate them.

Share this post


Link to post

The most recent update should provide ample proof that new cache types are something that is really hard to do. If changing unknown to mystery breaks 3rd party software and hardware, just think what adding a whole new type will do. No thanks, the boat sailed and we pretty well are stuck with what we have. Unless, of course, you can convince Garmin, Delorme, Magellan and all the other hardware vendors to support the new types. And don't forget all the 3rd party software vendors.

 

I'm not a programmer so don't know all the ends and outs. Still, i can't imagine the creation of a new cache type being a big deal. Gpsr manufaturers and third parties have their own programmers who would make the change and add it to their next update. I really don't think anyone would need convincing...

Share this post


Link to post

The most recent update should provide ample proof that new cache types are something that is really hard to do. If changing unknown to mystery breaks 3rd party software and hardware, just think what adding a whole new type will do. No thanks, the boat sailed and we pretty well are stuck with what we have. Unless, of course, you can convince Garmin, Delorme, Magellan and all the other hardware vendors to support the new types. And don't forget all the 3rd party software vendors.

 

But the introduction of the Giga Event type didn't cause any problems, so I don't think introducing a new cache type is that big a deal.

Yeah there are really a lot of Giga events and the use of a gps to find them is imperative. So I guess everyone was able to successfully filter for giga events on their gps units and they displayed the correct icon on the map.

 

But the fact remains creating a new type doesn't apparently break anything and so shouldn't be used as an excuse for not moving forward. It's been changed many times in the past with the Block Event parties, the 10 years events, Wherigo, etc. and I don't recall any mass breakdowns in hardware or software. The designers of the H/W or S/W should cater for unexpected values in those fields (the S/W I use at home puts anything unexpected it encounters down as a "Generic" cache type), then they will have time to add the new type to their S/W at the next rollout, it's not going to be a lot of work for them.

Edited by MartyBartfast

Share this post


Link to post

Some very recent examples of how this crap has gotten out of hand...there's a little pi**ing contest going on here in Atlanta:

 

http://coord.info/GC57PN4

http://coord.info/GC57KV7

http://coord.info/GC56WD4

http://coord.info/GC57P33

 

I mean...this is just becoming a way of bragging instead of a fun challenge. They're all on my ignore list...but I reject the notion that I should have to "ignore" them. These clearly are not open to every geocacher...but instead only to the psychotically obsessed cachers in the area. This sort of thing ought to be relegated to a corner of the site for people who are interested in this sort of thing. Screw the "just don't do it" attitude. This is no longer in the true - and fun - spirit of geocaching in my opinion.

 

1000 caches in a day? Wow. Just wow. Given the people who own such huge powertrails probably don't even check the logs I guess anyone could armchair log the lot, then claim the challenge.

 

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

 

You write as if it has yet to happen.

Share this post


Link to post

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

 

You write as if it has yet to happen.

 

Actually, he wrote that is has happened. And many people don't mind. Many people do. Many people don't mind LPCs. Many people do. This is not a new argument in concept.

The question is whether you trust Groundspeak to help 'throttle' cache styles via reviewer judgement calls and other means, or if you believe that geocaching will level out in some generally acceptable manner by how people continue to place caches that the majority find worthwhile, or if you believe geocaching is on a downward spiral with no hope of revival... or somewhere in between.

 

Challenge caches, really, are going nowhere. They are here to stay. In what form is the question.

Share this post


Link to post

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

 

You write as if it has yet to happen.

 

Actually, he wrote that is has happened. And many people don't mind. Many people do. Many people don't mind LPCs. Many people do. This is not a new argument in concept.

The question is whether you trust Groundspeak to help 'throttle' cache styles via reviewer judgement calls and other means, or if you believe that geocaching will level out in some generally acceptable manner by how people continue to place caches that the majority find worthwhile, or if you believe geocaching is on a downward spiral with no hope of revival... or somewhere in between.

 

Challenge caches, really, are going nowhere. They are here to stay. In what form is the question.

 

And how. Let's keep this thread on-topic. No discussions of the merits (or not) of Challenges themselves -- only about having their own icon and cache type.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's keep this thread on-topic. No discussions of the merits (or not) of Challenges themselves -- only about having their own icon and cache type.

Everybody should want challenge caches to have their own type.

 

If you like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter for them.

 

If you don't like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's keep this thread on-topic. No discussions of the merits (or not) of Challenges themselves -- only about having their own icon and cache type.

Everybody should want challenge caches to have their own type.

