Challenge Caches

[+Jffok]

Where can I find the guidelines for placing challenge caches. Some things are allowed and some are not.

[+thetoxiczone]

I think the first rule is you must have met the requirements or can prove that other have also they can still do so.

[+wimseyguy]

No, the first rule of challenge caches is that we never talk about challenge caches (except on the assigned agenda day)

 

Linky to Help Center article.

Pretty much the same as the guidelines.

Edited June 11, 2013 by wimseyguy

[+Jffok]

Ok found what I was looking for I think. A challenge cache requiring that 13% of your finds be caches that have regular size containers, would not be allowed if I read the guidelines correctly.

[+thetoxiczone]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

[AZcachemeister]

Ok found what I was looking for I think. A challenge cache requiring that 13% of your finds be caches that have regular size containers, would not be allowed if I read the guidelines correctly.

 

Yes.

That would require a cacher to alter their normal caching routine to favor only regular size containers.

 

If a cacher has been finding only urban micros for the last two years, they will be hard pressed to manage a significant percentage of regular size caches.

[+M 5]

Ok found what I was looking for I think. A challenge cache requiring that 13% of your finds be caches that have regular size containers, would not be allowed if I read the guidelines correctly.

 

Yes.

That would require a cacher to alter their normal caching routine to favor only regular size containers.

 

If a cacher has been finding only urban micros for the last two years, they will be hard pressed to manage a significant percentage of regular size caches.

 

That is the wrong way to think about it, and why I don't agree with the new challenge guidelines. Specifically, this type. A cacher doesn't have to exclude any caches, just have to add more regulars to the mix. You can still do all the micros you want. Same way with the D/T average. There are 2 ways to do it, the easy and lazy way, by excluding the lower rated, or the CHALLENGING way and add harder caches to the mix. A challenge shouldn't accidently be met. It should be a challenge. With any challenge you have to prepare to meet it. Also, a previous poster mentioned that no one should be excluded. That is ridiculous. Every cache would have to be a 1/1 to accomplish that unrealistic goal.

Edited June 11, 2013 by M 5

[+The A-Team]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

That isn't how that clause works. By the logic you used, even a Fizzy challenge would be disallowed because there would be people who wouldn't be able to do the high-terrain caches.

The example you used is perfectly acceptable within the current challenge cache guidelines. An example of one that would fail that clause would be if the cache required you to be under the age of 30, or had to be male. Those would specifically exclude a segment of geocachers.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

On the other hand, if you tried for 500-finds-in-a-day you would probably be rejected because at that point you are pushing the limits of what is possible even with 4 people in a car on the ET Highway. I'm not sure what the "cap" would be, but it is probably at your local Reviewer's discretion and probably wouldn't be much more than YOUR record for most finds in a day.

 

A challenge cache requiring that 13% of your finds be caches that have regular size containers, would not be allowed if I read the guidelines correctly.

 

It would not: "If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular cache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the cache will not be published."

 

Another way to think about Challenge Caches is this: once I qualified for the Challenge, could any normal future behavior on my part un-qualify me? If I have 10,000 lifetime Finds or find a cache for each icon type or fill my D/T grid then I have passed a milestone. Unless I delete logs, my Finds total will always remain above 10k. Unless a cache page is altered by the CO, my D/T grid will remain filled. On other hand, if I find 100 caches and 51 are Regular size then I qualify for a cache requiring the majority of my Finds to be Regulars...until I find 5 micros the next day and am suddenly no longer qualified again. Same thing with average D/T: I could have a 2/2 average and meet a challenge requiring such, but if the next day I do a power run of 1/1s then I might no longer qualify. (The Guidelines do not say this exactly, but I think it serves as a fairly accurate way to consider what classifies as "alter their caching style or habits.")

[AZcachemeister]

just have to add more regulars to the mix.

 

But perhaps the cacher has already found all the local regulars, and would need to travel a large distance to find more.

And they only cache by bicycle or on foot.

[+The A-Team]

just have to add more regulars to the mix.

But perhaps the cacher has already found all the local regulars, and would need to travel a large distance to find more.

And they only cache by bicycle or on foot.

I don't think distance is a factor in determining whether a challenge cache would pass or not. Personally, I would have to travel significant distances to complete a Fizzy or Jasmer, but AFAIK those are still universally-acceptable challenges.

[AZcachemeister]

just have to add more regulars to the mix.

But perhaps the cacher has already found all the local regulars, and would need to travel a large distance to find more.

And they only cache by bicycle or on foot.

I don't think distance is a factor in determining whether a challenge cache would pass or not. Personally, I would have to travel significant distances to complete a Fizzy or Jasmer, but AFAIK those are still universally-acceptable challenges.

