Caches designed to complete challenge cache

[+Wes_and_Tara 0]

Some caches published in our area last night got us wondering. Ethically, what are your opinions on a series of caches that (likely) exists only to fulfill the requirements of a nearby challenge cache?

 

The caches in question are a series of 30 caches, with all the names starting with the letter "Z." They're Unknown caches, but that's just so they can make a "Z" on the map. There's a waypoint in each one with the actual cache location. They were published only a few miles from an existing challenge cache, the logging requirement of which is to find 30 caches with names starting with "Z." Coincidence? Probably not.

 

Do you feel that such a series "cheapens" the nearby challenge cache? It does for us -- we think that the challenge is only a challenge because "Z" caches are (were?) rare, and that's what makes it fun. We found this new series, but we're not going to count it toward the "Z" challenge cache when we finally log it some day.

 

How about the series being placed by a newly created account? It raises the question of whether the CO just hid the series to fulfill the existing challenge cache in the area.

 

Obviously, it's up to each of us to play the game the way we want to. But, we just wanted to get some opinions on the matter. Thanks!

[briansnat 100]

I think challenge caches are silly in general and this is one of the reasons. Another is people hiding caches who rate the difficulty and terrain to fulfill some hard to reach combination, regardless of the the actual terrain and difficulty of the cache. I've seen events submitted with weird D/T ratings just to provide people with an opportunity to fill the grid. Fizzy would be rolling over in his grave if he was dead.

Edited September 6, 2013 by briansnat

[+WarNinjas 49]

Its all just part of the game. Can the cache owner use his caches as finds to qualify or is he/she just doing it for others? I think the challenges just add to peoples fun to create caches and do stuff. I'm sure the CO wouldn't have created a bunch of caches with Z in them if not for this challenge so it just adds to this silly game we all like to play.

[+niraD 2085]

At least they're only manipulating the cache names. I really don't care what people name their caches.

 

I'm more annoyed by cache owners who manipulate difficulty, terrain, and size ratings, because in those cases, deliberately inaccurate ratings affect others.

[+terratin 124]

We used to have a really nice alphabet challenge nearby, until someone published caches named after random elements from the periodic table, including those difficult to get letters. The Co presumably got annoyed and archived his challenge We were among the last to log it, collecting caches the hard way.

 

If there's no puzzle in this geoart but the correct coordinates were given it sounds like these 30 caches should never have been published. I guess you could post a NA on them in this case...

 

Mrs. Terratin

[+The_Incredibles_ 23]

I'm not a big fan of challenges in general. Mostly because they seem like too much work and cause people to change the way they cache. I think doing stuff like forcing yourself to cache every day for 100 days just for a challenge is silly. I did a 50-day challenge and by the end it was awful.

 

I also don't like to see people publish caches they wouldn't have any interest in otherwise publishing, just so their friends can have an easier time logging a challenge. You end up seeing caches slapped together carelessly. Same thing that some people do to push out a lot of caches for an event.

 

There was some good come out of a challenge here, with a plethora of CITOs being published. That's the only benefit I can see. Surely, though, this could have been accomplished another way.

 

I agree that the series you've described is incredibly silly. It's not really a challenge if somebody publishes a bunch of new caches to make it easy. I find it kind of sad that someone would hide caches under a new account so they could find it under their other account.

Edited September 6, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+jellis 64]

There is a cacher in the northern part of the Central Valley who put out challengess that you almost have to find his caches to qualify. And when some of those caches get archived you have to go out of state to find them. So some local CV cachers made designer caches. Ones with multiple words in them that satisfy some of those hard to find named caches.

[team tisri 3]

Some caches published in our area last night got us wondering. Ethically, what are your opinions on a series of caches that (likely) exists only to fulfill the requirements of a nearby challenge cache?

 

The caches in question are a series of 30 caches, with all the names starting with the letter "Z." They're Unknown caches, but that's just so they can make a "Z" on the map. There's a waypoint in each one with the actual cache location. They were published only a few miles from an existing challenge cache, the logging requirement of which is to find 30 caches with names starting with "Z." Coincidence? Probably not.

 

Do you feel that such a series "cheapens" the nearby challenge cache? It does for us -- we think that the challenge is only a challenge because "Z" caches are (were?) rare, and that's what makes it fun. We found this new series, but we're not going to count it toward the "Z" challenge cache when we finally log it some day.

 

How about the series being placed by a newly created account? It raises the question of whether the CO just hid the series to fulfill the existing challenge cache in the area.

 

Obviously, it's up to each of us to play the game the way we want to. But, we just wanted to get some opinions on the matter. Thanks!

 

Who cares?

 

I agree with briansnat that challenge caches are mostly pointless and situations like this indicate why.

 

If you have to find a cache every day in August anyone can find a dozen caches in a day and claim them over a period of a few days. If you have to find ten different cache types in a day, just go and find them over a few days and log them all at once. If you have to find a cache called "zysteriox" then club together with a few other people and hide nice easy caches called "zysteriox" so you can all find a simple one and qualify.

