Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
jellis

Challenge rules

Recommended Posts

There is a run of challenges that have two iffy rules. One you have met 100 cachers but there is a time restriction and a photo required

It says " find caches with the help of at least 100 other cachers. Only people that you have cached with on or after 1/1/2013, can be used one this challenge."must be included in the log a picture of you with a. cacher.

 

Is this allowed

Share this post


Link to post

Seems shaky on several accounts, only one one of which is this rule:

 

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.

 

Challenge Rules

Share this post


Link to post

In order to have successfully log this cache, you must first have painted your bedroom at least 4 different colors since 10/14/2009.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache was published Feb 11,2013. I'm wondering how it got published or if it may have been changed after it was published

Share this post


Link to post

There is a run of challenges that have two iffy rules. One you have met 100 cachers but there is a time restriction and a photo required

It says " find caches with the help of at least 100 other cachers. Only people that you have cached with on or after 1/1/2013, can be used one this challenge."must be included in the log a picture of you with a. cacher.

 

Is this allowed

The challenge cache rules are about including a find before the date the cache was published. I think the important point is finding *caches*, not cachers. There does not seem to be any date restriction on finding caches with another cacher. So I would say you need to cache with the person on or after 1/1/2013 is with in the guidelines. The more troubling requirement is the requirement to include a picture. That seems to be an ALR to me and should not be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

But you have to have met the cachers at a cache that you found after that date still makes it's a restriction. Can't use caches before the date.

Share this post


Link to post

If I met you in 2010, which I think is when we met, and then found a cache together on 2/1/2013 then I think the challenge has been met. It says, or at least your post says, that you have cached with since 1/1/2013. It does not say meet *and* cached with since 1/1/2013. But I still think the bigger problem is requiring the posting of a picture.

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a Cooperation challenge which are always very easy to technically cheat on (you got to an event or a cache machine or both and say you cached with 50 people) so sounds like the CO is trying to make a picture, but requiring any picture on any cache is against the guidelines. Well, unless its an old grandfather webcam or virtual or the like.

 

Have you asked your reviewers? Would seem the easiest way to start.

Share this post


Link to post

also, has this just oh so fun rule...

 

"You MUST do more than log “TFTC” with your list of names. Some sort of recount of how meeting one or more of your friends made the experience better. (Even if you have to post an additional note due to running out of room in your found it log.)"

 

So, its trying to force you to not say TFTC in your log as well. Now, I do not like writing TFTC in a log, but I also would not like a challenge to try and force me not to, AND the people i cache with.

 

The cache by the way...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC45RX1_s-m-108-h-o-w-s-your-list-of-friends-challenge

Share this post


Link to post

Took a peek at the "co-finds" of the folks who have claimed completion of the Challenge. The first six example caches I looked at had zero photos, so I stopped looking.

Share this post


Link to post

also, has this just oh so fun rule...

 

"You MUST do more than log “TFTC” with your list of names. Some sort of recount of how meeting one or more of your friends made the experience better. (Even if you have to post an additional note due to running out of room in your found it log.)"

 

So, its trying to force you to not say TFTC in your log as well. Now, I do not like writing TFTC in a log, but I also would not like a challenge to try and force me not to, AND the people i cache with.

 

The cache by the way...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC45RX1_s-m-108-h-o-w-s-your-list-of-friends-challenge

 

Oh, that definitely is a ALR. Deleting the log will earn you an all expense paid site wide vacation.

Share this post


Link to post

also, has this just oh so fun rule...

 

"You MUST do more than log “TFTC” with your list of names. Some sort of recount of how meeting one or more of your friends made the experience better. (Even if you have to post an additional note due to running out of room in your found it log.)"

 

So, its trying to force you to not say TFTC in your log as well. Now, I do not like writing TFTC in a log, but I also would not like a challenge to try and force me not to, AND the people i cache with.

 

The cache by the way...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC45RX1_s-m-108-h-o-w-s-your-list-of-friends-challenge

 

Oh, that definitely is a ALR. Deleting the log will earn you an all expense paid site wide vacation.

 

That cache page makes my head spin. The requirement that the finds have to be after 1/1/2013 is a definite no go. Was the cache page changed after publication? Who knows, the cache page probably made the reviewers head spin like mine. :P

Share this post


Link to post

In my eye there are three questionable requirements

 

A. Cache find has to be after a certain date.

 

B. Photo is required

 

C. Cache find logs have to meet an arbirtrary quality requirement

 

One does wonder if any of these things was in the original submittal.

 

Other existing "cooperation" challenges, which this seems to be patterned after, do not have these ALRs. Example

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it's archived now, so I guess we have our answer.