 

If you like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter for them.

 

If you don't like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter them out.

The argument has been been made that if challenge caches had their own icon that it would encourage more of them.

 

I don't believe this has be proven to be the case, but it certainly would be a reason why someone who doesn't like challenge caches would oppose them getting an icon.

 

In addition, the argument has been made that adding a new cache type would cause problems with third party applications that aren't prepared for this. And there is the issue of what happens to existing caches. I suppose that a method could be found for people who currently own challenges to change their type, but it just shows that adding a new cache type is never as simple as it seems.

 

If the benefit is simpley to find or filter out challenges, an attribute or a better keyword search (including Pocket Queries) would seem a better choice that adding cache types.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's keep this thread on-topic. No discussions of the merits (or not) of Challenges themselves -- only about having their own icon and cache type.

Everybody should want challenge caches to have their own type.

 

If you like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter for them.

 

If you don't like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter them out.

 

If the benefit is simply to find or filter out challenges, an attribute or a better keyword search (including Pocket Queries) would seem a better choice than adding cache types.

 

Yes to more attributes to help filter out certain types of mystery/puzzles. Not just challenge caches.

  • An attribute for challenge caches.
  • An attribute for mystery caches where you have to find x number of caches and collect numbers/codes in order to get the final. I never remember to collect all of the codes, so filtering the finals out of the puzzle category would be useful for me.
  • Put letterboxes into the mystery category where they belong and provide a stamp attribute

Share this post


Link to post

Great idea with the attributes, but too bad in my area, hardly anyone puts attributes on their cache listings.

Share this post


Link to post

Great idea with the attributes, but too bad in my area, hardly anyone puts attributes on their cache listings.

 

Maybe peer pressure would help encourage their use.

 

There's a reviewer in my area who reminds us to include attributes when we submit a listing.

 

Reviewers already make challenge cache owners include the word challenge in the title so requiring a challenge attribute could be mandatory.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

This is what worries me....it's all about the numbers. In my area I can point to 3 powertrails of challenge caches - miles and miles of challenge caches. Give them their own cache type and more and more will be planted. And still more powertrails will be created to satiate the challenge cache appetite. The geocache hobbyist will be pushed aside in favour of the über numbers players.

 

You write as if it has yet to happen.

 

Actually, he wrote that is has happened. And many people don't mind. Many people do. Many people don't mind LPCs. Many people do. This is not a new argument in concept.

The question is whether you trust Groundspeak to help 'throttle' cache styles via reviewer judgement calls and other means, or if you believe that geocaching will level out in some generally acceptable manner by how people continue to place caches that the majority find worthwhile, or if you believe geocaching is on a downward spiral with no hope of revival... or somewhere in between.

 

Challenge caches, really, are going nowhere. They are here to stay. In what form is the question.

 

I was referring to the "more and more will be planted/created/pushed aside sections.

 

I've all but reached a point where I don't trust Groundspeak to do anything other than aid a slide to the lowest common denominator, continuing to treat the volunteers it needs to survive badly but safe in the knowledge that there will always be more volunteers, and continuing to treat its paying customers badly but safe in the knowledge there will always be more. At some point the whole house of cards may collapse, but to be honest my money's on a sell-out to Faceache.

 

Let's keep this thread on-topic. No discussions of the merits (or not) of Challenges themselves -- only about having their own icon and cache type.

Everybody should want challenge caches to have their own type.

 

If you like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter for them.

 

If you don't like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter them out.

 

Requiring challenge caches to have a "challenge" attribute would make it equally easy to filter them in/out depending on preference. What might also be a nice touch would be to place an additional requirement on challenge owners to provide verification that an individual cacher qualifies for the challenge - this would not only require that they remained active but would discourage them from placing vast numbers of challenge caches. In theory it would be possible to require finders to pre-qualify, so that the system wouldn't accept a "Found" log until the owner had verified that the finder had completed the challenge.

 

This sort of thing would most likely result in more NA logs against challenges if the owner became unresponsive but perhaps that's a good thing, to discourage people placing lots of challenges just because they can.

Share this post


Link to post

What might also be a nice touch would be to place an additional requirement on challenge owners to provide verification that an individual cacher qualifies for the challenge - this would not only require that they remained active but would discourage them from placing vast numbers of challenge caches. In theory it would be possible to require finders to pre-qualify, so that the system wouldn't accept a "Found" log until the owner had verified that the finder had completed the challenge.

 

This sort of thing would most likely result in more NA logs against challenges if the owner became unresponsive but perhaps that's a good thing, to discourage people placing lots of challenges just because they can.

 

Yes! It probably would be relatively easy for a challenge CO to use their GSAK program to figure out if a finder qualifies.

Share this post


Link to post

What might also be a nice touch would be to place an additional requirement on challenge owners to provide verification that an individual cacher qualifies for the challenge - this would not only require that they remained active but would discourage them from placing vast numbers of challenge caches. In theory it would be possible to require finders to pre-qualify, so that the system wouldn't accept a "Found" log until the owner had verified that the finder had completed the challenge.

 

This sort of thing would most likely result in more NA logs against challenges if the owner became unresponsive but perhaps that's a good thing, to discourage people placing lots of challenges just because they can.

 

Yes! It probably would be relatively easy for a challenge CO to use their GSAK program to figure out if a finder qualifies.

Ouch. Somebody's knickers got twisted.

 

How about people putting out challenge caches with clear requirements for who qualifies and then trusting people to log finds only if they qualify. Most who log finds on challenge caches will do so when they have completed the challenge; when someone doesn't, it doesn't effect those who have done the challenge or who are working on completing a challenge (unless they're the type whose underwear tends to bunch up).

 

If you really think the owner is being lax in deleting bogus find, you are already able to post a NA. But a better idea may be to post the bogus logs in the Found It = Didn't Find It thread. That seems to be the official place for posting about getting your knickers in a twist.

Share this post


Link to post

What might also be a nice touch would be to place an additional requirement on challenge owners to provide verification that an individual cacher qualifies for the challenge - this would not only require that they remained active but would discourage them from placing vast numbers of challenge caches. In theory it would be possible to require finders to pre-qualify, so that the system wouldn't accept a "Found" log until the owner had verified that the finder had completed the challenge.

 

This sort of thing would most likely result in more NA logs against challenges if the owner became unresponsive but perhaps that's a good thing, to discourage people placing lots of challenges just because they can.

 

Yes! It probably would be relatively easy for a challenge CO to use their GSAK program to figure out if a finder qualifies.

 

If the owner used GSAK or some other software then yes, provided would-be finders were premium members. If nothing else it would discourage challenges that made it a fiddly process to determine qualification. I remember one I did a while back that required a GSAK macro to verify qualification, but as a non-user of GSAK I ended up having to borrow a friend's copy to find out whether I qualified. The cache was in a nice location, it's just a shame when determining qualification becomes a faff.

 

At least with challenges like "fill the D/T grid" or "fill all D options for T2.5", "find 1000 micros" or some such it's easy to look at user stats and see whether they qualify. Perhaps if you want a challenge that says "find 76 caches on Thursdays" you should be required to provide a means for people to verify whether or not they qualify.

Share this post


Link to post

I too, would absolutely love it if challenges were their own cache type. The difficulty I see is what to do with all of the current ones out there, and how that would affect player's current stats. Has Groundspeak posted anywhere other reasons as to why Challenge Caches cannot be their own type. I would love to see what they have to say, I'm sure they know more about the logistics of it than I do.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, yeah, if I were king of geocaching.com, I'd drop challenge caches and replace them with some sort of online badge system. But that doesn't seem to be the way Groundspeak is going. So barring that, I'd rather see them become a new cache type.

Best suggestion ever!

Share this post


Link to post

Everybody should want challenge caches to have their own type.

 

If you like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter for them.

 

If you don't like challenge caches, it would be easier to filter them out.

 

I agree!

 

I too would love to know why Groundspeak hasn't yet done this.

 

Please give Challenge caches their own icon!

Share this post


Link to post

I can't wait for the debate.

 

"Older challenge caches should not be changed because then I would not be able to log challenge X that requires 100 Unknown type caches".

 

"No way. Older challenge caches need to have their type changed so I can do challenge Y that requires 10 Challenge type caches."

 

:rolleyes:

 

I hope that it should be obvious that if this ever is going to happen, then it should be a new subcategory to the "unknown" type.

(Just as HQ already is and perhaps more broadly known all the different event types are subcategories of "All Event Cache Types".)

f1fbf551-d5f6-46ca-b164-f550aa96d767.png

 

Maybe this could also help to finally settle the renaming of mysteries to unknowns to mysteries to...?

Share this post


Link to post

Were existing challenges allowed to change to a new challenge type, I'm sure all challenge owners will be inundated with requests to 'grandfather' qualifying challenge caches they've previously found that are no longer the Unknown type. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×