 

If you prefer to complete the challenge the way it was intended to be done, ignore the caches that are clearly intended to bypass the actual requirements, ignore the numerous ways to cheat, and play by your own interpretation of the spirit of the rules whatever that looks like on the ground.

[Pup Patrol 10]

Some caches published in our area last night got us wondering. Ethically, what are your opinions on a series of caches that (likely) exists only to fulfill the requirements of a nearby challenge cache?

 

The caches in question are a series of 30 caches, with all the names starting with the letter "Z." They're Unknown caches, but that's just so they can make a "Z" on the map. There's a waypoint in each one with the actual cache location. They were published only a few miles from an existing challenge cache, the logging requirement of which is to find 30 caches with names starting with "Z." Coincidence? Probably not.

 

Do you feel that such a series "cheapens" the nearby challenge cache? It does for us -- we think that the challenge is only a challenge because "Z" caches are (were?) rare, and that's what makes it fun. We found this new series, but we're not going to count it toward the "Z" challenge cache when we finally log it some day.

 

How about the series being placed by a newly created account? It raises the question of whether the CO just hid the series to fulfill the existing challenge cache in the area.

 

Obviously, it's up to each of us to play the game the way we want to. But, we just wanted to get some opinions on the matter. Thanks!

 

Well, obviously this didn't bother you, as you found all of them, being FTF on them.

 

Yup, that newly created account could be the challenge cache owner. Who knows? People have used sock puppet accounts to publish caches, and Groundspeak doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

 

I don't see the problem. Some people like Challenge caches, some don't. Some people like finding micros every 528 feet along a road or trail, some don't.

 

Meh.

 

 

B.

[+wimseyguy 4]

I like challenge caches. I've used them the past few years to help me organize my caching outings, and in some cases it's pushed me outside my normal comfort zone. But some of the challenges out there are simply exercises in bookkeeping such as find caches with colors, names of birds; or use the gc#'s to find the 2010 NASCAR car numbers or fill in the periodic table. These aren't really caching accomplishments in the same vein as Jasmer, Fizzy, 366 grid, or 100 days in a row IMO.

 

So if someone is creating caches with silly titles to make it easier to complete some of the silly challenges I say So What?

They are still caches to go and find if those are the caches that you want to find. Completing the qualifications for a challenge should be the bonus.

[+Mudfrog 475]

I think challenge caches are silly in general and this is one of the reasons. Another is people hiding caches who rate the difficulty and terrain to fulfill some hard to reach combination, regardless of the the actual terrain and difficulty of the cache. I've seen events submitted with weird D/T ratings just to provide people with an opportunity to fill the grid. Fizzy would be rolling over in his grave if he was dead.

 

I really got enthused over challenge caches when i first came across them. But then, like you say, people started hiding caches simply to help fulfill those challenges. That helped to take away some the fun for me. I liked some of the older challenges which had date restrictions and the such to help curb this. But then gc.com put guidelines in place that took those kinds of restrictions away.

 

Yep, i too have seen caches and events placed with screwy d/t ratings. This is just outright rediculous to me. It's the entitlement generation i tell ya!

[Pup Patrol 10]

Question: how does the topic of D/T ratings relate to the topic of this thread?

 

Answer: it doesn't.

 

I guess it's just a sneaky way to wedge in rants against a type of cache that some people don't like, and feel compelled to rant against.

 

 

B.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+J Grouchy 681]

One of my caches was named to help others complete an A to Z Alphabet challenge...but that was only the secondary purpose. I was planning to put a cache there anyway and the name worked out because of the "intersections" theme. I wouldn't create one solely to fill a challenge requirement and I certainly wouldn't create one so that I could claim the smiley for myself. I just found an opportunity to help others since there are not many 'X' caches.

 

To date, though...nobody has used it for that purpose. ~shrug~

[+DadOf6Furrballs 2]

Something I read once by a very wise and experienced cacher here in the forums, paraphrased by me to fit this context:

 

1. Not every cache has to be found. If the cache bothers you (you, generically and globally speaking), ignore it. Also, if the name of the cache bothers you, ignore that one too.

 

2. Not every challenge cache has to be accomplished and found. If it's too complicated, or in one's opinion lame and stupid, ignore it.

 

In summary, find the caches YOU want to find, and ignore the rest. Enjoy life. Believe me, one sleeps better at night when they get to that point in their caching career.

[+Fridge01 0]

I know a series of caches where each one has a unique D/T rating. Obviously designed to allow people to complete their D/T grid. I'd have no objection if the ratings were legitimate but many of the high D ratings are phony.

[+Ike 13 1]

I do enjoy challenge caches but ones that push me like JASMER, Fizzy, county and Delorme. A challenge to find 30 Z's seems so silly and arbitrary it would not interest me much (not saying I wouldn't work on it). If the owner wanted to prevent this he could have added the common challenge rule that only caches published prior to the challenge count (or even only 10% can be newly published).

