How do I encourage local cachers to seek out less visited caches if I can't make a forgotten challenge?

February 17, 2013

I recently submitted a cache for review that was a challenge to find "forgotten caches." Last night my cache was published, but this morning, the following note was on the cache page:

Listing retracted. I'm sorry, but on further review I'm afraid this concept does not follow our challenge cache guidelines: "A challenge cache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge cache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

These "Forgotten Cache" challenges have been brought up before and have been found to be essentially a competition to find the caches before others like an FTF challenge.

Unfortunately, this challenge cache cannot be published as is. Please change the challenge tasks to something different that follow the guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding.

If anyone can suggest a challenge that will encourage people to seek out the less visited caches in the area and still now be deemed a competition, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

February 17, 2013

I like the idea of finding lesser visited caches. I think if you could post the description text from your submitted cache, it would go a long way to helping us understand exactly what you required - and how it might be reworked and/or reworded to fit the guidelines.

February 17, 2013

I just had a cache published for finding "neglected" caches. http://coord.info/GC45AAZ

Caches that qualify are ones that where there was at least 180 days (6 months) between the finder's log and the previous log.

Finders total up the days from each neglected cache they've found.

My challenge cache requires 15 years total of days between the finder's logs and the previous logs.

Here's the example from my cache page:

"For example, if I found a cache on Jan 30, 2013 that had last been found on Apr 10, 2012, the cache was unfound for 295 days. It is a neglected cache, and I would add 295 to my total for meeting this challenge."

Although there is no specific requirement to go find caches that are currently sitting unfound, my hope is that people who haven't already met the requirements for the cache will go find a few of them.

It might just be in the way the cache page was worded...

11.6k · February 17, 2013

If anyone can suggest a challenge that will encourage people to seek out the less visited caches in the area and still now be deemed a competition, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

Make a list of The Forgotten and make them the challenge. Select the most worthwhile, not merely the ones that nobody likes to go to. After the first few finds, the caches are less "forgotten", of course. But that's the whole point, right?

You can also make a bookmark of select caches. I keep an eye on the Top 10 Longest Since Found list for my state, and some of them would be pretty cool to do (the ones that are still accessible).

Edited February 17, 2013 by kunarion

February 17, 2013

I like the idea of finding lesser visited caches. I think if you could post the description text from your submitted cache, it would go a long way to helping us understand exactly what you required - and how it might be reworked and/or reworded to fit the guidelines.

The cache I had placed was a copy of this one: http://coord.info/GC26395

February 17, 2013

Ringrat, I like your method of a point based method, is there an easy way to calculate the points?

9.2k · February 17, 2013

If anyone can suggest a challenge that will encourage people to seek out the less visited caches in the area and still now be deemed a competition, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

Make a list of The Forgotten and make them the challenge. Select the most worthwhile, not merely the ones that nobody likes to go to. After the first few finds, the caches are less "forgotten", of course. But that's the whole point, right?

You can also make a bookmark of select caches. I keep an eye on the Top 10 Longest Since Found list for my state, and some of them would be pretty cool to do (the ones that are still accessible).

I think that you cant specify which caches, but you can specify 'not found for..' a period of time. I have a Resuscitator challenge cache locally that states not found for at least a year before you find it.

However, just be careful if you are trying to get locals to visit local caches... They may have found them already!

February 17, 2013

Ringrat, I like your method of a point based method, is there an easy way to calculate the points?

I'm using a spreadsheet to check logs.

Found date in one cell, previous log in another cell, one minus the other gives the difference in days, and then just add them all together.

Actually, I'm having a hard time seeing the fundamental difference between the cache you linked and mine. Mine uses 6 months for all caches and a total, yours uses a variety of months. I don't see where the competition comes in. Good thing I'm not a reviewer. :grin:

3.4k · February 17, 2013

Here's another one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=e78c2fd1-d6dc-4a42-a90b-af9c25a8ac47

The problem I have with these, this one especially, is that they seem to encourage throwdowns. Go to the location of an abandoned (nothing says it can't be archived, even) cache, leave a throwdown and claim a find.

22k · February 17, 2013

Here's another one:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=e78c2fd1-d6dc-4a42-a90b-af9c25a8ac47

The problem I have with these, this one especially, is that they seem to encourage throwdowns. Go to the location of an abandoned (nothing says it can't be archived, even) cache, leave a throwdown and claim a find.

Holy cats. No local is willing to put that one in the grave?

22k · February 17, 2013

How do I encourage local cachers to seek out less visited caches if I can't make a forgotten challenge?

I do it by setting up POG* events that get people together to attempt caches that they most likely wouldn't have attempted on their own.

Tough caches? Make a day of it.