 

You don't need to increase the percentage of regular size caches you have found to complete the Fizzy.

Apples ≠ Oranges...nor Bananas.

[+bjmccacher]

I haven't read all of this, but am the owner of over 60 challenges and know the rules pretty well, percentages/ratios are against the challenge rules. This would not be allowed.

[Hosscatt]

Are the challenge caches not retired then? I saw the post on the announcement page from last year. Or are they talking about something different?

[+funkymunkyzone]

Are the challenge caches not retired then? I saw the post on the announcement page from last year. Or are they talking about something different?

 

No those were the "virtual replacement" challenges. I always wondered why Groundspeak seemed to deliberately cause confusion by calling them challenges knowing there was already an accepted meaning of the word challenge amongst the caching community.

[+The A-Team]

I always wondered why Groundspeak seemed to deliberately cause confusion by calling them challenges knowing there was already an accepted meaning of the word challenge amongst the caching community.

Why spend a bunch of time trying to come up with a good name when you're releasing a half-developed, harebrained, not-what-the-users-wanted product that you'll likely be getting rid of shortly anyway?

To me, the absurdity of the naming choice is an indicator of how much thought went into Geocaching Challenges.

 

As for the ongoing confusion regarding the two "challenge" concepts, maybe I'll make up a little guide that I can point users to that explains the difference.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I always wondered why Groundspeak seemed to deliberately cause confusion by calling them challenges knowing there was already an accepted meaning of the word challenge amongst the caching community.

Why spend a bunch of time trying to come up with a good name when you're releasing a half-developed, harebrained, not-what-the-users-wanted product that you'll likely be getting rid of shortly anyway?

To me, the absurdity of the naming choice is an indicator of how much thought went into Geocaching Challenges.

 

You make an excellent point.

[Keystone]

Let's focus on the challenge cache question, which is very much alive and relevant, rather than the off topic discussion of the retired "geocaching challenges" concept. Thanks.

 

Any questions about the detailed standards in the Help Center article to which wimseyguy so helpfully linked?

[+funkymunkyzone]

My bad - I thought the OP's query was asked and answered already.

[+Jffok]

Thanks everyone for your comments. The challenge cache in question was about the percent of finds being regular size caches. And allowed or not allowed it is probably going to be at

the discretion of the reviewer.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

 

 

[+dprovan]

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

Eh. I guess I don't really agree with this. Most people will have to travel somewhere else to get 200 caches in a day. In fact, even getting 200 caches in a day "locally" will be a trip in itself, even if it doesn't involve a bunch of mileage just to get to the start point. So I don't see much of a problem with having 200-in-one-day challenges "back home" where people can get them after their trip or on another trip.

 

Although personally, I don't care for in-a-day challenges, so I'm unlikely to ever do one. I've got lots of way more important criteria for chosing where I go to find caches than how many I can find all at once.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

Eh. I guess I don't really agree with this. Most people will have to travel somewhere else to get 200 caches in a day. In fact, even getting 200 caches in a day "locally" will be a trip in itself, even if it doesn't involve a bunch of mileage just to get to the start point. So I don't see much of a problem with having 200-in-one-day challenges "back home" where people can get them after their trip or on another trip.

 

Although personally, I don't care for in-a-day challenges, so I'm unlikely to ever do one. I've got lots of way more important criteria for chosing where I go to find caches than how many I can find all at once.

 

I'm not so sure that "most people will travel somewhere else" to get 200 caches in a day. Sure, I could see someone from the U.S. taking a long weekend and driving to a power trail, but I doubt that many of the geocachers that live in some place like Costa Rica (which only has 210 caches in the country) are going to be booking flights to Nevada just to complete a challenge cache. The percentage of geocachers that live in some place like Costa Rica (and pretty much every country in central and South America and Africa ...with the possible exception of South Africa) that travel to complete a 200 finds in a day challenge is likely so small that it wouldn't get published.

 

But forgetting a "number of caches in a day" challenge, I think that "location matters" for most challenges. Finding a cache with a name which starts with ever letter of the alphabet is likely quite easy if you live in one of many cache dense areas around the world but it wouldn't make sense to have a A-Z cache published in Uganda (which only has 22 caches) because almost nobody that lives in Uganda would qualify for it.

 

 

[+Kacher82]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

On the other hand, if you tried for 500-finds-in-a-day you would probably be rejected because at that point you are pushing the limits of what is possible even with 4 people in a car on the ET Highway. I'm not sure what the "cap" would be, but it is probably at your local Reviewer's discretion and probably wouldn't be much more than YOUR record for most finds in a day.

 

A challenge cache requiring that 13% of your finds be caches that have regular size containers, would not be allowed if I read the guidelines correctly.

 

It would not: "If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular cache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the cache will not be published."

 

Another way to think about Challenge Caches is this: once I qualified for the Challenge, could any normal future behavior on my part un-qualify me? If I have 10,000 lifetime Finds or find a cache for each icon type or fill my D/T grid then I have passed a milestone. Unless I delete logs, my Finds total will always remain above 10k. Unless a cache page is altered by the CO, my D/T grid will remain filled. On other hand, if I find 100 caches and 51 are Regular size then I qualify for a cache requiring the majority of my Finds to be Regulars...until I find 5 micros the next day and am suddenly no longer qualified again. Same thing with average D/T: I could have a 2/2 average and meet a challenge requiring such, but if the next day I do a power run of 1/1s then I might no longer qualify. (The Guidelines do not say this exactly, but I think it serves as a fairly accurate way to consider what classifies as "alter their caching style or habits.")

I've seen several challenge caches around here (and qualified for a couple) that would be based on ratios or averages. The rules on the ones I've seen asked for a screenshot or something proving you qualified at the time you claimed the find. Any future disqualification wouldn't change the fact that, when you posted the log, you qualified.

[+dprovan]

I'm not so sure that "most people will travel somewhere else" to get 200 caches in a day. Sure, I could see someone from the U.S. taking a long weekend and driving to a power trail, but I doubt that many of the geocachers that live in some place like Costa Rica (which only has 210 caches in the country) are going to be booking flights to Nevada just to complete a challenge cache.

As far as I know, almost everyone that does any of these super power trails does in fact plan a trip just to do them, perhaps without booking a flight, but frequently with booking a flight. I don't think it makes that much difference whether you live in Costa Rica with only a few caches in the country, or the San Francisco Bay Area, where there are thousand and thousands of caches within 30 miles.

 

And, on the other hand, putting such a challenge cache in Costa Rica might be an interesting reason for someone that's already done a power trail to go to Costa Rica to cache.

 

Now, sure, such a cache might not be visited very often, and it might find its way onto a high percentage of the ignore lists of people in Costa Rica. But if the CO is happy with that, I don't see any reason to say he's chosen a bad location.

[+thebruce0]

I've seen several challenge caches around here (and qualified for a couple) that would be based on ratios or averages. The rules on the ones I've seen asked for a screenshot or something proving you qualified at the time you claimed the find. Any future disqualification wouldn't change the fact that, when you posted the log, you qualified.

Yep, and existing challenges like that are grandfathered. They wouldn't be allowable today.

 

Another way to look at allowable challenges is whether the qualification is cumulative. That is, no caching habits will make it harder to qualify - whether it's reducing your percentage or average (like maintaining an average D or T, or having a % finds as Regular size), or causing you to consciously skip finding a cache because it'll hurt your qualification (like sequential find types).

 

I liked the interpretation posted above also that a disallowed challenge would be one that you could unqualify for.

 

My Ironman Bingo challenge initially wasn't allowed because I'd planned to make it sequential finds. But yeah, ignoring the fact that logging order can be spoofed easily, a legitimate cacher would be required to not find certain caches while working to qualify for any particular task. Changing it to consecutive days with a certain parameter meant that they could still cache as much as they want per day, just ensuring they include a qualifying find.

Cumulative

 

As far as I know, almost everyone that does any of these super power trails does in fact plan a trip just to do them, perhaps without booking a flight, but frequently with booking a flight. I don't think it makes that much difference whether you live in Costa Rica with only a few caches in the country, or the San Francisco Bay Area, where there are thousand and thousands of caches within 30 miles.

 

And, on the other hand, putting such a challenge cache in Costa Rica might be an interesting reason for someone that's already done a power trail to go to Costa Rica to cache.

 

Now, sure, such a cache might not be visited very often, and it might find its way onto a high percentage of the ignore lists of people in Costa Rica. But if the CO is happy with that, I don't see any reason to say he's chosen a bad location.

Definitely! One of the great things about caching is that 1) it's something to do while on vacation, and 2) it's something that can prompt taking a vacation

It is interesting though, the example of a 200+ find day challenge in Costa Rica, where it's not possible in Costa Rica. Would it be allowed? Well, I think that if people are willing to travel thousands of km to qualify for a local challenge, why would they not be willing to qualify for a challenge locally and travel to complete the find and sign the log? It can go both ways, imo. (though it could become an ignored cache for all the Costa Rica local cachers who don't want to travel )

Edited June 12, 2013 by thebruce0

[+Kacher82]

I've seen several challenge caches around here (and qualified for a couple) that would be based on ratios or averages. The rules on the ones I've seen asked for a screenshot or something proving you qualified at the time you claimed the find. Any future disqualification wouldn't change the fact that, when you posted the log, you qualified.

Yep, and existing challenges like that are grandfathered. They wouldn't be allowable today.

Have the rules changed since February 2012? I found a "60% non-micro" challenge that was published then. The qualifications are at least 500 finds, with no more that 40% of them micros. The CO hid several challenges at the same time, with similar requirements.

[+The A-Team]

Have the rules changed since February 2012? I found a "60% non-micro" challenge that was published then.

Yes they did, about a month later. Before March 12, 2012, that clause wasn't present in the challenge cache guidelines. That challenge just squeaked in.

[+lamoracke]

I've seen several challenge caches around here (and qualified for a couple) that would be based on ratios or averages. The rules on the ones I've seen asked for a screenshot or something proving you qualified at the time you claimed the find. Any future disqualification wouldn't change the fact that, when you posted the log, you qualified.

Yep, and existing challenges like that are grandfathered. They wouldn't be allowable today.

Have the rules changed since February 2012? I found a "60% non-micro" challenge that was published then. The qualifications are at least 500 finds, with no more that 40% of them micros. The CO hid several challenges at the same time, with similar requirements.

 

Ugh, a horrible challenge idea....a challenge that experienced cachers cannot work on to complete. Maybe in a month time period this challenge would be something, find 100 caches with no more than x percentage of them micros but overall? Glad they changed that rule. No fun to have a challenge where folks have no realistic way of completing it because they have cached already before.

[+Mudfrog]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

 

These are called "challenge caches" for a reason. In my opinion, i should be able to set one up that actually provides a challenge but there are so many guidelines that it is almost impossible to do these days. If i want to set out a challenge where only one person out of a million can complete it, then that should be my perogative. I cannot figure out why this is an issue for gc.com.

 

The OP's cache idea should be acceptable but as has been mentioned, it probably wouldn't pass muster because of the newer guidelines.

[+Mudfrog]

I've seen several challenge caches around here (and qualified for a couple) that would be based on ratios or averages. The rules on the ones I've seen asked for a screenshot or something proving you qualified at the time you claimed the find. Any future disqualification wouldn't change the fact that, when you posted the log, you qualified.

Yep, and existing challenges like that are grandfathered. They wouldn't be allowable today.

Have the rules changed since February 2012? I found a "60% non-micro" challenge that was published then. The qualifications are at least 500 finds, with no more that 40% of them micros. The CO hid several challenges at the same time, with similar requirements.

 

Ugh, a horrible challenge idea....a challenge that experienced cachers cannot work on to complete. Maybe in a month time period this challenge would be something, find 100 caches with no more than x percentage of them micros but overall? Glad they changed that rule. No fun to have a challenge where folks have no realistic way of completing it because they have cached already before.

 

It's not horrible at all. Almost sounds like you're wanting to play the entitlement card here. If cache trophies were given out, is everyone supposed to get one? We're not owed every cache that gets listed on gc.com. I'm not sure why people think they have to find every cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

 

These are called "challenge caches" for a reason. In my opinion, i should be able to set one up that actually provides a challenge but there are so many guidelines that it is almost impossible to do these days. If i want to set out a challenge where only one person out of a million can complete it, then that should be my perogative. I cannot figure out why this is an issue for gc.com.

 

Because it would be a waste of resources? In addition to the creation of cache listing on the site for a cache that only one in a million would be eligible, I can imagine that many reviewers would get pretty tired reviewing caches that only one person in a million could find. Challenge caches have become pretty popular in some areas, and I think one of the main reasons that the guidelines have become more strict was to prevent the "let's see if I can come up with a challenge that nobody will be able complete" mentality that, as I see it, doesn't serve any useful purpopse.

 

 

[+thetoxiczone]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

 

These are called "challenge caches" for a reason. In my opinion, i should be able to set one up that actually provides a challenge but there are so many guidelines that it is almost impossible to do these days. If i want to set out a challenge where only one person out of a million can complete it, then that should be my perogative. I cannot figure out why this is an issue for gc.com.

 

Because it would be a waste of resources? In addition to the creation of cache listing on the site for a cache that only one in a million would be eligible, I can imagine that many reviewers would get pretty tired reviewing caches that only one person in a million could find. Challenge caches have become pretty popular in some areas, and I think one of the main reasons that the guidelines have become more strict was to prevent the "let's see if I can come up with a challenge that nobody will be able complete" mentality that, as I see it, doesn't serve any useful purpopse.

Okay I am sorry I mentioned it.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I've seen several challenge caches around here (and qualified for a couple) that would be based on ratios or averages. The rules on the ones I've seen asked for a screenshot or something proving you qualified at the time you claimed the find. Any future disqualification wouldn't change the fact that, when you posted the log, you qualified.

Yep, and existing challenges like that are grandfathered. They wouldn't be allowable today.

Have the rules changed since February 2012? I found a "60% non-micro" challenge that was published then. The qualifications are at least 500 finds, with no more that 40% of them micros. The CO hid several challenges at the same time, with similar requirements.

 

Ugh, a horrible challenge idea....a challenge that experienced cachers cannot work on to complete. Maybe in a month time period this challenge would be something, find 100 caches with no more than x percentage of them micros but overall? Glad they changed that rule. No fun to have a challenge where folks have no realistic way of completing it because they have cached already before.

 

It's not horrible at all. Almost sounds like you're wanting to play the entitlement card here. If cache trophies were given out, is everyone supposed to get one? We're not owed every cache that gets listed on gc.com. I'm not sure why people think they have to find every cache.

 

Ok, I'll bite...

 

It's not the entitlement card at all. It's more (for me anyway) the opinion that a challenge cache should pose the same, or at least reasonably similar, challenge to any cacher that attempts it.

 

Now no one caches the same as anyone else - there are a million factors that mean the playing field is never perfectly level, but who cares... the point is that a challenge is not unreasonably more difficult for one cacher than it is for another cacher.

 

Kind of like if we were to discuss how we'd each run a marathon, we'd expect that those marathons were the same length - some might be more hilly than others, but not extraordinarily different.

 

Am I making sense?

[+funkymunkyzone]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

 

These are called "challenge caches" for a reason. In my opinion, i should be able to set one up that actually provides a challenge but there are so many guidelines that it is almost impossible to do these days. If i want to set out a challenge where only one person out of a million can complete it, then that should be my perogative. I cannot figure out why this is an issue for gc.com.

 

The OP's cache idea should be acceptable but as has been mentioned, it probably wouldn't pass muster because of the newer guidelines.

 

I half agree with you. They are called challenge caches for a reason.

 

You *should* be able to create a challenge cache that only one person in a million can complete, so long as the reason only one in a million can complete it is not based on past caching history or anything discriminatory, and yes I understand discriminatory is a blurry term, but I mean age/sex/race/etc, not physical hiking/climbing ability for example.

 

The single (new) guideline that I find most annoying is that you can no longer exclude finds from before the challenge was created. I know some will argue it's not fair for someone who has already found a lot of caches, but my counter to that is that if you're someone who has found a lot and/or has a high find rate, and therefore caches a lot or caches quite far from home, then it's no disadvantage but more of a leveller. For example, I've cached in 31 countries so far, and if someone created a challenge to find a cache in a new country, sure it's a little more difficult for me as I have done most of the nearby countries, but then again, clearly I travel, so it's not unreasonable to expect I can get to a 32nd country at some point without it being outrageously difficult.

[+thebruce0]

I discussed this long ago... but the way I see there are two primary categories here.

 

Achievements: Tasks which are described that can be accomplished by anyone, anywhere, at any time. These really are what 'Challenges Caches' are now, under current guidelines.

 

Challenges: Tasks which must be accomplished as of a certain date - past finds don't count. These are inherently going to be harder for more veteran cachers to complete because they've likely exhausted more local caches which by extension they're unable to (legitimately) "re-find" to count towards the challenge. That's one of the reasons the guidelines were set tighter; to help even the playing field - but in doing so, the tasks have to now be considered more akin to achievements, and it's more likely that Achievements will be easier for veterans to log (more chance they've already completed it).

 

The other dimension to challenge caches that has been tightened up are whether they're cumulative, or whether going about regular caching business could inadvertently backtrack on your progress. That happens with averages, or stats which are reliant on older stats. Described nicely earlier, if you can in any way "unqualify" yourself for a challenge, then it won't be published.

And I'm of the mind now that that's a good guideline. At least given the direction towards "Achievement" style challenges, and attempting to be as fair to as many cachers as possible.

Edited June 13, 2013 by thebruce0

[+funkymunkyzone]

Achievements: Tasks which are described that can be accomplished by anyone, anywhere, at any time. These really are what 'Challenges Caches' are now, under current guidelines.

 

Challenges: Tasks which must be accomplished as of a certain date - past finds don't count. These are inherently going to be harder for more veteran cachers to complete because they've likely exhausted more local caches which by extension they're unable to (legitimately) "re-find" to count towards the challenge. That's one of the reasons the guidelines were set tighter; to help even the playing field - but in doing so, the tasks have to now be considered more akin to achievements, and it's more likely that Achievements will be easier for veterans to log (more chance they've already completed it).

 

I agree re Achievements... Challenge caches are no longer challenge caches, but would instead be more accurately termed "Achievement Caches" now.

 

I disagree about the removal of date restrictions helping level the playing field. That may have been the intention, but what was a slightly out of kilter field is now totally out of balance in the other direction, in favour of existing prolific cachers, taking *all* of the challenge out of new challenge caches for some existing geocachers that have already found a lot of caches, meanwhile inadvertantly making some new challenges that would be acceptable under the current guidelines almost completely impossible for some prolific cachers*.

 

Suppose there was a simple challenge to find 1000 caches. Everyone who has already found 1000 caches has already achieved this, so there is no challenge. If you want a medal and a finishing time for this year's NY marathon, you have to run it this year, and last year's result doesn't count.

 

*Think of a challenge that requires a cacher to find, say, X caches of Y specific property within Z timeframe... If a prolific cacher has previously found all but X-1 caches with Y specific property within their country, hemisphere, the world, whatever but in their caching history they never found X within timeframe Z, then they are specifically excluded from that cache.

 

Anyway, all that said, it is what it is.

[+Don_J]

I've seen several challenge caches around here (and qualified for a couple) that would be based on ratios or averages. The rules on the ones I've seen asked for a screenshot or something proving you qualified at the time you claimed the find. Any future disqualification wouldn't change the fact that, when you posted the log, you qualified.

Yep, and existing challenges like that are grandfathered. They wouldn't be allowable today.

Have the rules changed since February 2012? I found a "60% non-micro" challenge that was published then. The qualifications are at least 500 finds, with no more that 40% of them micros. The CO hid several challenges at the same time, with similar requirements.

 

Ugh, a horrible challenge idea....a challenge that experienced cachers cannot work on to complete. Maybe in a month time period this challenge would be something, find 100 caches with no more than x percentage of them micros but overall? Glad they changed that rule. No fun to have a challenge where folks have no realistic way of completing it because they have cached already before.

 

I have no realistic way or expectation that I will ever complete a Fizzy or a Jasmar Challenge. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed. I could however eventually complete a 60% non-micro challenge if I stopped finding micros for a couple of years and only found larger caches. That is the reason why such a challenge is no longer allowed. Why would Groundspeak allow a challenge that tells people to stop finding caches? The whole point of geocaching is to find caches. They also don't want people promoting an agenda through a cache page, even if it is geocaching related. Challenges such as this are simply ways for people to promote an anti-micro agenda.

[+Mudfrog]

Yep, I would also argue the one that requires 200 finds in a day is also not, going by this guide, if I was to walk it and each cache was at the minimum distance from the next, then that is 32km. err "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.", as 200 in a day specifically excludes anybody that can't travel between that many caches in a day.

 

I think a 200-finds-in-a-day challenge cache would still be allowable. It can be accomplished on a large number of power trails. Furthermore, "Best Day" (i.e. most caches found in a day) is displayed on your geocaching.com profile statistics.

 

One aspect about challenge caches that doesn't get talked about a lot is location. There are many places where finding 200 caches is possible and placing a "Find 200 caches" challenge near one of the those locations makes it viable since those that would likely be able to find the challenge cache live in a area with a lot of caches. However, in many (most) places in the world finding 200 caches in a day would not be feasible unless one traveled a great distance, thus it wouldn't make sense to place a "Find 200 caches a day" challenge in one of those locations. Most of the countries in the world don't have 200 caches total in the entire country, thus placing a 200 finds cache in one of those countries would effectively excluded every cacher in those countries unless they were able to travel to someplace where finding 200 caches in a day was actually achievable.

 

These are called "challenge caches" for a reason. In my opinion, i should be able to set one up that actually provides a challenge but there are so many guidelines that it is almost impossible to do these days. If i want to set out a challenge where only one person out of a million can complete it, then that should be my perogative. I cannot figure out why this is an issue for gc.com.

 

Because it would be a waste of resources? In addition to the creation of cache listing on the site for a cache that only one in a million would be eligible, I can imagine that many reviewers would get pretty tired reviewing caches that only one person in a million could find. Challenge caches have become pretty popular in some areas, and I think one of the main reasons that the guidelines have become more strict was to prevent the "let's see if I can come up with a challenge that nobody will be able complete" mentality that, as I see it, doesn't serve any useful purpopse.

 

Whether it's a park and grab with hundreds of finds or a challenging cache with one find,, they are both viable caches. Compared to, lets say, power trails with many caches submitted all at once, these tough ones would be a drop in the bucket as far as resources go. Granted there could possibly be an influx of these in the future but i just don't see that happening. The guidelines are too prohibitive and, because the fad these days is to rack up smilies, i just don't think there is that much interest.

 

There are many challenge caches placed that i can't or don't want to try for. Not sure why i'm so different but it's easy for me to ignore and not lose any sleep over them.

[+thebruce0]

Achievements: Tasks which are described that can be accomplished by anyone, anywhere, at any time. These really are what 'Challenges Caches' are now, under current guidelines.

 

Challenges: Tasks which must be accomplished as of a certain date - past finds don't count. These are inherently going to be harder for more veteran cachers to complete because they've likely exhausted more local caches which by extension they're unable to (legitimately) "re-find" to count towards the challenge. That's one of the reasons the guidelines were set tighter; to help even the playing field - but in doing so, the tasks have to now be considered more akin to achievements, and it's more likely that Achievements will be easier for veterans to log (more chance they've already completed it).

I disagree about the removal of date restrictions helping level the playing field. That may have been the intention, but what was a slightly out of kilter field is now totally out of balance in the other direction, in favour of existing prolific cachers, taking *all* of the challenge out of new challenge caches for some existing geocachers that have already found a lot of caches, meanwhile inadvertantly making some new challenges that would be acceptable under the current guidelines almost completely impossible for some prolific cachers*.

Uh, then you don't disagree, because I addressed that, referring specifically to that

 

They were to level the playing field, but because of that the guidelines should be viewed as 'Achievement' style caches, rather than go-and-do Challenge caches.

 

I also commented that there is no way to have that type of Challenge cache based on a starting date, because we're technically unable to re-find caches.

* Date-restricted "challenges" are unfair to veteran cachers because of lack of candidate finds.

* Non-date-restricted "challenges" are unfair to younger cachers because veteran cachers likely already qualify.

* "Achievement" style caches (non-restrictive overall) are fair to everyone - because and when it's not about doing something "new", but just accomplishing a feat at some point in your career.

 

So the thing that's lacking from Geocaching as of now are date-restrictive Challenge-style caches - precisely because that makes it inter-player competitive. And geocaching is, fundamentally, not built to be like that (tho people still have the option to play like that if they wish).

Edited June 14, 2013 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

A challenge that requires finds after its publication levels the playing field at first, but over time it conveys an advantage specifically to those that started soon after the cache was published. They, essentially, become the special class that long time cachers are when the challenge has no date restriction.

 

To be a true challenge, the requirement would have to be that the satisfying caches are only found after the seeker has learned about the challenge. That would mean that, at least in some sense, they found the caches to meet the challenge. I don't think there's any chance of that being allowed as a requirement, but people could be encouraged to say whether they met the challenge that way in their logs.

[+wimseyguy]

I have no realistic way or expectation that I will ever complete a Fizzy or a Jasmar Challenge. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed. I could however eventually complete a 60% non-micro challenge if I stopped finding micros for a couple of years and only found larger caches. That is the reason why such a challenge is no longer allowed. Why would Groundspeak allow a challenge that tells people to stop finding caches? The whole point of geocaching is to find caches. They also don't want people promoting an agenda through a cache page, even if it is geocaching related. Challenges such as this are simply ways for people to promote an anti-micro agenda.

 

Interesting self analysis; you've been caching for a while, have a wide variety of finds, and only need a few more boxes checked off to complete those two challenges. Granted you might have to travel a bit, or attempt some more difficult caches that may be out of your comfort zone. But if you truly wanted to complete those two, I think you could with a bit of effort and travel.

 

I agree with you on the guideline that bans challenges which force you to stop finding a particular category of cache in order to qualify for the challenge. That's why the percentage ones are rarely published these days. I also agree with the ban on new challenges which have a cut off date. Challenges should require some effort to complete, but eliminating previous finds does not level the playing field. It eliminates some cachers from being able to qualify if they have already found all of the necessary caches to complete the required task. Or it makes challenges get harder as time passes and the number of qualifying caches decreases. The only exception to this issue I can accept is the Jasmer Challenge, as there isn't anything to do about that one, and it's a very worthy challenge.

Edited June 14, 2013 by wimseyguy

[+redwoodkestrel]

Not advocating one way or the other on percentage caches, but for some folks it doesn't mean a change in caching habits. I recently found and qualified for a 15% non-traditional challenge (yes, published before the guidelines changed). I would easily qualify for a 60% non-micro challenge.

 

Looking at it from a different perspective: couldn't you think of it as not necessarily no longer going after micros, but simply finding more caches that aren't micros?

 

Overall, interesting discussion. Now that I think about it more, I assume the guideline change would now also make it difficult to publish a challenge to have your average D or T above a certain number? I'm currently somewhat working on a challenge to get average D/T, added together, above 4. Yes, it has meant less P&Gs, but overall I'm happy with the quality of caches I've been finding, and the adventures to get to some of those caches.

[+Kacher82]

The 60% non-micro was easy for me. I just had to bring my total to 500 before I could qualify. Maybe the micro/non-micro ratio is different in some places than others. The one I pretty much gave up on, that was published the same time, was the "5%, 5 difficulty".

[+thebruce0]

Not advocating one way or the other on percentage caches, but for some folks it doesn't mean a change in caching habits. I recently found and qualified for a 15% non-traditional challenge (yes, published before the guidelines changed). I would easily qualify for a 60% non-micro challenge.

 

Looking at it from a different perspective: couldn't you think of it as not necessarily no longer going after micros, but simply finding more caches that aren't micros?

 

As I mentioned above, it does necessarily require reducing caching. Without a restriction, you're free to find any cache - whether you will or won't, can or can't - no cache will reduce your effort to complete a challenge. With a restriction, such as requiring a higher micro percentage compared to regular, you cannot find a regular without it impeding your effort to complete the challenge - whether you will or won't, can or can't find that cache. If you log a regular, you reduce your percentage. Therefore you can even 'unqualify' if you've already completed the challenge.

A cumulative challenge means you can cache however you want, and nothing will unqualify you. Otherwise you consciously have to not find certain caches that will backtrack on your challenge progress. The latter is now a factor in deciding to disallow a publish.

[+M 5]

Not advocating one way or the other on percentage caches, but for some folks it doesn't mean a change in caching habits. I recently found and qualified for a 15% non-traditional challenge (yes, published before the guidelines changed). I would easily qualify for a 60% non-micro challenge.

 

Looking at it from a different perspective: couldn't you think of it as not necessarily no longer going after micros, but simply finding more caches that aren't micros?

 

As I mentioned above, it does necessarily require reducing caching. Without a restriction, you're free to find any cache - whether you will or won't, can or can't - no cache will reduce your effort to complete a challenge. With a restriction, such as requiring a higher micro percentage compared to regular, you cannot find a regular without it impeding your effort to complete the challenge - whether you will or won't, can or can't find that cache. If you log a regular, you reduce your percentage. Therefore you can even 'unqualify' if you've already completed the challenge.

A cumulative challenge means you can cache however you want, and nothing will unqualify you. Otherwise you consciously have to not find certain caches that will backtrack on your challenge progress. The latter is now a factor in deciding to disallow a publish.

 

There are two way to do the percentage challenges. The easy way is to cut out caches. The more fun way, is to add caches. Also, most challenges I've seen that have what you term as a way to "unqualify" yourself, only require that you qualify at the time you log the cache. What happens after is of no concern of the CO. Also, who cares if some people can't qualify for some challenges? Not all caches are for everyone.

[+M 5]

accidental double post

Edited June 17, 2013 by M 5

[+thebruce0]

There are two way to do the percentage challenges. The easy way is to cut out caches. The more fun way, is to add caches.

Trust me. I used that argument as well. However, you can also "add" caches if there's no restriction. The only difference is - you STILL have to consciously not find certain caches which will reduce your progress. It's semantics. You don't have the freedom to find whatever caches you want, whenever you want, without it hindering your progress. It's an inherent limitation to the caches you can find.

 

Also, most challenges I've seen that have what you term as a way to "unqualify" yourself, only require that you qualify at the time you log the cache.

These are grandfathered challenges. This issue isn't applicable to them.

 

What happens after is of no concern of the CO.

Subjective and moot. But technically, for example if a CO is away and has to verify a cacher's qualification, but on return the stats no longer show the cacher's qualification. The CO could say that the cacher at any time in the future has to remain qualified, or they could say that it doesn't matter. The guidelines have sided with avoiding that drama, and approving only once-qualified-always-qualified challenges. THEN what happens after is truly of no concern of the CO (or the cacher).

 

Also, who cares if some people can't qualify for some challenges? Not all caches are for everyone.

Subjective and moot. You can say that for any property of any cache. The point to challenges (now) is to provide a level playing field in the context of career achievements verifiable at any time by anyone by the cacher's geocaching statistics. That's all there is to it.

 

It necessarily means certain styles of challenges (which I would absolutely love to see supported as well!) are just not possible. Just simply not possible, as they are not allowed.