 

It definitely looks like this was created to make that challenge go from a 5 D to a 1. That's what happenes when the CO does not put restrictions. Although since 40 people completed it prior to the Z series it was never a 5.

Edited September 6, 2013 by IkeHurley13

[+rosebud55112 18]

I enjoy Challenge caches for the most part, but have definitely seen the cheapening of challenges due to this phenomenon.

 

Here in Minnesota, we've had an explosion in the past two years of caches that start with "Welcome to", or contain a random element or State name, which in my opinion were set up mainly to get visitors from people attempting to work on a challenge. The local "Welcome to" and elements challenges were truly challenging when they were created. Now, not so much. In a sense, its like taking the camo off of someone else's cache, to make it easier for other finders to find (or qualify for).

 

Of course, no one says you have to search for the caches you suspect were set out for that purpose, or ignore them when you determine whether you qualify, but somedays, when you're out running errands, and you see you happen to be near a cache called "Van Buren Nebraska Orange Catfish Iridium", its kind of demoralizing to think that its purpose was meant less so to be an interesting location and more to be a cache to fill a spot in a bunch of challenges. I call those "attention-whore" caches. Lately I've started seeing these in the names of Event Caches, as well.

 

I do agree with the statement above that messing with the D/T ratings is worse than messing with the name, though.

 

I own a couple of challenge caches myself, that I tried to make true challenges, that couldn't necessarily be messed around with in that way. I'm not sure if that can actually be done, though.

 

And yes, I know that "Van Buren Nebraska Orange Catfish Iridium" may be named that for perfectly logical reasons that have nothing to do with challenges. And sometimes two cachers both want to do something with a series of something-one chooses to make a challenge, while the other makes multiple caches each referencing the members of that series. That's fine-I don't mind separate cachers creativity.

 

But the blatant 'pick-me, pick-me' naming makes me shake my head in wonder.

[+Mudfrog 475]

I do enjoy challenge caches but ones that push me like JASMER, Fizzy, county and Delorme. A challenge to find 30 Z's seems so silly and arbitrary it would not interest me much (not saying I wouldn't work on it). If the owner wanted to prevent this he could have added the common challenge rule that only caches published prior to the challenge count (or even only 10% can be newly published).

 

It definitely looks like this was created to make that challenge go from a 5 D to a 1. That's what happenes when the CO does not put restrictions. Although since 40 people completed it prior to the Z series it was never a 5.

 

I'm pretty sure that one of the newer guidelines prohibits a cache owner from placing restrictions requiring caches before a particular date. That's what i was getting at in my first post.

[Pup Patrol 10]

If the owner wanted to prevent this he could have added the common challenge rule that only caches published prior to the challenge count (or even only 10% can be newly published).

 

It definitely looks like this was created to make that challenge go from a 5 D to a 1. That's what happenes when the CO does not put restrictions. Although since 40 people completed it prior to the Z series it was never a 5.

 

Guidelines specific to Challenge caches were updated 3/20/12 and the new "date restriction" caused a bit of angst.

 

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

 

3. 2. Challenge geocaches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; geocaches found before the challenge geocache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

 

B.

[+niraD 2085]

Question: how does the topic of D/T ratings relate to the topic of this thread?

 

Answer: it doesn't.

 

I guess it's just a sneaky way to wedge in rants against a type of cache that some people don't like, and feel compelled to rant against.

Or maybe it's a way to put the original complaint into perspective. Specifically, cache names don't really matter, unlike some other details of the cache listing. You know, something like this:

 

Child: Whaaah! I want Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs!

Parent: Clean the plate, because children are starving in Europe.

 

Geocacher 1: Whaaah! These caches have ridiculous names!

Geocacher 2: Well, at least ridiculous names don't affect anyone. Some caches have ridiculous difficulty, terrain, or size ratings.

 

[bonus points for recognizing both allusions in the child-parent example]

[+dprovan 1105]

It depends on the particulars. If the new caches are specifically set to eliminate the challenge from a nearby Challenge Cache, that's kinda rude.

 

But I've seen people do little things, like making a single "Z" chache to make it easier to satisfy an A-Z challenge, and even putting out caches that start with 0-9 to make it easier to satisfy an A-Z,0-9 challenge. Those are a little dubious, but the ones I've seen don't seem to spiteful or anything, just helpful, so I'm OK with that.

 

If the challenge is ridiculous it begin with -- and one requiring many "Z" caches sounds pretty close to ridiculous to me -- then a bunch of "Z" caches is a little dubious, but OK if I get the feeling that they're in the spirit of poking fun at the challenge.

 

The best case of this I've seen was a cache that challenged us to find 75 caches with "eye" in the title. That's absolutely ridiculous, for sure. But the CO of the challenge himself encouraged people to put out "eye" caches, and it turned into a really great "team building" exercise as well as inside joke throughout the area, so now anyone around here that really wants to can satisfy the challenge. And in the end, that's the bottom line: I hope that in general COs at least will be good natured about it, particularly if their challenge is on the silly side. Certainly any single peculiarly named cache should be given the doubt about whether it was named specifically because of the challenge. But on the other hand, I definitely would discourage anyone from trying to trivialize the serious challenges like Fizzy's, which is why people are bringing up ratings in this context.