*POG

Edited February 17, 2013 by BlueDeuce

1.4k · February 20, 2013

I just had a cache published for finding "neglected" caches. http://coord.info/GC45AAZ

Caches that qualify are ones that where there was at least 180 days (6 months) between the finder's log and the previous log.

Finders total up the days from each neglected cache they've found.

My challenge cache requires 15 years total of days between the finder's logs and the previous logs.

Here's the example from my cache page:

"For example, if I found a cache on Jan 30, 2013 that had last been found on Apr 10, 2012, the cache was unfound for 295 days. It is a neglected cache, and I would add 295 to my total for meeting this challenge."

Although there is no specific requirement to go find caches that are currently sitting unfound, my hope is that people who haven't already met the requirements for the cache will go find a few of them.

It might just be in the way the cache page was worded...

I think I might steal/modify this one a little bit. I think if you wipe the 6 month portion out and just have a "15 years of unfound" cumulitive, that would be fun. Want to use a cache that was found yesterday? That's cool, you've got a lot of caches to find...

February 20, 2013

Another way to do this would be to use average time between finds. This would have the advantage of actually encouraging a number of cachers to visit a seldom visited cache. Your current requirement is a binary condition. A cache has not been found for a year. Cacher A goes and finds it. There is now no special incentive for cacher B to go and find it If you use average time between finds that cache will probably qualify for the challenge for cachers B, C, etc. If you enjoy math you can figure out the average time between finds in your target area and use that as the qualifier or you could pick something arbitrary.

1.4k · February 20, 2013

I like the idea of finding lesser visited caches. I think if you could post the description text from your submitted cache, it would go a long way to helping us understand exactly what you required - and how it might be reworked and/or reworded to fit the guidelines.

The cache I had placed was a copy of this one: http://coord.info/GC26395

If I understand correctly, the rules are essentially creating a FTF contest because once a lonely cache is found it is no longer available for credit in any of the the categories.

I really like the idea of encouraging people to hunt for the infrequently found caches. Why not try something like golf scoring where a points it awarded based on the number of people who have previously found it in the desired time. (One finder in the last 30 days = 1 point, 2 finders in the last 30 days = 2 points.) Add up the points and a total BELOW PAR will satisfy the challenge. Par would probably be 2, 3, 4 for each cache, and there must be a cache found in each category. High D or T caches could have a much higher par to encourage continued visits.

2.6k · February 20, 2013

I am trying to get more folks, especially n00bs, to a specific area by doing a challenge to get a number of caches within a specific area. There are currently over 65 caches in that area. To complete the challenge at the "bronze" level, cachers must find 30 caches in that area. For "silver", they must find 50. For "gold" they have to get them all. My reviewer has already cleared this plan. All I have to do is get out there (yes, the challenge final will be in this area also) and place my final. The keys here are that previous finds count and that there is a level where only a little less than half of the available number of caches are required to be found to claim the basic challenge.

14k · February 20, 2013

I recently submitted a cache for review that was a challenge to find "forgotten caches." Last night my cache was published, but this morning, the following note was on the cache page:

Listing retracted. I'm sorry, but on further review I'm afraid this concept does not follow our challenge cache guidelines: "A challenge cache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge cache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable."

These "Forgotten Cache" challenges have been brought up before and have been found to be essentially a competition to find the caches before others like an FTF challenge.

Unfortunately, this challenge cache cannot be published as is. Please change the challenge tasks to something different that follow the guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding.

If anyone can suggest a challenge that will encourage people to seek out the less visited caches in the area and still now be deemed a competition, I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

To answer the guestion in the subject line:

1. Find a cache that hasn't been found in a long time.

2. In your found it log, write "Took golf ball. Left $100"

:anibad:

It seems that the Challenge guidelines are really open to interpretation but I can understand where the reviewer is coming from on this one.

A forgotten cache challenge list this, would effectively become a competition. If a challenge cache such as this is published, the first that attempt to complete it are going to find the closest available "forgotten caches" and once they're found, they're no longer available as a cache that can be used to meet the criteria for the challenge. After a year or so, all of the nearby forgotten caches might have been found by someone in order to complete the challenge, so it effectively becomes a competition to find the nearest forgotten caches first.

2k · February 21, 2013

In the Southwest there is a really cool website lonelycache. It has a whole points sytem where you get more points by finding rarely found caches. An everyday micro will get about 1 point, but a cache on a 6 mile hike that hasn't been found in a year or two will get you about 50 points. I don't know how the points are calculated or how to make a site like that, but I've been checking it out a lot lately and it encourages me to seek out lonely caches.

Check it out: www.lonelycache.com

Edited February 21, 2013 by simpjkee

February 21, 2013

You could try discussing the caches you enjoyed on the regional forum. I did that once with a series I liked. The cache owner was very happy to see someone liked their caches.