Share this post


Link to post

What can I say? One or more of the SoCal Reviewers had a bad day and missed this one. As written, we should not have published it. Id est culpae. The cache has been archived.

Share this post


Link to post

What can I say? One or more of the SoCal Reviewers had a bad day and missed this one. As written, we should not have published it. Id est culpae. The cache has been archived.

I am glad you archived it instead of what seems to be rage these days and unpublish the cache. Unpublishing messes things up.

Share this post


Link to post

I have enjoyed a Cooperation challenge, even if they are not allowed anymore it would seem, so part of the premise I thought was fun. Glad it got taken care of. Area has many challenge caches in the area so should get many finds on other ones at least.

Share this post


Link to post

What can I say? One or more of the SoCal Reviewers had a bad day and missed this one. As written, we should not have published it. Id est culpae. The cache has been archived.

I am glad you archived it instead of what seems to be rage these days and unpublish the cache. Unpublishing messes things up.

The one reason I like it when they unpublish a cache is to prevent others from logging it even if it archived. The cache is still there so others will still log it. I know of many caches that violated guidelines that were archived but are still being logged, so archiving them won't accomplish what was meant to do.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes things are changed, and sometimes I just miss things up.

 

I know at one time I had two reviewing windows open. I published one and posted notes on the other. A few weeks later I got an email. I had published the cache that had multiple problems and posted the note on the cache that was. The owner of the good cache I put on hold was horribly lost and confused, and finally emailed me to wonder what the problem was. It took me a bit to realize what I had done and track down the other cache.

 

In short sometimes mistakes happen, and if it is in a busy time we may never know without an email from someone wondering what is happening.

 

I do not know what happened here (as I am not the reviewer), but sometimes things happen.

Edited by BlueRajah

Share this post


Link to post

What can I say? One or more of the SoCal Reviewers had a bad day and missed this one. As written, we should not have published it. Id est culpae. The cache has been archived.

I am glad you archived it instead of what seems to be rage these days and unpublish the cache. Unpublishing messes things up.

The one reason I like it when they unpublish a cache is to prevent others from logging it even if it archived. The cache is still there so others will still log it. I know of many caches that violated guidelines that were archived but are still being logged, so archiving them won't accomplish what was meant to do.

Locking the listing does a very nice job of preventing logs or notes from being posted. When the cache is unpublished it only shows in your MyFinds PQ for your log. It will not show in the in the API call to get user logs, and if you go to the cache search page and search for found by user names it won't show there. It will not show on project-gc since it uses the API calls. Drove me crazy one time figuring out why my count was off by one. Others have reported counts off by two or more because of unpublished caches. My feeling is that if there are finds on the cache the listing should not be unpublished but rather archived and locked then folks to go crazy trying to figure out why the counts are off. Of course this would not be a problem if GS would fix their broken API.

Share this post


Link to post

What can I say? One or more of the SoCal Reviewers had a bad day and missed this one. As written, we should not have published it. Id est culpae. The cache has been archived.

I am glad you archived it instead of what seems to be rage these days and unpublish the cache. Unpublishing messes things up.

The one reason I like it when they unpublish a cache is to prevent others from logging it even if it archived. The cache is still there so others will still log it. I know of many caches that violated guidelines that were archived but are still being logged, so archiving them won't accomplish what was meant to do.

Locking the listing does a very nice job of preventing logs or notes from being posted. When the cache is unpublished it only shows in your MyFinds PQ for your log. It will not show in the in the API call to get user logs, and if you go to the cache search page and search for found by user names it won't show there. It will not show on project-gc since it uses the API calls. Drove me crazy one time figuring out why my count was off by one. Others have reported counts off by two or more because of unpublished caches. My feeling is that if there are finds on the cache the listing should not be unpublished but rather archived and locked then folks to go crazy trying to figure out why the counts are off. Of course this would not be a problem if GS would fix their broken API.

Now that I agree with and maybe GS and reviewer could read that and understand why it would be a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post

What can I say? One or more of the SoCal Reviewers had a bad day and missed this one. As written, we should not have published it. Id est culpae. The cache has been archived.

I am glad you archived it instead of what seems to be rage these days and unpublish the cache. Unpublishing messes things up.

The one reason I like it when they unpublish a cache is to prevent others from logging it even if it archived. The cache is still there so others will still log it. I know of many caches that violated guidelines that were archived but are still being logged, so archiving them won't accomplish what was meant to do.