 

Heaven help us if anyone got upset because of the people that placed 2/29 caches to help people with the "hidden on all 366 days of the year" challenges.

[+Team Microdot 980]

I do enjoy challenge caches but ones that push me like JASMER, Fizzy, county and Delorme. A challenge to find 30 Z's seems so silly and arbitrary it would not interest me much (not saying I wouldn't work on it). If the owner wanted to prevent this he could have added the common challenge rule that only caches published prior to the challenge count (or even only 10% can be newly published).

 

It definitely looks like this was created to make that challenge go from a 5 D to a 1. That's what happenes when the CO does not put restrictions. Although since 40 people completed it prior to the Z series it was never a 5.

 

I'm pretty sure that one of the newer guidelines prohibits a cache owner from placing restrictions requiring caches before a particular date. That's what i was getting at in my first post.

 

Knowledgebase article on challenge caches

 

Challenge geocaches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; geocaches found before the challenge geocache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

Doesn't say anything about including a restriction based on date hidden???

[+rosebud55112 18]

If the owner wanted to prevent this he could have added the common challenge rule that only caches published prior to the challenge count (or even only 10% can be newly published).

 

It definitely looks like this was created to make that challenge go from a 5 D to a 1. That's what happenes when the CO does not put restrictions. Although since 40 people completed it prior to the Z series it was never a 5.

 

Guidelines specific to Challenge caches were updated 3/20/12 and the new "date restriction" caused a bit of angst.

 

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

 

3. 2. Challenge geocaches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; geocaches found before the challenge geocache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

B.

 

Strictly speaking, this doesn't seem to prevent a challenge from requiring that all the qualifying caches be in existence

prior to publication of the challenge cache. I hadn't noticed that.

[+Fridge01 0]

Question: how does the topic of D/T ratings relate to the topic of this thread?

 

Answer: it doesn't.

 

I guess it's just a sneaky way to wedge in rants against a type of cache that some people don't like, and feel compelled to rant against.

 

 

B.

"what are opinions on a series of caches that (likely) exists only to fulfill the requirements..."

of a challenge or a D/T grid are different things but the idea behind it seemed similar enough to respond. Could've been the end of it but now I have to respond to tour rant and your least favorite topic lives on.

[+Mudfrog 475]

I do enjoy challenge caches but ones that push me like JASMER, Fizzy, county and Delorme. A challenge to find 30 Z's seems so silly and arbitrary it would not interest me much (not saying I wouldn't work on it). If the owner wanted to prevent this he could have added the common challenge rule that only caches published prior to the challenge count (or even only 10% can be newly published).

 

It definitely looks like this was created to make that challenge go from a 5 D to a 1. That's what happenes when the CO does not put restrictions. Although since 40 people completed it prior to the Z series it was never a 5.

 

I'm pretty sure that one of the newer guidelines prohibits a cache owner from placing restrictions requiring caches before a particular date. That's what i was getting at in my first post.

 

Knowledgebase article on challenge caches

 

Challenge geocaches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; geocaches found before the challenge geocache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

Doesn't say anything about including a restriction based on date hidden???

 

Not sure why i was thinking that but it does indeed appear that i was thinking wrong. Thanks!

[+DanOCan 4]

As I mentioned on a local discussion group, challenge caches are just like everything else in caching.

The first few are creative and interesting but then everyone gets into the "me too" mindset and takes it too far.

 

I think of Virtuals, power trails, challenge caches, parking lot micros, ...

[+L0ne.R 1211]

As I mentioned on a local discussion group, challenge caches are just like everything else in caching.

The first few are creative and interesting but then everyone gets into the "me too" mindset and takes it too far.

 

I think of Virtuals, power trails, challenge caches, parking lot micros, ...

 

+1

[+lamoracke 2]

It all depends. Some challenges are basically designed so that anyone could in theory list new caches (any cache based on cache name for example) whereas some cannot (Jasmer). The vast majority of challenges could be affected by new caches ,today, some just because and some on purpose. We have a Cities challenge where some of the cities had no valid caches anymore so folks listed to help. Why not? If you are not working on the challenge, you shoud not care, and if you are, it helps. You can find either way. I listed a cache with a 0 in the front because there were few 0 caches. Have listed caches to make some grids in County challenges to have one to find. Folks who want to find the challenges appreciate them. If you think someone listing all 36 alphanumerics on the same trail, ignore them, simple as that.

[+Harry Dolphin 738]

Question: how does the topic of D/T ratings relate to the topic of this thread?

 

Answer: it doesn't.

 

I guess it's just a sneaky way to wedge in rants against a type of cache that some people don't like, and feel compelled to rant against.

 

 

Caches designed to complete challenge cache

 

Hmm... Seems to fit into the subject matter quite well...

