Challenge Cache question

[+gmarkusic]

I wanted to pose a question to everyone.

 

I recently submitted a challenge cache for review. The message I received back stated GC's rules on what a challenge cache is and some of the guidelines for getting one published. To quote GC: "Challenge caches vary in scope and format. All challenge caches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication. Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so."

 

Now let me be clear I have no issue with what my reviewer posted, heck they are just doing their job. And the reviewers in my area ROCK!!!

 

Although it did get me thinking a little.

 

I want to address these points individually. My cache is in the affirmative. I just ask cachers to find a minimum number of caches on a each day of the month. All cache type counts, I don't ask that you change your caching style, and there is no date cut off e.g. the caches have to be found after X date.

 

The second sentence states that there must be sufficient available caches to meet the challenge. In my area alone there are thousands of caches. So thats not an issue.

 

Onto the last sentence, and to my question. I personally am a new cacher and do not have the needed caches to qualify for my own challenge, I also am unable to find a substantial number of geocachers who qualify. What is a substantial number anyhow, 2, 5, 10?

 

Now to my question. Why does there need to be anyone at the time of publication who can qualify for the challenge. Isn't that the idea of a challenge otherwise we should call them Accomplishment Caches. More importantly why should my newness to the game be a limit to the type of cache I can put out. If I had the number to qualify then it would be no problem and the cache would be published. So I am punished because I haven't cached as long or as much as another person. There is a word for that!

 

In short, my challenge cache is not so difficult it can not be done but it does require one to get out and cache. Which is why we do this, right!

 

Love to hear everyone's thoughts.

[+L0ne.R]

My bias is going to show here but if this is true "Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so", I think it's a very good thing. In my area challenge caches are becoming the number one puzzle cache type and they're becoming more and more difficult to complete.

 

My suggestion, find more caches so that you will be able to complete your challenge cache.

Edited January 8, 2013 by L0ne R

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

In short, my challenge cache is not so difficult it can not be done but it does require one to get out and cache. Which is why we do this, right!

 

Let's see. You've got ~5000 finds, have worked on a lot of different types of challenges (thus, have demonstrated finding a breadth of different caches types), yet you don't quality for the challenge that you submitted. It cant be *that* easy.

 

I agree with LoneR. It seems that creating challenge caches is the latest in thing (what? have all the good spots for power trails been taken up?) and it's turned into a contest to see who cam come up with the difficult, most convoluted challenge.

[+niraD]

Why does there need to be anyone at the time of publication who can qualify for the challenge.

There are trivial challenges, like Find 10 caches. I know people who don't consider themselves geocachers, who don't have a geocaching.com account, and yet who have found more than 10 caches.

 

There are reasonable (but non-trivial) challenges, like Find 10 thousand caches. I know several people who have found 10 thousand caches. It requires a lot of time geocaching over a number of years, but it can be accomplished.

 

There are unreasonable challenges, like Find 10 million caches. No one has found that many. No one has found even 1% of that number (although Alamogul is getting close).

 

Where would you draw the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges?

 

Groundspeak has chosen to draw the line at those challenges that the cache owner has completed, or that a substantial number of other geocachers have completed. You may not like the line they have drawn, and you may not like falling on the "wrong" side of that line. But do you have a suggestion for a better place to draw the line?

[+CanadianRockies]

I recently submitted a challenge cache for review. The message I received back stated GC's rules on what a challenge cache is and some of the guidelines for getting one published. To quote GC: "Challenge caches vary in scope and format. All challenge caches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication. Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so."

 

...

 

Onto the last sentence, and to my question. I personally am a new cacher and do not have the needed caches to qualify for my own challenge, I also am unable to find a substantial number of geocachers who qualify. What is a substantial number anyhow, 2, 5, 10?

 

Now to my question. Why does there need to be anyone at the time of publication who can qualify for the challenge.

There isn't such a need. There just needs to be a substantial number of geocachers who could meet the challenge if it was published. Suppose nobody has ever found 10 caches with the "campfires allowed" attribute in a single day. A reviewer probably would allow you to publish such a challenge if they believed (or you convinced them) that such a task was achievable.