Locking the listing does a very nice job of preventing logs or notes from being posted. When the cache is unpublished it only shows in your MyFinds PQ for your log. It will not show in the in the API call to get user logs, and if you go to the cache search page and search for found by user names it won't show there. It will not show on project-gc since it uses the API calls. Drove me crazy one time figuring out why my count was off by one. Others have reported counts off by two or more because of unpublished caches. My feeling is that if there are finds on the cache the listing should not be unpublished but rather archived and locked then folks to go crazy trying to figure out why the counts are off. Of course this would not be a problem if GS would fix their broken API.

Now that I agree with and maybe GS and reviewer could read that and understand why it would be a great idea.

 

I understand where you guys are coming from on the whole retract listing thing, however I do believe that sometimes it's necessary. For example; a cache gets published and then the description is changed to something that could be misconstrued or

something offensive. I can only imagine that GS doesn't want to have any kind of history or affiliation with listing that sort of stuff. Even if the listing is archived and locked, you would still be able to look up the offensive material via their site.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand where you guys are coming from on the whole retract listing thing, however I do believe that sometimes it's necessary. For example; a cache gets published and then the description is changed to something that could be misconstrued or

something offensive. I can only imagine that GS doesn't want to have any kind of history or affiliation with listing that sort of stuff. Even if the listing is archived and locked, you would still be able to look up the offensive material via their site.

 

Wouldn't GS have the ability to remove anything offensive from the listing? I think a cache listing with content removed, locked and archived would be better than unpublishing once the cache has been found and logs posted.

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't GS have the ability to remove anything offensive from the listing? I think a cache listing with content removed, locked and archived would be better than unpublishing once the cache has been found and logs posted.

 

I don't know Groundspeak's rules in this regard. However, I can understand why they'd be hesitant to allow moderators & lackeys to edit other people's text. It opens up a whole host of problems that they might want to avoid. (How should Groundspeak define "offensive"?)

 

The current scheme (it's enabled or it's not, it's locked or it's not) seems to be simple enough. You might disagree with a moderator's decision on your cache, but there's never any doubt that the text is yours.

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't GS have the ability to remove anything offensive from the listing? I think a cache listing with content removed, locked and archived would be better than unpublishing once the cache has been found and logs posted.

I don't know Groundspeak's rules in this regard. However, I can understand why they'd be hesitant to allow moderators & lackeys to edit other people's text. It opens up a whole host of problems that they might want to avoid. (How should Groundspeak define "offensive"?)

 

The current scheme (it's enabled or it's not, it's locked or it's not) seems to be simple enough. You might disagree with a moderator's decision on your cache, but there's never any doubt that the text is yours.

While it isn't done very often, Groundspeak allows its moderators to edit text on forum posts. Normally, there's an insertion along the lines of "[Text edited by moderator because it violates the forum guidelines.]"

 

I could see something like that used in cases of cache descriptions that contain offensive material that the owner refuses to modify and the reviewer has archived and locked.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes things are changed, and sometimes I just miss things up.

 

I know at one time I had two reviewing windows open. I published one and posted notes on the other. A few weeks later I got an email. I had published the cache that had multiple problems and posted the note on the cache that was. The owner of the good cache I put on hold was horribly lost and confused, and finally emailed me to wonder what the problem was. It took me a bit to realize what I had done and track down the other cache.

 

In short sometimes mistakes happen, and if it is in a busy time we may never know without an email from someone wondering what is happening.

 

I do not know what happened here (as I am not the reviewer), but sometimes things happen.

 

Can I make an honest observation here? I'd never try to cause any trouble. :) I believe I have seen many examples here in the forums, and from personal observation (some in the territory for my reviewer, but most not) where it appears the reviewer did not read the cache description at all. I'd say most of these are caches with obvious ALR's, but there are other examples, such as a clueless n00b submitting a cache not at the posted coordinates, and listing it as a traditional, or a totally blatant admission that the cache is a vacation cache. I just can't believe in every single case it's been the ol' "change the cache page after publication trick". Do reviewers in general look over the cache description, looking for ALR's and stuff?

Share this post


Link to post

No date restrictions are allowed, and photo requirements constitute an ALR, which are also not allowed.

 

It seems to me that

 

1) The Reviewer wasn't paying attention

 

or

 

B) The page was changed after the cache was published.

 

I'm voting for B.

 

The best and quickest way to take care of it would be to contact the Reviewer that published the thing. The CO would only say "It got published, so I'm not gonna change anything." if you contact him/her.

Share this post


Link to post

Do reviewers in general look over the cache description, looking for ALR's and stuff?

 

I can only speak for myself. I read the caches as I go through them. Obviously a new cacher placing a complex hide or challenge is going to have a more thorough review than the cacher that is placing traditional hide #455 on a power trail. I have some cachers that I have seen place problem caches again and again. They will get more scrutiny than someone else. I have published caches and gone "oh crap" and hurriedly retracted them as I see something that is wrong as the publish page refreshes. That is usually followed by an email from someone who had their notifications on, and can't find the cache page.

 

About archiving/retraction. Personally (speaking for me) If someone has found the cache, I tend to archive it, then lock it seems like people are still finding it. If the cache has not been found a retraction is better. That is just my opinion, and others have different thoughts on it. It is also not set in stone, and lets reviewer and the cache owner decide.

Share this post


Link to post

No date restrictions are allowed, and photo requirements constitute an ALR, which are also not allowed.

 

It seems to me that

 

1) The Reviewer wasn't paying attention

 

or

 

B) The page was changed after the cache was published.

 

I'm voting for B.

 

The best and quickest way to take care of it would be to contact the Reviewer that published the thing. The CO would only say "It got published, so I'm not gonna change anything." if you contact him/her.

 

:unsure:

 

What can I say? One or more of the SoCal Reviewers had a bad day and missed this one. As written, we should not have published it. Id est culpae. The cache has been archived.

 

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

Do reviewers in general look over the cache description, looking for ALR's and stuff?

 

I can only speak for myself. I read the caches as I go through them. Obviously a new cacher placing a complex hide or challenge is going to have a more thorough review than the cacher that is placing traditional hide #455 on a power trail. I have some cachers that I have seen place problem caches again and again. They will get more scrutiny than someone else. I have published caches and gone "oh crap" and hurriedly retracted them as I see something that is wrong as the publish page refreshes. That is usually followed by an email from someone who had their notifications on, and can't find the cache page.

 

About archiving/retraction. Personally (speaking for me) If someone has found the cache, I tend to archive it, then lock it seems like people are still finding it. If the cache has not been found a retraction is better. That is just my opinion, and others have different thoughts on it. It is also not set in stone, and lets reviewer and the cache owner decide.

 

It seems to me that if a cache has been archive, especially if the CO submitted that archive log, that the CO should delete any found it logs posted after the cache has been archive. I see it as cache listing maintenance that should be done even if the cache has been archived. I suppose that is a CO had an issue where they were spending a lot of time deleting bogus logs they could ask that the listing be locked (can a regular use lock their own cache?)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

1. Only Groundspeak Lackeys or Reviewers can lock a listing.

 

2. In a case like this where the Reviewer took responsibility for overlooking the listing guideline issues, query whether it's fair to lock the listing at the time of archival -- especially for a challenge cache. For ANY cache, locking the listing presents a problem for "late loggers." This includes not only the geocachers who are six months behind in their logs, but also the group accounts that split into individual accounts, the kids who decide to get accounts separate from their parents, etc., often years after the fact. For a Challenge cache, there could be geocachers out there who were 90% of the way towards completing the challenge requirements. If they finished their work and logged a find after signing the logbook in the near future, it would be sad if the listing were locked or if the find were deleted.

 

3. The reviewer was too humble to provide one obvious possible explanation for the oversight. This rather complex challenge cache came into the review queue as part of a batch of 50 caches all at once, forming part of a series of around 250 caches that the owner wanted published all at the same time. It's very easy to read too quickly and overlook details when a volunteer is presented with that work order.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this is a bit off topic, but when a cache gets retracted what exactly happens? I know I can't view it, but does it still exist like any other cache page the CO has made, and the CO can fix/edit it? or does it dissapear in pink smoke and clorox?

Share this post


Link to post

1. Only Groundspeak Lackeys or Reviewers can lock a listing.

 

Please clarify the proper procedure for us to follow to have an archived listing locked.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

1. A retracted listing goes back to its unpublished form and is freely editable. It then has to go through the review process again before it can be republished. A retracted and archived listing is as dead as a listing can possibly be.

 

2. To have a listing locked, contact your local reviewer by email. Include a link to the cache. It is possible that they will say "no" depending on the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post

Yea not sure on the specifics here but if it was found it shouldn't be taken away. We are working on a streak and often only find one cache for the day. If it was to disappear it would be a problem for us.

Share this post


Link to post

Yea not sure on the specifics here but if it was found it shouldn't be taken away. We are working on a streak and often only find one cache for the day. If it was to disappear it would be a problem for us.

 

Assuming you're referring to a retracted listing; finds on retracted listings are not lost. Find count remains. You can see your log from the link from your profile, but you can't see the cache page. If you download a MyFinds Query, the entire listing comes in that query. I have 2 DNFs and a find on GCQFWE. If you check for that, it's "unpublished" - I see it as Unpublished. But I do get the listing with MyFinds PQ.

 

I'm not sure how this thread turned sidewise into retraction. The listing that started it was archived, not retracted.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×