[+Ike 13 1]

If the owner wanted to prevent this he could have added the common challenge rule that only caches published prior to the challenge count (or even only 10% can be newly published).

 

It definitely looks like this was created to make that challenge go from a 5 D to a 1. That's what happenes when the CO does not put restrictions. Although since 40 people completed it prior to the Z series it was never a 5.

 

Guidelines specific to Challenge caches were updated 3/20/12 and the new "date restriction" caused a bit of angst.

 

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

 

3. 2. Challenge geocaches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; geocaches found before the challenge geocache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

B.

Yes I know but I wasn't talking about when they are found, but when they are published. No challenge guideline address published date. So saying 90% of the finds on this challenge cache must be published prior to 9/12/13 is fine. That includes all previous finds.

[briansnat 100]

Question: how does the topic of D/T ratings relate to the topic of this thread?

 

Answer: it doesn't.

 

I guess it's just a sneaky way to wedge in rants against a type of cache that some people don't like, and feel compelled to rant against.

 

 

Caches designed to complete challenge cache

 

Hmm... Seems to fit into the subject matter quite well...

 

I thought so.

[+Team Hugs 45]

I own a couple of challenge caches myself, that I tried to make true challenges, that couldn't necessarily be messed around with in that way. I'm not sure if that can actually be done, though.

 

The ever-changing nature of geocaching (and Groundspeak) may make that impossible. You never know what's coming around the corner.

 

One of our local caching veterans had a series of challenge caches based on the number of souvenirs in your profile. Different caches required that you had earned different numbers of souvenirs to qualify; the difficulty rating of the cache was higher on the caches with higher souvenir requirements, because it was hard to get large numbers of souvenirs.

 

Seems relatively hard to game the system, right? Well, of course, Groundspeak started handing out souvenirs based on other criteria like specific dates (12/12/12) or participation in certain events, whether physical (GeoBashes) or virtual (WWFMs), which lowered the difficulty level somewhat. Of course, the recent batch of August 2013 souvenirs made it almost trivially easy to qualify for the caches, making the difficulty ratings almost laughable. He's archived the caches and is starting a new set of souvenir challenges, with difficulties adjusted accordingly.

[+rosebud55112 18]

Yeah, that's another casualty of all the spew-venirs from last month. Your friend may want to consider counting only the geographic-based souvenirs for a challenge, but then would have to rules-lawyer it up about things like whether a souvenir for a mega-event was geographic-based or date-based, or other. And I suppose GS could do something next year that somehow pulls the rug out from under that one too.

[+Traditional Bill 0]

Something I read once by a very wise and experienced cacher here in the forums, paraphrased by me to fit this context:

 

1. Not every cache has to be found. If the cache bothers you (you, generically and globally speaking), ignore it. Also, if the name of the cache bothers you, ignore that one too.

 

2. Not every challenge cache has to be accomplished and found. If it's too complicated, or in one's opinion lame and stupid, ignore it.

 

In summary, find the caches YOU want to find, and ignore the rest. Enjoy life. Believe me, one sleeps better at night when they get to that point in their caching career.

 

Yes! This exactly. Challenge caches are there for cachers who want a CHALLENGE. If they feel compelled to cheat, they're only cheating themselves. I make a point to put on all of my challenge cache pages the following phrase -

 

"You do not NEED this cache"

[+Traditional Bill 0]

 

I own a couple of challenge caches myself, that I tried to make true challenges, that couldn't necessarily be messed around with in that way. I'm not sure if that can actually be done, though.

 

 

GC494WM - Here's one of my challenges that has seemed to accomplish that, kind of. While pretty controversial in nature, I discussed it extensively with my local reviewer before submitting it and we hashed out the qualifications and details. People continue to whine about it though.

 

Nobody has put out trails of non-traditional caches in my area yet, but I've certainly seen a larger amount of non-traditional caches get published lately, which to me is a good thing. I'm a fan of challenges and I work hard to complete the ones I claim. What bothers me more than creating sock puppet account caches to qualify for a challenge is somebody that gets a challenge cache published that THEY don't qualify for.

[+lamoracke 2]

 

I own a couple of challenge caches myself, that I tried to make true challenges, that couldn't necessarily be messed around with in that way. I'm not sure if that can actually be done, though.

 

 

GC494WM - Here's one of my challenges that has seemed to accomplish that, kind of. While pretty controversial in nature, I discussed it extensively with my local reviewer before submitting it and we hashed out the qualifications and details. People continue to whine about it though.

 

Nobody has put out trails of non-traditional caches in my area yet, but I've certainly seen a larger amount of non-traditional caches get published lately, which to me is a good thing. I'm a fan of challenges and I work hard to complete the ones I claim. What bothers me more than creating sock puppet account caches to qualify for a challenge is somebody that gets a challenge cache published that THEY don't qualify for.