February 21, 2013

Throw in the phrase "Challenge yourself" and see how it goes!

3.1k · February 21, 2013

I've seen it done many ways through local organizations. Start a thread in your local group's page here in these forums, or get something going with your local organization. That, and you can have an event, bring people together, and mention that it would be cool to get out and find some lonely caches.

38.2k · February 24, 2013

Not a "getting started" issue. Moving to a more appropriate forum

2k · February 24, 2013

one of the rules of the challenge...If you are First To Find on a cache, you may count the months since the date the cache was hidden.

Seems an incentive to have COs create misleading hidden dates and then folks to rush out for FTFs. Since FTF challenges are not allowed anymore, perhaps removing this one rule would help. I personally think that is a silly rule if you are trying to make an incentive to find caches that are not found often and not promote FTFs or caches with misleading hidden dates.

1.1k · February 24, 2013

Holy cow you have a ton of neglected caches out there. I would make it simple:

Find 1 with over 4 years since found, 2 w/ 3 yrs, or 3 w/ 2 yrs.

There are more than enough neglected caches out there to support this challenge w/o being remotely connected to a competition.

February 24, 2013

I am trying to get more folks, especially n00bs, to a specific area by doing a challenge to get a number of caches within a specific area. There are currently over 65 caches in that area. To complete the challenge at the "bronze" level, cachers must find 30 caches in that area. For "silver", they must find 50. For "gold" they have to get them all. My reviewer has already cleared this plan. All I have to do is get out there (yes, the challenge final will be in this area also) and place my final. The keys here are that previous finds count and that there is a level where only a little less than half of the available number of caches are required to be found to claim the basic challenge.

Are you going to list the bronze, silver, and gold cachers on the cache page? If someone continues to cache will you update their status from bronze to silver or gold? What about if new caches are placed in the area, will they count?

That sounds like a neat way to get people to cache in a certain area.

February 24, 2013

Here's another one:

http://www.geocachin...0b-af9c25a8ac47

The problem I have with these, this one especially, is that they seem to encourage throwdowns. Go to the location of an abandoned (nothing says it can't be archived, even) cache, leave a throwdown and claim a find.

1) Find 1 cache that has not been logged in at least one year

2)Cache finds must be on or after 11-13-09

So I can only count the cache if it has not been logged between 11-13-09 and one year ago from today... odd.

Edited February 24, 2013 by bramasoleiowa

3k · February 24, 2013

I like the idea of a lonely/forgotten challenge cache, but I'd prefer something simpler like the one near me: find at least one cache that hasn't been found during the previous 365 days.

Challenge Cache - http://coord.info/GC3749C

After I qualified for the challenge, I decieded to set up a bookmark list for my area to both help people for this challenge and generally encourage others to seek such caches. I posted about the list in my local forums. It seems to have met some success. A large portion of the list is puzzles and many more are swamp hikes. The list has also helped cleared out alot of deadwood (inactive CO, long series of DNFs).

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=874cdea6-6f7b-4654-85a4-4f071a18a4d0

February 24, 2013

Hi EGFreeze. You already encouraged me to go to find forgotten caches by only mentioned this idea. Tomorrow is my day off, so I am starting tomorrow

8k · February 24, 2013

The cache I had placed was a copy of this one: http://coord.info/GC26395

I recall when that one came out. I figured I probably already qualified (or at least would be close), but danged if I was going to got through 8000 finds to figure out which caches qualify. Challenges with complicated rules ore that require downloading special GSAK macros generally will be ignored by me.

This challenge may work in area like Southern California because there are plenty of lonely caches. In other areas there may be only a few caches that haven't been found in more than a year and it becomes a race to see who finds them. Once these lonely caches are found, cachers have look farther from home in order to complete the challenge. Worse are when two or more cachers are working on the challenge at the same time and they race each other to get to the one cache that has been lonely for a certain length of time. If one finds it first, the other may have to wait months till another cache becomes available.

Another problem became apparent as I was looking at the qualifying list of some of the cachers who completed the So. California version of this challenge. If there was a challenge for FTF on caches that later became lonely, I think I would win this. If I don't qualify for the lonely cache challenge it is because I often will search for just the sort of caches that are going to be lonely later on. If I find these caches shortly after they are published, there will be fewer lonely caches left for me to find. So this challenge has a problem that it is unfair to some cachers who are already willing to spend more effort for a smiley. It might actually encourage me not to find a cache, so that it will remain unfound till I can use it to qualify for the challenge.

There certainly can be challenges to find lonely caches. But I never liked this particular design. A much simpler one to find a least one caches that hasn't been visited in a year would, IMO, encourage more people to visit lonely caches than a complicated and possible overly difficult challenge.