 

If it's unlikely that anybody could reasonably accomplish a particular challenge, then your reviewer probably won't publish it. Groundspeak doesn't want to waste everybody's time publishing frivolous challenges (e.g., find 100,000 "campfires allowed" caches in a single day). Drawing that line between frivolous and reasonable isn't always an easy job.

 

More importantly why should my newness to the game be a limit to the type of cache I can put out. If I had the number to qualify then it would be no problem and the cache would be published.

You don't have to qualify for your challenge for it to be published, at least in our region. Your qualifying is just one way to demonstrate to the reviewer that your challenge is reasonably doable. As you know, another way is to show that others can do the challenge.

 

In short, my challenge cache is not so difficult it can not be done but it does require one to get out and cache. Which is why we do this, right!

If you believe that it's reasonable to expect that a substantial number of geocachers can accomplish the challenge (even if they haven't done so already), then calmly explain to your reviewer why you believe this. If they are still unconvinced, then you can appeal to Groundspeak.

[+Roman!]

Why does there need to be anyone at the time of publication who can qualify for the challenge.

There are trivial challenges, like Find 10 caches. I know people who don't consider themselves geocachers, who don't have a geocaching.com account, and yet who have found more than 10 caches.

 

There are reasonable (but non-trivial) challenges, like Find 10 thousand caches. I know several people who have found 10 thousand caches. It requires a lot of time geocaching over a number of years, but it can be accomplished.

 

There are unreasonable challenges, like Find 10 million caches. No one has found that many. No one has found even 1% of that number (although Alamogul is getting close).

 

Where would you draw the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges?

 

Groundspeak has chosen to draw the line at those challenges that the cache owner has completed, or that a substantial number of other geocachers have completed. You may not like the line they have drawn, and you may not like falling on the "wrong" side of that line. But do you have a suggestion for a better place to draw the line?

 

I had a challenge cache denied because it was called "this challenge sucks" and required one to find 10 caches with the word "suck" or "sucks" in it's name, the reviewer denied it saying there are way too few and asked me to demonstrate that it could be done without finding my own caches (I own 3 with the word "sucks" in the name) but the next closest are hundreds of miles away. I agree with the reviewer however (and I'm not going to do this) if I were to drop the requirement to 3 I still could not show I could accomplish it even though it would be fairly easy for everyone else.

 

Their new rules are very limiting to what can be done and as a result many really cool challenge ideas are being denied while everyone is crying for better caches. I think they should take away a lot of the restrictions and create some basic guidelines and put trust in their reviewers that they will make the right decision when publishing a new challenge,

[+ArcherDragoon]

Until you actually detail what your challenge is...I don't think we can really offer good feedback...

 

"Find X number of Caches" really does not tell me what I am to do...savy???

[+nikcap]

So, just to toss another log on this fire; Recently, a local cacher tried to get a challenge cache published for our New Years Day BBQ. I didn't get the exact details on the challenge, but I believe it was to find only 1 cache on a given day.

Regardless of what the challenge was, the CO was informed that challenges would no longer be published. There was some confusion about the topic and the decommissioned Geocaching Challenges were cited. An attempt was to make the issue clear, yet, the cache still wasn't published.

Honestly, with all of the "It seems that creating challenge caches is the latest in thing (what? have all the good spots for power trails been taken up?) and it's turned into a contest to see who cam come up with the difficult, most convoluted challenge." opinion.

I actually wouldn't object to seeing all of the challenges moved to "something else" like souvenirs or what the old Action Challenges were.

[+Roman!]

So, just to toss another log on this fire; Recently, a local cacher tried to get a challenge cache published for our New Years Day BBQ. I didn't get the exact details on the challenge, but I believe it was to find only 1 cache on a given day.

Regardless of what the challenge was, the CO was informed that challenges would no longer be published. There was some confusion about the topic and the decommissioned Geocaching Challenges were cited. An attempt was to make the issue clear, yet, the cache still wasn't published.

Honestly, with all of the "It seems that creating challenge caches is the latest in thing (what? have all the good spots for power trails been taken up?) and it's turned into a contest to see who cam come up with the difficult, most convoluted challenge." opinion.

I actually wouldn't object to seeing all of the challenges moved to "something else" like souvenirs or what the old Action Challenges were.

 

I had an idea for a fun challenge, you create a 10 word question using one word form the cache name of 10 caches you found in one day and you had to find them in order that the word was used. You then had to post your question in your log along with the caches you found. (past caches wouldn't count). My cache was called"?" and would give you the "?" you would need for proper punctuation.

 

My theory was it would be fun to plan your route for the day if you wanted to log my challenge instead of mindlessly driving from nearest cache to nearest cache. Meeting the requirements would be simple and achievable in just a few hours but it broke pretty much every new rule (and a few old ones) so it was denied but honestly I'd love to do a challenge like this, how many other great ideas are we missing out on?

[AZcachemeister]

...

If it's unlikely that anybody could reasonably accomplish a particular challenge, then your reviewer probably won't publish it. Groundspeak doesn't want to waste everybody's time publishing frivolous challenges (e.g., find 100,000 "campfires allowed" caches in a single day). Drawing that line between frivolous and reasonable isn't always an easy job.

 

...

 

Thus the litmus test of 'Does the owner qualify for his challenge?'

 

If the owner qualifies, there is at least a reasonable chance that others can.

[+niraD]

I think they should take away a lot of the restrictions and create some basic guidelines and put trust in their reviewers that they will make the right decision when publishing a new challenge,

Where do you think the current guidelines came from?

 

Groundspeak had some basic guidelines, and people kept pushing and pushing and pushing the limits. When the volunteer reviewers declined to publish their caches, people complained. Eventually, Groundspeak changed the guidelines.

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[+Roman!]

...

If it's unlikely that anybody could reasonably accomplish a particular challenge, then your reviewer probably won't publish it. Groundspeak doesn't want to waste everybody's time publishing frivolous challenges (e.g., find 100,000 "campfires allowed" caches in a single day). Drawing that line between frivolous and reasonable isn't always an easy job.

 

...

 

Thus the litmus test of 'Does the owner qualify for his challenge?'

 

If the owner qualifies, there is at least a reasonable chance that others can.

 

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

Edited January 8, 2013 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

I think they should take away a lot of the restrictions and create some basic guidelines and put trust in their reviewers that they will make the right decision when publishing a new challenge,

Where do you think the current guidelines came from?

 

Groundspeak had some basic guidelines, and people kept pushing and pushing and pushing the limits. When the volunteer reviewers declined to publish their caches, people complained. Eventually, Groundspeak changed the guidelines.

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

people are going to complain regardless, I think now we are missing out on a lot of great caches and as was posted, it's not challenges anymore, it's accomplishments.

[+niraD]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

What makes you think he hasn't?

[+lamoracke]

Course, there are some challenges that only newbies or relative new cachers can find realistically. There was in our area that needed you to find all cache size types including virtuals every weekend of the month. Not so hard if you are starting, but if you have every virtual or webcam done within 3 states, makes that a bit hard. Personally I would need to be on a month long vacation to qualify where I made sure to get the ones I needed every weekend.

 

So, proving one person can do it could still preclude others. A friend published a milestone challenge recently where you had to find 6 different icon types for all your "geocaching.com" milestones. Well, if someone has 20,000 finds, then you can only get a new milestone every 10,000th find so if you were say 3 short, it would take you maybe 30,000 more finds to qualify.

 

Either way, would be interested to know what the CO has in mind. I like new challenges, especially if they are something new in concept and especially if every cacher, regardless of the # of finds they have, have a good chance to complete the challenge.

Edited January 8, 2013 by lamoracke

[+dprovan]

Onto the last sentence, and to my question. I personally am a new cacher and do not have the needed caches to qualify for my own challenge...

I quake to think about what I'd need to do for this challenge if someone with 5K finds is considered a "new cacher" in relation to the requirements.

 

Anyway, I think others have explained why unreasonable challenges are not allowed. If you think your challenge is, in fact, reasonable, then you shouldn't have any problem yourself spending a month accomplishing the feat, after which the reviewer will gladly publish it. To me, that's actually the perfect challenge: something hard enough that the CO hasn't even accomplished it when he thought of it, yet not so hard that the CO can't satisfy the requirements before publishing it.

[+dprovan]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

Alamogul has published several entirely absurd challenges just because he can. And he always proves he's completed the challenge in the description. Since I live in the area, I find this both irritating and amusing. There are a few other big time cachers in the area, so I don't think any of Alamogul's challenges have gone unfound and, therefore, aren't entirely silly. Just a game for the big boys and girls to play amongst themselves.

 

One example was a challenge to find 75 caches with "eye" in the title, which struck me more as a joke about challenges than a serious requirement. But the community responded by planting zillions of new caches with "eye" in the title, so one "newbie" (in this case, someone with "only" 6k finds) just recently managed to accomplish it almost exclusively with these new caches.

 

Alamogul also has a few reasonable challenges, just to be fair...

[+Roman!]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

Alamogul has published several entirely absurd challenges just because he can. And he always proves he's completed the challenge in the description. Since I live in the area, I find this both irritating and amusing. There are a few other big time cachers in the area, so I don't think any of Alamogul's challenges have gone unfound and, therefore, aren't entirely silly. Just a game for the big boys and girls to play amongst themselves.

 

One example was a challenge to find 75 caches with "eye" in the title, which struck me more as a joke about challenges than a serious requirement. But the community responded by planting zillions of new caches with "eye" in the title, so one "newbie" (in this case, someone with "only" 6k finds) just recently managed to accomplish it almost exclusively with these new caches.

 

Alamogul also has a few reasonable challenges, just to be fair...

 

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule although if it still exists I will abuse it in a few years from now.

[+niraD]

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule

So where do you think the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges should be drawn?

[+Roman!]

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule

So where do you think the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges should be drawn?

 

There is no answer, any line you draw will have flaws as did leaving it up to the reviewers to make the call but as a result of the new rules I think a lot of potentially great challenges are not being approved.

[+fizzymagic]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

 

Actually, the fun local game is to come up with a challenge cache that alamogul doesn't qualify for. :ph34r:

[+LightHouseSeekers]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

 

Actually, the fun local game is to come up with a challenge cache that alamogul doesn't qualify for. :ph34r:

alamogul would probably qualify for this one.

[+Roman!]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

 

Actually, the fun local game is to come up with a challenge cache that alamogul doesn't qualify for. :ph34r:

i tried to create a challenge where you had to take one word from the cache name of every cache you found and create a sentence/paragraph/short story using thos words. He'd be writing an encyclopedia.

 

Of course it to was denied: ALR.

[AZcachemeister]

...

If it's unlikely that anybody could reasonably accomplish a particular challenge, then your reviewer probably won't publish it. Groundspeak doesn't want to waste everybody's time publishing frivolous challenges (e.g., find 100,000 "campfires allowed" caches in a single day). Drawing that line between frivolous and reasonable isn't always an easy job.

 

...

 

Thus the litmus test of 'Does the owner qualify for his challenge?'

 

If the owner qualifies, there is at least a reasonable chance that others can.

 

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

 

You and I are doomed!

[+niraD]

i tried to create a challenge where you had to take one word from the cache name of every cache you found and create a sentence/paragraph/short story using thos words.[...]

 

Of course it to was denied: ALR.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the geocaching-related task here. It sounds like it could be an interesting word game. But there's no real geocaching-related qualification.

[+Roman!]

i tried to create a challenge where you had to take one word from the cache name of every cache you found and create a sentence/paragraph/short story using thos words.[...]

 

Of course it to was denied: ALR.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the geocaching-related task here. It sounds like it could be an interesting word game. But there's no real geocaching-related qualification.

 

Although i agree with your post i do wonder what having to pass a geography test to log a cache has to do with Geocaching?

[Clan Riffster]

I had an ulterior motive for the challenge cache I wanted to create.

The A to Z Archived Challenge would require having finds on caches whose names begin with each letter of the alphabet.

The finds would only count if the cache was archived on or before the date the challenge was logged.

[+teawren]

don't want to stomp on a good discussion but all this angst over Challenges seems to be a bit moot since this announcement was made in December: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=304869

 

myself, i'm pretty disappointed that this decision has been made without any apparent reaction from the members; i find challenges a great way to explore caches that i might otherwise not be bothered trying to get

[Keystone]

Please don't confuse the discontinued "Geocaching Challenges" with "Challenge Caches" that remain alive and well. Thanks.

[Pup Patrol]

don't want to stomp on a good discussion but all this angst over Challenges seems to be a bit moot since this announcement was made in December: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=304869

 

myself, i'm pretty disappointed that this decision has been made without any apparent reaction from the members; i find challenges a great way to explore caches that i might otherwise not be bothered trying to get

 

Different animal altogether from the topic of this thread.

 

Help Center → Geocaching → Review Process: Hiding a Geocache

 

4.15. Challenge Caches

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

 

B.

[+teawren]

good news! thanks for the correction; sorry for the mistake

[+Crow-T-Robot]

There is no answer, any line you draw will have flaws as did leaving it up to the reviewers to make the call but as a result of the new rules I think a lot of potentially great challenges are not being approved.

 

The challenge caches you've laid out sound like alot of fun but the skeptic in me thinks this:

 

One example was a challenge to find 75 caches with "eye" in the title, which struck me more as a joke about challenges than a serious requirement. But the community responded by planting zillions of new caches with "eye" in the title

 

would be the end result. Alot of junk caches published just so they can satisfy the challenge cache requirements. So, some great challenge caches would be published....but with the potential baggage of spawn caches that pop up because the challenge exists. A challenge cache should be just that: a challenge. Not a cache that the community decides to chop the legs off of just so they can get another smiley.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

 

Actually, the fun local game is to come up with a challenge cache that alamogul doesn't qualify for. :ph34r:

i tried to create a challenge where you had to take one word from the cache name of every cache you found and create a sentence/paragraph/short story using thos words. He'd be writing an encyclopedia.

 

Of course it to was denied: ALR.

 

I don't know. It seems that it's all in how you write up the listing. I think you're idea is fairly creative, and other than having to include which words from the caache titles that were selected by the finders to construct a sentence it's not all that different from requiring a list of aches which qualify for an A-Z challenge.

 

The additional specifications for Challenge caches has a built in ALR exemption:

 

"The additional qualification or geocaching-related tasks are considered the basis of a challenge cache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs)."

 

In other words, requiring finders to construct a sentence from words from a collection of daily finds could be considered as an "additional qualification" rather than an ALR. Of course, I'm not a reviewer but that's how I would interpret your proposed challenge

 

I guess it's hard to draw that line between an additional qualification that provides some reasonable criteria for completing the challenge and some sort of frivolous non-geocaching releated ALR. Using the cache names for qualifying caches doesn't seem frivolous while "qualifying caches are limited to caches you have found and the found it log is posted in pirate speak" probably wouldn't fly.

Edited January 9, 2013 by NYPaddleCacher

[+Isonzo Karst]

to construct a sentence from words from a collection of daily finds

 

Wait, construct a sentence is "geocaching related"? this is the sport of TFTC and SL

 

Who gets to decide if the assemblage of words = a sentence?

 

All your base are belong to us

 

Kadir beneath Mo Moteh

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule

So where do you think the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges should be drawn?

 

There is no answer, any line you draw will have flaws as did leaving it up to the reviewers to make the call but as a result of the new rules I think a lot of potentially great challenges are not being approved.

 

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

[+K13]

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule

So where do you think the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges should be drawn?

 

There is no answer, any line you draw will have flaws as did leaving it up to the reviewers to make the call but as a result of the new rules I think a lot of potentially great challenges are not being approved.

 

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

+1

[+L0ne.R]

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule

So where do you think the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges should be drawn?

 

There is no answer, any line you draw will have flaws as did leaving it up to the reviewers to make the call but as a result of the new rules I think a lot of potentially great challenges are not being approved.

 

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

 

I agree. I'd like to see them go the way of other ALRs. Filling a grid to claim a smiley would be optional, anyone that signs the physical log gets to claim a find, and those that fill the grid get a badge.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule

So where do you think the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges should be drawn?

 

There is no answer, any line you draw will have flaws as did leaving it up to the reviewers to make the call but as a result of the new rules I think a lot of potentially great challenges are not being approved.

 

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

 

+1

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Which just shows the absurdity of the rule

So where do you think the line between reasonable challenges and unreasonable challenges should be drawn?

 

There is no answer, any line you draw will have flaws as did leaving it up to the reviewers to make the call but as a result of the new rules I think a lot of potentially great challenges are not being approved.

 

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

 

+1

 

And I'll be first to archive my Challenges. The DeLorme causes me the most grief of all my caches!

[Clan Riffster]

to construct a sentence from words from a collection of daily finds

 

Wait, construct a sentence is "geocaching related"? this is the sport of TFTC and SL

 

Who gets to decide if the assemblage of words = a sentence?

 

All your base are belong to us

 

Kadir beneath Mo Moteh

"Shaka, when the walls fell."...

[+dprovan]

One example was a challenge to find 75 caches with "eye" in the title, which struck me more as a joke about challenges than a serious requirement. But the community responded by planting zillions of new caches with "eye" in the title

would be the end result. Alot of junk caches published just so they can satisfy the challenge cache requirements. So, some great challenge caches would be published....but with the potential baggage of spawn caches that pop up because the challenge exists. A challenge cache should be just that: a challenge. Not a cache that the community decides to chop the legs off of just so they can get another smiley.

Eh. I didn't think much of the "eye" challenge at first, but the community response has been what gave it value. (I think that was Alamogul's plan all along, and I'm pretty sure he's the one that talked people into planting the matching caches.) Yeah, we're going to be embarrassed when we have to explain to our grandkids why there are so many stupid "eye" puns in cache titles 20 years from now, but it's worth it to see the entire community striving for a common goal. While it's definitely sparked a lot of new caches -- although hard to say how many would still have been published, just with different names -- I think, if anything, it's improved the quality.

 

The bottom line is that I probably would have agreed with you if I hadn't been watching what's actually happening. Yes, there can be bad challenges, but that's no reason to stop the possibility of good challenges. I think the current standard is a good compromise, particularly because even though Alamogul can put out just about any challenge he wants, because he's done so much caching, he's one of the best people to judge what makes a good challenge. Yes, that means some of the challenges in my area are just ridiculous from my perspective, but I'm satisfied with that tradeoff.

[+K13]

I thought the idea was "Find it, Sign the log & log it on-line", not find it, sign it, & if you do (or have done) these other things, THEN log it on-line. Seems like an ALR to me.

[+L0ne.R]

I thought the idea was "Find it, Sign the log & log it on-line", not find it, sign it, & if you do (or have done) these other things, THEN log it on-line. Seems like an ALR to me.

 

Yes, it's an ALR. I don't understand why it was allowed to stay. Anyone know the reasoning behind it? What's special about this particular type of ALR that makes it an exception to the rule?

[+CanadianRockies]

I thought the idea was "Find it, Sign the log & log it on-line", not find it, sign it, & if you do (or have done) these other things, THEN log it on-line. Seems like an ALR to me.

As someone pointed out above, Challenge Caches are exempt from the ALR restriction. From the Groundspeak guidelines:

 

A challenge cache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking, Benchmarking, and Wherigo-related tasks also qualify. The additional qualification or geocaching-related tasks are considered the basis of a challenge cache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

As for what constitutes geocaching, it has been much broader than "find, sign, log" for quite a few years. Think events, EarthCaches, virtuals, webcams, adventure exhibits, etc.

[+tozainamboku]

to construct a sentence from words from a collection of daily finds

 

Wait, construct a sentence is "geocaching related"? this is the sport of TFTC and SL

 

Who gets to decide if the assemblage of words = a sentence?

 

All your base are belong to us

 

Kadir beneath Mo Moteh

But looking at other challenges that have been allowed (50 caches with the word "oak" or 10 "gold" + 10 "silver" + 10 "bronze") why not and challenge to find caches with the words "All", "your", "base", "are", "belong", "to", and "us"? Kadir beneath Mo Moteh might fail the sufficient caches to meet the challenge requirement but any sentence with common words might work.

 

The original challenges were the Delorme or county variety - with the intent of encouraging people to explore new areas. Later that got extended to certain statistics that various programs allowed cacher gather - filling in D/T grid, finding different types of caches on one day, or caching for a certain number of consecutive days. Once these were used people began getting creative with complicated rules for determining whether you met the challenge or not and sometimes requiring new tools to track - Finding caches that hadn't been found for certainin time, finding caches based on the date hidden, finding cache based on the cache name or the placed by name, various combinations of other challenges. For some the fact there is no limit to what you can come up with is good, while for others the fact there is no limit to what you can come up with only means more opportunity for abuse and more work for the reviewers to determine if the challange is allowable.

[+DanOCan]

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

I agree. I'd like to see them go the way of other ALRs. Filling a grid to claim a smiley would be optional, anyone that signs the physical log gets to claim a find, and those that fill the grid get a badge.

I also agree. I'd like to see the more common challenges such as the 366-day grid or the D/T grid become souvenirs. That way anyone who completes the "challenge" can get recognition regardless of whether or not such a challenge cache exists near them. It would also bring all physical caches into alignment with "sign log, claim Find, no more ALRs" rather than having an exception.

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

I agree. I'd like to see them go the way of other ALRs. Filling a grid to claim a smiley would be optional, anyone that signs the physical log gets to claim a find, and those that fill the grid get a badge.

I also agree. I'd like to see the more common challenges such as the 366-day grid or the D/T grid become souvenirs. That way anyone who completes the "challenge" can get recognition regardless of whether or not such a challenge cache exists near them. It would also bring all physical caches into alignment with "sign log, claim Find, no more ALRs" rather than having an exception.

Love this idea!

[+Don_J]

I think they should take away a lot of the restrictions and create some basic guidelines and put trust in their reviewers that they will make the right decision when publishing a new challenge,

Where do you think the current guidelines came from?

 

Groundspeak had some basic guidelines, and people kept pushing and pushing and pushing the limits. When the volunteer reviewers declined to publish their caches, people complained. Eventually, Groundspeak changed the guidelines.

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

people are going to complain regardless, I think now we are missing out on a lot of great caches and as was posted, it's not challenges anymore, it's accomplishments.

 

Exactly!

The idea that you detailed would probably not get published for the very reason the OP's wasn't, but for me, it would be a challenge. One that I would have to specifically set out and plan carefully to complete. For most of the Challenges published recently, the actual challenge is to figure out how to get GSAK to tell me I have already accomplished the requirement to log the cache.

 

A macro was posted on the GSAK board today to test for a specific Challenge cache in Texas. Find 30 caches on the second day after their placed date. Just for giggles, I ran it. I have a 157. To me, that's not a challenge. It's just something that I accomplished without even trying.

[+Don_J]

What if alamogul starts publishing challenge caches?

Alamogul has published several entirely absurd challenges just because he can. And he always proves he's completed the challenge in the description. Since I live in the area, I find this both irritating and amusing. There are a few other big time cachers in the area, so I don't think any of Alamogul's challenges have gone unfound and, therefore, aren't entirely silly. Just a game for the big boys and girls to play amongst themselves.

 

One example was a challenge to find 75 caches with "eye" in the title, which struck me more as a joke about challenges than a serious requirement. But the community responded by planting zillions of new caches with "eye" in the title, so one "newbie" (in this case, someone with "only" 6k finds) just recently managed to accomplish it almost exclusively with these new caches.

 

Alamogul also has a few reasonable challenges, just to be fair...

 

This is actually a good example of the flaw in the guideline. I have 18 finds with "eye" in the title, and there are 27 available within 40 miles, so that is 67. Does that mean that a substantial number of cachers can complete it, or does it mean that there are not enough caches in the area? The answer, of course is entirely up to the reviewer, which is why we will always have these controversies when dealing with guidelines that are built around words like and, or and may.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Maybe the line needs to be drawn at "No more challenge caches"?

I agree. I'd like to see them go the way of other ALRs. Filling a grid to claim a smiley would be optional, anyone that signs the physical log gets to claim a find, and those that fill the grid get a badge.

I also agree. I'd like to see the more common challenges such as the 366-day grid or the D/T grid become souvenirs. That way anyone who completes the "challenge" can get recognition regardless of whether or not such a challenge cache exists near them. It would also bring all physical caches into alignment with "sign log, claim Find, no more ALRs" rather than having an exception.

 

It would also mean that once one completed a challenge such as filling out the D/T grid they only get 1 reward rather than being able to log evey D/T challege someone has created. I've seen suggestions that souvenirs be created for completing certain challenges and even suggestion for a ww geocaching challenge (now defunct) but it's always been something in addition to getting credit for all the finds necessary to complete the criteria for the challenge and the opportunity to log a find on one or more challenge caches.