 

As someone who qualifies for that challenge, I like it, but I am surprised it got published. That after the new guidelines? I can't recall when those were implemented. The reason I say this is that challenges that were to change your caching behavior, in this case, effectively be forced to skip traditionals if you were under 15% when you looked at this challenge, I thought were against the rules.

 

(edited for a little grammar)

Edited September 23, 2013 by lamoracke

[+redsox_mark 139]

As someone who qualifies for that challenge, I like it, but I am surprised it got published. That after the new guidelines? I can't recall when those were implemented. The reason I say this is that challenges that were to change your caching behavior, in this case, effectively be forced to skip traditionals if you were under 15% when you looked at this challenge, I thought were against the rules.

)

 

Correct, it is this rule:

 

6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge geocache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

 

But I don't know if that was there in April when the cache was published.

[+Traditional Bill 0]

As someone who qualifies for that challenge, I like it, but I am surprised it got published. That after the new guidelines? I can't recall when those were implemented. The reason I say this is that challenges that were to change your caching behavior, in this case, effectively be forced to skip traditionals if you were under 15% when you looked at this challenge, I thought were against the rules.

)

 

Correct, it is this rule:

 

6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge geocache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

 

But I don't know if that was there in April when the cache was published.

 

I'm not sure if that rule was there before or after April, but regardless....I suppose the reviewer felt there was enough people whom already qualified in the area as well as there being more than enough non-traditionals to go around. When I first started working on that challenge I was at 2000 caches and 93% traditional. I didn't completely avoid traditionals to complete the challenge, I simply doubled up on my non-traditional finds. That being said though, I do realize that some cachers would have to significantly change their caching habits to qualify....but most cachers who are hunting challenges are already looking for tons of non-traditionals anyway for the most part.

[+CanadianRockies 3]

6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge geocache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

 

But I don't know if that was there in April when the cache was published.

I'm not sure if that rule was there before or after April, but regardless....I suppose the reviewer felt there was enough people whom already qualified in the area as well as there being more than enough non-traditionals to go around. When I first started working on that challenge I was at 2000 caches and 93% traditional. I didn't completely avoid traditionals to complete the challenge, I simply doubled up on my non-traditional finds. That being said though, I do realize that some cachers would have to significantly change their caching habits to qualify....but most cachers who are hunting challenges are already looking for tons of non-traditionals anyway for the most part.

That was one of the guideline changes that occurred around 3/12/12. I didn't care for most of those changes, but I do think that the guidelines that are in place should be applied as consistently as possible. None of these changes said the guidelines could be ignored if enough people already qualified for the challenge.

 

That said, I also recognize Volunteer Reviewers are human and thus will interpret the guidelines differently and (oh!) even make mistakes.

[+Harry Dolphin 738]

As someone who qualifies for that challenge, I like it, but I am surprised it got published. That after the new guidelines? I can't recall when those were implemented. The reason I say this is that challenges that were to change your caching behavior, in this case, effectively be forced to skip traditionals if you were under 15% when you looked at this challenge, I thought were against the rules.

)

 

Correct, it is this rule:

 

6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge geocache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game.

 

But I don't know if that was there in April when the cache was published.

 

I'm not sure if that rule was there before or after April, but regardless....I suppose the reviewer felt there was enough people whom already qualified in the area as well as there being more than enough non-traditionals to go around. When I first started working on that challenge I was at 2000 caches and 93% traditional. I didn't completely avoid traditionals to complete the challenge, I simply doubled up on my non-traditional finds. That being said though, I do realize that some cachers would have to significantly change their caching habits to qualify....but most cachers who are hunting challenges are already looking for tons of non-traditionals anyway for the most part.

And that is the point being made: At 82.74% traditionals, I qualify. But, if one has to change one's caching habits to qualify (such as this one), then it would seem to violate Rule 6.

Personally, I think that challenges that can be shortcut by hiding caches starting with "X" are rather meaningless challenges to start with. I doubt that I would consider hunting such 'challenges'.

[+Team Sagefox 9]

I think challenge caches are silly in general and this is one of the reasons. Another is people hiding caches who rate the difficulty and terrain to fulfill some hard to reach combination, regardless of the the actual terrain and difficulty of the cache. I've seen events submitted with weird D/T ratings just to provide people with an opportunity to fill the grid. Fizzy would be rolling over in his grave if he was dead.

 

I agree with all of this, including the Fizzy part, long may he live, but with the exception of DeLorme and County challenges. We have seen and learned and had so much adventure from those cool challenges. We have not been much excited by any other challenges.

[+wimseyguy 4]

<snip>

I'm not sure if that rule was there before or after April, but regardless....I suppose the reviewer felt there was enough people whom already qualified in the area as well as there being more than enough non-traditionals to go around. When I first started working on that challenge I was at 2000 caches and 93% traditional. I didn't completely avoid traditionals to complete the challenge, I simply doubled up on my non-traditional finds. That being said though, I do realize that some cachers would have to significantly change their caching habits to qualify....but most cachers who are hunting challenges are already looking for tons of non-traditionals anyway for the most part.

 

Nonsense. Most cachers who are hunting challenges are looking for the caches that complete the challenges they are working on. You have no data to back up that statement, and couldn't possibly come up with anything that would be verifiable.

 

I like challenges, I like them a lot. There are approx. 12 in NC that I'm casually working towards completing. Not a single one requires me to focus on non-traditional caches in order to qualify. But that's just me and my challenge targets. YMMV

 

Some random selections from my To Do List:

For the Birds Find 25 caches with bird names in title. Need to find 3-4 more.

Lucky 7's Physical Favorite Points Already qualify with over 1600 favorite points total from the 45 caches I found on 5/22/13.

Hometown Charm Just published last month, haven't checked to see where I am with this one.

And I'm one road trip away from getting my last 3 DeLorme pages and last 2 counties to finish those. Only traditional caches are available in those counties.

[+fizzymagic 396]

I think challenge caches are silly in general and this is one of the reasons. Another is people hiding caches who rate the difficulty and terrain to fulfill some hard to reach combination, regardless of the the actual terrain and difficulty of the cache. I've seen events submitted with weird D/T ratings just to provide people with an opportunity to fill the grid. Fizzy would be rolling over in his grave if he was dead.

 

Reports of which are somewhat exaggerated.

 

But seriously, what kind of good is a challenge if you get it by doing clearly improperly labeled caches? That applies to more than the Fizzy challenges; it applies to all.

 

I guess it just shows that if people can figure out how to game something, they will. Unfortunately, this kind of gaming hurts everyone, not just the person doing the dishonesty. The original Fizzy challenge may soon become impossible for new cachers to do because of the date restrictions on it.

 

We frequently have these discussions about various forms of cheating here in the forums. I try to stay out of them, because little productive ever results.

 

However, I was recently reading a book that reported interesting research that convincingly refutes the "they aren't hurting anyone but themselves" argument about cheaters. The book is called "The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty," by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke.

 

It turns out that all of us, including those who claim that their morality is not dependent on others, take cues about what behaviors are moral or immoral from the behaviors of others in our social group. I am certain that many people here would claim that they are immune to such things, but (for the most part) they are lying to themselves. Research shows that the effect is universal and very strong. Ariely likens cheating to a contagion that is infectious.

 

Certainly we have witnessed the results of this effect many times in geocaching. For example, Germans are much more likely to attempt "armchair caching" than are Americans. From my observations, I would say that tendency is a result of cheating behavior being much more acceptable in German society. Not making a judgment here; it is just a fact.

 

So while we may claim that cheaters are only hurting themselves, it is not true. Others will adjust their behavior to what they perceive as the group norm.

 

I don't have an answer, but I think that the evidence is fascinating.

[+Traditional Bill 0]

<snip>

I'm not sure if that rule was there before or after April, but regardless....I suppose the reviewer felt there was enough people whom already qualified in the area as well as there being more than enough non-traditionals to go around. When I first started working on that challenge I was at 2000 caches and 93% traditional. I didn't completely avoid traditionals to complete the challenge, I simply doubled up on my non-traditional finds. That being said though, I do realize that some cachers would have to significantly change their caching habits to qualify....but most cachers who are hunting challenges are already looking for tons of non-traditionals anyway for the most part.

 

Nonsense. Most cachers who are hunting challenges are looking for the caches that complete the challenges they are working on. You have no data to back up that statement, and couldn't possibly come up with anything that would be verifiable.

 

I like challenges, I like them a lot. There are approx. 12 in NC that I'm casually working towards completing. Not a single one requires me to focus on non-traditional caches in order to qualify. But that's just me and my challenge targets. YMMV

 

Some random selections from my To Do List:

For the Birds Find 25 caches with bird names in title. Need to find 3-4 more.

Lucky 7's Physical Favorite Points Already qualify with over 1600 favorite points total from the 45 caches I found on 5/22/13.

Hometown Charm Just published last month, haven't checked to see where I am with this one.

And I'm one road trip away from getting my last 3 DeLorme pages and last 2 counties to finish those. Only traditional caches are available in those counties.

 

I understand. I'm just going off of what I've learned from my own local community though as I'm relatively new to the message boards here. Sorry if I made an invalid point.

 

There are multiple challenges here in the mid Atlantic region in which you must focus on specific types of caches to qualify. Also, most of the "challenge" cachers that I know personally in my area are generally puzzle people or more into the extreme stuff. So let me rephrase that....most of the cachers that I know in my local community that hunt challenges generally focus more on non-traditional caches.

 

Once again, apologies for my ignorance.

[+redsox_mark 139]

Back to the OP - while setting a challenge based on "Z" caches may be arbitrary; someone hiding a bunch of Z caches nearby as a reaction I would say is "cheeky". Sorry I can't come up with a better word for it. The second hider is publically making a joke of the first cacher's challenge. I wouldn't do it.

 

As for challenge rule 6 - I think of the distinction/test as: "Do I walk by that cache I otherwise would find and log because of a challenge".

 

E.g. - a challenge which says find 100 non-traditional caches - if I have less than that number - may motivate me to find more of them. And as I have limited time I can spend caching, that might mean I find less traditionals. That is fine. If I go out targetting non-traditionals, but pass some traditionals on the way, I can find those traditionals as well without any concern about the challenge.

 

But a challenge which says I need < X% traditionals means each traditional I find works against the challange goal. Yes I can still find traditionals, but I'll get to the goal faster if I walk right by and ignore those traditionals I passed on the way.

 

I think this is what "rule 6" is trying to prevent. To not put cachers in a position where they are looking at a cache, but think "I better not log that, as it will hurt me in this challenge I am working on".

[+JL_HSTRE 293]

A challenge to find 30 Z caches so another cacher places 30 unknowns in the shape of a Z? While it cheapens the Challenge Cache a little it wouldn't be so bad IMO if they were real puzzles. But the OP said they aren't really puzzles; the real coords are given on the cache page. Doing a whole series that way cheapens Unknowns.

[+lamoracke 2]

I do not know why some folks think a challenge cache cheapens unknown finds total. Some of my challenge caches have been way tougher to complete than many of my puzzles. Fizzy Challenge. Washington Delorme. Washington County. Oregon County. Washington State History. Snohomish County History Lesson. Jasmer Challenge. Etc etc. Do not know why a challenge cache would cheapen your unknowns anymore than a 1/1 puzzle or a puzzle that is a field puzzle, rated really high, but its just simply pouring water down a tube. Or, a puzzle that is at listed coordinates but has weird hours of operation and is listed as a puzzle just to make people not show up at night. Etc etc.

 

They are all unknowns. Tough puzzles. Tough challenges. Butt easy puzzles. Butt easy challenges. Not listed at listed coordinates challenges. Hidden at listed coordinates puzzles. If you do not like a really basic challenge or basic puzzle showing up in your finds so you only have tougher ones in there, just do those.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs 1]

I do not know why some folks think a challenge cache cheapens unknown finds total. Some of my challenge caches have been way tougher to complete than many of my puzzles. Fizzy Challenge. Washington Delorme. Washington County. Oregon County. Washington State History. Snohomish County History Lesson. Jasmer Challenge. Etc etc. Do not know why a challenge cache would cheapen your unknowns anymore than a 1/1 puzzle or a puzzle that is a field puzzle, rated really high, but its just simply pouring water down a tube. Or, a puzzle that is at listed coordinates but has weird hours of operation and is listed as a puzzle just to make people not show up at night. Etc etc.

 

They are all unknowns. Tough puzzles. Tough challenges. Butt easy puzzles. Butt easy challenges. Not listed at listed coordinates challenges. Hidden at listed coordinates puzzles. If you do not like a really basic challenge or basic puzzle showing up in your finds so you only have tougher ones in there, just do those.

 

I think Joshism was commenting on the geo-art series, where every cache was an Unknown, but the coordinates were provided directly within the listing. Not really a puzzle.

[+dprovan 1105]

GC494WM - Here's one of my challenges that has seemed to accomplish that, kind of. While pretty controversial in nature, I discussed it extensively with my local reviewer before submitting it and we hashed out the qualifications and details. People continue to whine about it though.

There's an identical challenge in my area, and since I qualified for it easily, I thought it was cool. But the more I think about it, the more I realize how annoying it would be if it were if I didn't happen to do a lot of puzzle caches. Yeah, I'd just have to ignore it, and I do that for other similarly absurd caches -- the ones that require hundreds of virtual caches comes to mind, and the ones that require a minimum difficulty rating for all finds -- but I still roll my eyes when I see a challenge that can't really be satisfied: either you're in the subset of the population that already meets the requirements, or you just don't cache that way and the requirements are such that you couldn't meet the requirements even if you changed they way you cache. You'd have to stop the way you cache and cache in an entirely new way, and even then you're in a big hole and would have to work a long time just to get where you'd be if you started caching today.

 

Your cache is a good example: if my 4K finds were all traditionals, I'd have to stop finding anything else and go out and find 600 non-traditionals to meet your challenge. That's more than a new cacher, who would only have to find your 500 minimum caches, only 75 of them non-traditional, to meet your challenge.

 

Nobody has put out trails of non-traditional caches in my area yet...

After the 15% challenge was published in my area, a few different puzzle power series were published about 50 miles away, and several people have used them to get their averages above 15%. I don't know if that's why those series was published, and I've heard only good things about them, but I have my suspicions that there's a relation. But that's fine with me.

Edited September 24, 2013 by dprovan

[+lamoracke 2]

 

I think Joshism was commenting on the geo-art series, where every cache was an Unknown, but the coordinates were provided directly within the listing. Not really a puzzle.

 

Just my point though that there are so many kinds of puzzles and challenges, that the list is going to be a hodge podge of whatever your area or travels presents. Our GeoArt ones are not at listed coordinates which would be hard given they are almost all in the middle of deep water.