14k · February 24, 2013

Ringrat, I like your method of a point based method, is there an easy way to calculate the points?

I'm using a spreadsheet to check logs.

Found date in one cell, previous log in another cell, one minus the other gives the difference in days, and then just add them all together.

Actually, I'm having a hard time seeing the fundamental difference between the cache you linked and mine. Mine uses 6 months for all caches and a total, yours uses a variety of months. I don't see where the competition comes in. Good thing I'm not a reviewer.

Suppose that when you publish the cache there are 10 caches within 30 miles of your cache that have not been found in 6 months. In order to satisfy the requirement for the challenge one of those caches might be found. After 8 people have logged your cache, their might only be 2 caches within 30 miles that meet the challenge for the criteria. Thus, it becomes a competition to get to one of the nearby caches before others do. After a year or so, if someone wants to log your cache they may have to travel a significant distance to find a cache with meets that create because they didn't beat the other local cachers to qualifying caches closer to home.

2.3k · February 24, 2013

It would be nice if the guidelines for challenges would be applied the same way in different areas. I've seen ones requiring finders to hide caches and ones with date restrictions both published after they were supposedly no longer allowed...

2.8k · February 24, 2013

It would be nice if the guidelines for challenges would be applied the same way in different areas. I've seen ones requiring finders to hide caches and ones with date restrictions both published after they were supposedly no longer allowed...

Or, alternately, stop allowing challenge caches.

15.3k · February 24, 2013

You could get rid of the competition aspect by allowing everyone to count the cache towards the challenge, instead of resetting the counter each time someone else finds the cache.

In other words, base the challenge on caches that have gone n months between finds at some point in the past, rather than on caches that went n months without a find immediately before you found it.

14k · February 25, 2013

You could get rid of the competition aspect by allowing everyone to count the cache towards the challenge, instead of resetting the counter each time someone else finds the cache.

In other words, base the challenge on caches that have gone n months between finds at some point in the past, rather than on caches that went n months without a find immediately before you found it.

This is a great idea. That way those lonely caches will get more than one find rather than being found once then eliminated from the pool of qualifying caches.

2.8k · February 25, 2013

You could get rid of the competition aspect by allowing everyone to count the cache towards the challenge, instead of resetting the counter each time someone else finds the cache.

In other words, base the challenge on caches that have gone n months between finds at some point in the past, rather than on caches that went n months without a find immediately before you found it.

Why not snap the line at the publish date of the challenge? "Find n caches that had not been found in the 6 months prior to publication of this cache."

14k · February 25, 2013

You could get rid of the competition aspect by allowing everyone to count the cache towards the challenge, instead of resetting the counter each time someone else finds the cache.

In other words, base the challenge on caches that have gone n months between finds at some point in the past, rather than on caches that went n months without a find immediately before you found it.

Why not snap the line at the publish date of the challenge? "Find n caches that had not been found in the 6 months prior to publication of this cache."

That works as well and is probably easier to understand. If the purpose of the challenge is to encourage people to find some the the local caches that are not being found very often this could bring more people to those caches. With a criteria such as "find a cache that hasn't been found in six months", once one person has found it, the challenge doesn't provide an incentive for anyone else to seek it.

8k · February 25, 2013

You could get rid of the competition aspect by allowing everyone to count the cache towards the challenge, instead of resetting the counter each time someone else finds the cache.

In other words, base the challenge on caches that have gone n months between finds at some point in the past, rather than on caches that went n months without a find immediately before you found it.

Why not snap the line at the publish date of the challenge? "Find n caches that had not been found in the 6 months prior to publication of this cache."

The problem with this is the date requirement. Could I claim the challenge because I found the cache 3 years ago but it hasn't been found since? Doesn't seem like this serves the purpose or the challenge. If you require someone to find the caches after the challenge publication, seems like that violates the "date found' restriction.

Even the "not for six months at any time in the past" is questionable. I've seen caches that were missing/disable for six months, then when a reveiwer posted a note saying he's going to archive, the owner finallly replaces the cache. You'd have a bunch of relatively easy P&G caches that would qualify for this challenge.

February 26, 2013

go to the cache page and log a note verifying that it is still in play. better yet, have the CO do that. I'm reluctant to search for forgotten caches because so many of them are missing or have owners who just don't care. Show me otherwise and I'm more likely to look for it.

3.6k · February 26, 2013

Here is one in Oregon... http://coord.info/GC2WNMZ

February 26, 2013

Sweet, just got the notification of your cache publishing. I don't see why you had to copy another cachers challenge though.

How do I encourage local cachers to seek out less visited caches if I can't make a forgotten challenge?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation