Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Der Wald-Pirat

German reviewers on attainable challenge caches

Recommended Posts

The new guideline concerning challenge caches states, that a challenge cache must be appealing and attainable to a significant number of geocachers.

 

Citing this rule, the German reviewers demand that an owner of a new challenge cache points to 10 geocachers in his vicinity that have already attained the challenge.

 

However, that is not what the rule demands. Attainable is not the same as attained.

 

That raises the question: What is going on here?

 

Either the rule, Groundspeak intended, is: Challenge cache must show a significant number of geocacher, who have already completed the challenge. In this case, the phrasing of the guideline is unneccessarily misguiding and should be altered, telling owners directly what to do.

Or the German reviewers have invented a new rule, not intended by Groundspeak.

 

Can someone from roundspeak please clarify the matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Can someone from Groundspeak please clarify the matter?

 

The way to seek clarification from Groundspeak is to ask the appeals group to look at the listing.

Those people aren't in these forums, responding to threads.

 

I can assure you with 100% certainty that taking your cache to appeals will NOT offend your reviewer.

 

Here's the link for doing that - http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=request

 

select 09.Appeals

Share this post


Link to post

The new guideline concerning challenge caches states, that a challenge cache must be appealing and attainable to a significant number of geocachers.

 

Citing this rule, the German reviewers demand that an owner of a new challenge cache points to 10 geocachers in his vicinity that have already attained the challenge.

 

However, that is not what the rule demands. Attainable is not the same as attained.

 

That raises the question: What is going on here?

 

Either the rule, Groundspeak intended, is: Challenge cache must show a significant number of geocacher, who have already completed the challenge. In this case, the phrasing of the guideline is unneccessarily misguiding and should be altered, telling owners directly what to do.

Or the German reviewers have invented a new rule, not intended by Groundspeak.

 

Can someone from roundspeak please clarify the matter?

 

Being in the USA, I don't have any experience with the German reviewers nor do I have any affiliation with Groundspeak, however, I have lots of experience with getting my challenge caches published so I figured I'd share some thoughts.

 

Normally, before I even go out of my way to qualify for a challenge idea that I may have, I'll shoot my local reviewer an email, even if it does meet the listing and challenge guidelines. Reviewers have the liberty to deny your challenge even if it does meet the guidelines.

 

For example - I wanted to put out a challenge that required cachers to find and log 50 Wherigo caches. When I asked my local reviewer, he decided that he would not publish it (even though I qualified), simply because there wasn't enough "Wherigo density" in the area. I have yet to appeal a decision my local reviewer has made, because he generally gives me a reasonable and rational reason as to why he thinks it's not attainable. From what I hear, the appeals system is very useful should you not agree with your local reviewer. I've even seen a challenge publish before that was appealed (which is a rarity).

 

I'm sure that due to the influx of new challenges nowadays, certain reviewers in different areas have their own set of standards for guidelines based on the diversity of the caching community in that particular area and that makes sense.

 

Personally though, I feel that "show me 10 people that qualify" is a bit over the top considering that it's a challenge. If everybody qualifies than how is it challenging? Just my point of view.....

Share this post


Link to post

What better way to show people can accomplish it than to show people that have done it?

 

I understand if the reviewer requests that you and a couple others qualify and can prove it....I just think 10 is a bit excessive. Then again, like I said, I'm not even remotely familiar with the area so it's all relative.

 

I do know one thing for sure though..... I've seen challenges publish recently in other parts of the states that would never in a million years get published in my state. So it doesn't surprise me that reviewers in Germany have a different standard for reviewing challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

I think some of the reviewers have lost sight of the definition of "challenge." It's not a Challenge if you've already completed it. Then it's simply a bookkeeping exercise. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I think it's absurd to ask anyone for a list of ten (or even ONE!) other cachers who meet the requirements. It's often difficult enough to go through my own list of finds for a challenge...but asking us to go through the find list of other people? How do they honestly expect people to do that?

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I think it's absurd to ask anyone for a list of ten (or even ONE!) other cachers who meet the requirements. It's often difficult enough to go through my own list of finds for a challenge...but asking us to go through the find list of other people? How do they honestly expect people to do that?

 

This sounds like a very compelling argument to drive a wooden stake through Challenges once and for all ;)

Share this post


Link to post

The new guideline concerning challenge caches states, that a challenge cache must be appealing and attainable to a significant number of geocachers.

 

Citing this rule, the German reviewers demand that an owner of a new challenge cache points to 10 geocachers in his vicinity that have already attained the challenge.

 

However, that is not what the rule demands. Attainable is not the same as attained.

 

That raises the question: What is going on here?

 

Either the rule, Groundspeak intended, is: Challenge cache must show a significant number of geocacher, who have already completed the challenge. In this case, the phrasing of the guideline is unneccessarily misguiding and should be altered, telling owners directly what to do.

Or the German reviewers have invented a new rule, not intended by Groundspeak.

 

Can someone from roundspeak please clarify the matter?

 

Being in the USA, I don't have any experience with the German reviewers nor do I have any affiliation with Groundspeak, however, I have lots of experience with getting my challenge caches published so I figured I'd share some thoughts.

 

Normally, before I even go out of my way to qualify for a challenge idea that I may have, I'll shoot my local reviewer an email, even if it does meet the listing and challenge guidelines. Reviewers have the liberty to deny your challenge even if it does meet the guidelines.

 

For example - I wanted to put out a challenge that required cachers to find and log 50 Wherigo caches. When I asked my local reviewer, he decided that he would not publish it (even though I qualified), simply because there wasn't enough "Wherigo density" in the area. I have yet to appeal a decision my local reviewer has made, because he generally gives me a reasonable and rational reason as to why he thinks it's not attainable. From what I hear, the appeals system is very useful should you not agree with your local reviewer. I've even seen a challenge publish before that was appealed (which is a rarity).

 

I'm sure that due to the influx of new challenges nowadays, certain reviewers in different areas have their own set of standards for guidelines based on the diversity of the caching community in that particular area and that makes sense.

 

Personally though, I feel that "show me 10 people that qualify" is a bit over the top considering that it's a challenge. If everybody qualifies than how is it challenging? Just my point of view.....

 

On the other hand, I don't think that the point of creating a challenge is to come up with a challenge that is more difficult that anything anyone else has created, nor is it necessary to create something that only a handful of people can complete. How about creating a challenge with the goal of making something that many people are going to enjoy.

 

Using some arbitrary number like "10 people that qualify" might actually be reasonable in Germany, where there is a very high density of geocaches and geocachers. I think it should be pretty obvious, but the attainability of any specific challenge needs to be evaluated based on the location of the cache. A challenge cache to find a cache 100 days in a row would be pretty much impossible to complete in most of the countries in the world, but could be relatively easy in others.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think some of the reviewers have lost sight of the definition of "challenge." It's not a Challenge if you've already completed it. Then it's simply a bookkeeping exercise. :rolleyes:

Wow, I totally agree with you.

 

I am somewhat a believer that the CO should done the challenge him/herself before making it a challenge for others.

 

Like... find two counties or more in all 50 states.(with DC included) :laughing: Its a little harder to do since I see too many cachers just cross the state line to find a cache and head out and never really visit the state. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Its a tough question to think about. The example above about 50 Wherigos. I would totally understand if reviewers in our area would not allow that challenge in Washington State because I think there are only 3 of us in Washington who even have 40 much less 50 finds for example, where in Michigan, 50 would be much more attainable.

 

There are many challenges that its not so easily defined by a total. Have seen some crazy challenges that folks have come up with that were luckily not published (despite done by creator). Personally I think its reasonable to feel that 10 cachers would complete or could complete your challenge based on similar challenges in the area or just knowing what folks have done in the area. But to KNOW 10 folks qualify? That seems a bit tough.

Share this post


Link to post

Its a tough question to think about. The example above about 50 Wherigos. I would totally understand if reviewers in our area would not allow that challenge in Washington State because I think there are only 3 of us in Washington who even have 40 much less 50 finds for example, where in Michigan, 50 would be much more attainable.

 

There are many challenges that its not so easily defined by a total. Have seen some crazy challenges that folks have come up with that were luckily not published (despite done by creator). Personally I think its reasonable to feel that 10 cachers would complete or could complete your challenge based on similar challenges in the area or just knowing what folks have done in the area. But to KNOW 10 folks qualify? That seems a bit tough.

 

I guess all that is required is GSAK and some macros and you can prove your point. Of course the server load is liable to take a major hit.

 

My feeling is if the reviewers want to impose this kind of requirements they should have discussed it with GS FIRST and then have GS change the GUIDELINES. Otherwise we have the undocumented rules that Keystone insists does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post

My feeling is if the reviewers want to impose this kind of requirements they should have discussed it with GS FIRST and then have GS change the GUIDELINES. Otherwise we have the undocumented rules that Keystone insists does not exist.

 

Au contraire, but it does exist:

 

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

I believe the debate revolves around what constitutes, "..a substantial number..". Ten doesn't sound like an unreasonable number to me, but depending on the area, it may vary.

Share this post


Link to post

My feeling is if the reviewers want to impose this kind of requirements they should have discussed it with GS FIRST and then have GS change the GUIDELINES. Otherwise we have the undocumented rules that Keystone insists does not exist.

 

Au contraire, but it does exist:

 

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

I believe the debate revolves around what constitutes, "..a substantial number..". Ten doesn't sound like an unreasonable number to me, but depending on the area, it may vary.

 

As I suggested earlier, GS can't really shouldn't quantify "a substantial number". 10 geocacher might be 1% of the geocaching population in some areas and 500% of the geocaching population in others. If GS chose 10, rather than the subjective "substantial number", areas which already had a lot of geocaches and geocachers could easily add new challenge caches, while areas with few geocachers (i.e. those areas which could actually use more geocaches) would not be able to add challenge caches.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

My feeling is if the reviewers want to impose this kind of requirements they should have discussed it with GS FIRST and then have GS change the GUIDELINES. Otherwise we have the undocumented rules that Keystone insists does not exist.

Au contraire, but it does exist:

 

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

But the German reviewers apparently expect 10 locals to "have already attained the challenge," not 10 who "would be able to do so." As the OP noted, "Attainable is not the same as attained." Big difference.

 

I recently created a challenge cache that required geocachers to find at least one Unknown Cache every consecutive day for a calendar month. I doubt anyone else in our area already had completed these requirements. (And I'm very glad I didn't have to prove that 10 of them had already done so.) It probably hadn't occurred to anyone to try to accomplish this feat. But by the end of the following calendar month, three people had finished this challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

My feeling is if the reviewers want to impose this kind of requirements they should have discussed it with GS FIRST and then have GS change the GUIDELINES. Otherwise we have the undocumented rules that Keystone insists does not exist.

 

Au contraire, but it does exist:

 

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

I believe the debate revolves around what constitutes, "..a substantial number..". Ten doesn't sound like an unreasonable number to me, but depending on the area, it may vary.

 

That's not really applicable since it says "substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so" (emphasis mine)

 

It's clearly not saying the person submitting the cache must provide evidence that others HAVE met the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

The new guideline concerning challenge caches states, that a challenge cache must be appealing and attainable to a significant number of geocachers.

 

Citing this rule, the German reviewers demand that an owner of a new challenge cache points to 10 geocachers in his vicinity that have already attained the challenge.

 

However, that is not what the rule demands. Attainable is not the same as attained.

 

That raises the question: What is going on here?

 

Either the rule, Groundspeak intended, is: Challenge cache must show a significant number of geocacher, who have already completed the challenge. In this case, the phrasing of the guideline is unneccessarily misguiding and should be altered, telling owners directly what to do.

Or the German reviewers have invented a new rule, not intended by Groundspeak.

 

Can someone from roundspeak please clarify the matter?

 

Kind of sad to think a cache can no longer be the catalyst behind a new geocaching feat.

Share this post


Link to post

Kind of sad to think a cache can no longer be the catalyst behind a new geocaching feat.

 

IIRC when the original Fizzy challenge came out nobody qualified.

 

Around here, it is convenient that we have Alamogul, who basically qualifies for everything so makes an excellent exemplar. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Kind of sad to think a cache can no longer be the catalyst behind a new geocaching feat.

 

IIRC when the original Fizzy challenge came out nobody qualified.

 

Around here, it is convenient that we have Alamogul, who basically qualifies for everything so makes an excellent exemplar. :laughing:

 

There was a challenge published around here about six weeks ago that probably no one had qualified for. I was third to find, last Tuesday and many others are actively pursuing it. It motivated me to get off my butt and back up on the mountain trails.

 

I guess something like this is no longer possible in Germany?

Edited by Don_J

Share this post


Link to post

I hope the original poster isn't blowing this out of proportion. I have had the same thing said about our challenge. The reviewer said they didn't think cachers would be able to qualify and wouldn't publish it. I told this to a few cachers I knew and they made up lists and I sent it to them and it was published. I think if you send over a list of a few who could qualify it might be published. If not then complain to GC. I would find one or 2 that qualify and send it. Then if they still say NO. I would complain that you are not going to go threw all the cachers in the area to figure out who does and doesn't qualify. I think if you send in or two you have done your part and it would be published. I cant see having to figure out 10.

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

I rather think that the "and/or" causes an issue. Moreover, there is a difference between "would be able to do so" and "have already done so".

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Based on the way it's written, the reviewer should ask if the CO has attained the suggested challenge (1st part of the sentence). The second part only asks whether or not a "substantial number" of cachers "…would be able to do so.". The implication is that they haven't done it, only that they should be able to do it.

 

Asking for 10 who have done so already is NOT in the guidelines. Asking for a list of caches that would allow any cacher to qualify for the challenge should be sufficient, regardless of whether or not they have already done so.

 

The OR is there if the CO has not met the challenge themselves so that there is another set of guidelines to allow this challenge to be published under the guidelines if the first part hasn't been met. The AND is there if the challenge might be considered very difficult by the reviewer so that both parts of the guideline have to be met. Again, not that it HAS been done, but that it CAN be done by others. Providing a list of caches that meet the challenge "should" be acceptable. Asking for 10 who have already done so isn't following the guidelines and would be creating a new precedent/guideline, IMO.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

I come down on both sides on this issue. On the one hand, I find challenges that can only be achieved by a professional geocacher to be boring and stupid.

 

On the other hand, I don't really want the reviewers involved. If people want to put out challenges that I think is stupid, I'm prepared to let them.

 

On the other hand -- "hopelessly ambidextrous" -- I'm also fine with the reviewers trying to draw some line between my subjective idea of "stupid" and a more objective concept of "ridiculous", but it does leave them in a position of dealing with complaints such as the one we're discussing. So good luck to them.

 

My views on this are clouded by living in the area where Alamogul caches, so any challenge that Alamogul doesn't already qualify for seems ridiculous prima facie. Worse, he's set a standard that others follow, so there are lots of other high numbers cachers in the area, making any "at least 10" restriction not that much higher of a bar.

Share this post


Link to post

There was a challenge published around here about six weeks ago that probably no one had qualified for. I was third to find, last Tuesday and many others are actively pursuing it. It motivated me to get off my butt and back up on the mountain trails.

 

I guess something like this is no longer possible in Germany?

I think it's more likely to be the case that it has to be attainable for a reasonable number of people in a reasonable time. I would hope reviewers could be persuaded that a challenge was legitimate even if it might be difficult to prove a certain number of people can already meet it.

 

As a way of limiting the potentially silly challenges which could be generated it's not a bad way to do things.

Share this post


Link to post

My views on this are clouded by living in the area where Alamogul caches, so any challenge that Alamogul doesn't already qualify for seems ridiculous prima facie. Worse, he's set a standard that others follow, so there are lots of other high numbers cachers in the area, making any "at least 10" restriction not that much higher of a bar.

 

It's so easy to rack up huge numbers and qualify for any challenge when one never needs to post a DNF.

 

This one appeared to be missing, so we replaced it behind the hint item. TFTC

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

the German reviewers demand that an owner of a new challenge cache points to 10 geocachers in his vicinity that have already attained the challenge.

 

I just had a quick look on what your reviewer (not me) asked you: "Weise also bitte mindestens 5, besser: 10 Cacher der Region nach, die deine Challenge erfüllen können."

 

Translation: "Please name at least 5, better 10 local cachers, which can achieve your challenge."

Share this post


Link to post

And now you have the rest of the story. Thank you to my colleague eigengott.

 

So, it appears that the German reviewers are applying this part of the challenge guideline -- which is by no means "new" -- in the same way as other reviewers apply it around the world.

 

The number of geocachers who CAN achieve or HAVE achieved a challenge cache's requirements will vary. "Find ten caches on mountain peaks" will be evaluated differently in Kansas versus Austria. The number of geocachers who have satisfied or can realistically satisfy the challenge requirements may vary based on the density of rabidly committed geocachers. Asking for five to ten names in California or Germany is different than asking for two or three names in South America or North Africa, but both requests are appropriate for those different regions.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post
"Please name at least 5, better 10 local cachers, which can achieve your challenge."

 

I would have responded with this: "Any local cacher can achieve this challenge.". Whether they have or not is, of course, an entirely different matter and, depending on the exact requirements, may be unknowable just by a perusal of their profile pages. The question as put in this translation seems rather irrelevant. Anyone can, potentially, achieve any requirements set forth in any challenge (barring the use of now illegal or unusable cache types- APE, LC, 10 Year events etc.). I also think asking whether anyone other than the owner has met the requirements is an undue burden placed on the CO. That being said there are some quite outlandish challenges out there. I've tried to make mine fun and doable yet still a challenge in some way. Sometimes I'll even give different options in how to qualify, yet still keeping the same basic flavor.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery

Share this post


Link to post

And now you have the rest of the story. Thank you to my colleague eigengott.

 

So, it appears that the German reviewers are applying this part of the challenge guideline -- which is by no means "new" -- in the same way as other reviewers apply it around the world.

 

The number of geocachers who CAN achieve or HAVE achieved a challenge cache's requirements will vary. "Find ten caches on mountain peaks" will be evaluated differently in Kansas versus Austria. The number of geocachers who have satisfied or can realistically satisfy the challenge requirements may vary based on the density of rabidly committed geocachers. Asking for five to ten names in California or Germany is different than asking for two or three names in South America or North Africa, but both requests are appropriate for those different regions.

 

This is exactly what I was trying to say earlier in the thread. The approval of challenges are generally based upon your region. While I may qualify for a "50 Wherigo caches" challenge, it wouldn't be published in my area due to the low saturation of wherigos in NJ. On the other hand,in the state of Michigan, a challenge like that may be published with no questions asked.

Share this post


Link to post
"Please name at least 5, better 10 local cachers, which can achieve your challenge."

 

I would have responded with this: "Any local cacher can achieve this challenge.". Whether they have or not is, of course, an entirely different matter and, depending on the exact requirements, may be unknowable just by a perusal of their profile pages. The question as put in this translation seems rather irrelevant. Anyone can, potentially, achieve any requirements set forth in any challenge (barring the use of now illegal or unusable cache types- APE, LC, 10 Year events etc.). I also think asking whether anyone other than the owner has met the requirements is an undue burden placed on the CO. That being said there are some quite outlandish challenges out there. I've tried to make mine fun and doable yet still a challenge in some way. Sometimes I'll even give different options in how to qualify, yet still keeping the same basic flavor.

 

This is exactly how I feel about this. I put the challenge out there and the local cachers tell me if they can/have achieved it, not the other way around. I makes no sense that I should have to carefully examine the find history of my local cachers and find 5-10 candidates to present to the reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

Au contraire, but it does exist:

 

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

That's the rule, the reviewer cites.

However, if 10 people are able to do something, doesn't mean, they've already done it.

Share this post


Link to post

the German reviewers demand that an owner of a new challenge cache points to 10 geocachers in his vicinity that have already attained the challenge.

 

I just had a quick look on what your reviewer (not me) asked you: "Weise also bitte mindestens 5, besser: 10 Cacher der Region nach, die deine Challenge erfüllen können."

 

Translation: "Please name at least 5, better 10 local cachers, which can achieve your challenge."

 

The reviewer explained to me in a live meeting on an event a few days ago, that was supposed to mean, I should show 10 geocachers who have completed the task.

Share this post


Link to post
"Please name at least 5, better 10 local cachers, which can achieve your challenge."

 

I would have responded with this: "Any local cacher can achieve this challenge.".

 

When I spoke to the reviewer, that is what I told him.

He insisted of showing 10 geocachers who can log the challenge cache immediately, because they already have completed the task.

Edited by Der Wald-Pirat

Share this post


Link to post
"Please name at least 5, better 10 local cachers, which can achieve your challenge."

 

I would have responded with this: "Any local cacher can achieve this challenge.".

 

When I spoke to the reviewer, that is what I told him.

He insisted of showing 10 geocachers who can log the challenge cache immediately, because they already have complete the task.

Then it is not much of a challenge. I guess the reviewers want the challenge to be the data mining expertise.

 

Maybe it is time to have the challenge caches join the virtual and webcam caches.

Edited by jholly

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe it is time to have the challenge caches join the virtual and webcam caches.
Or maybe Replace Challenge Caches with Achievements as has been suggested before.

 

 

The chances that GS would create an Achievement list is probably zero. Since they did away with Challenge caches, virtuals, and webcams, than getting rid of challenges could possibly happen. I bet reviewers would appreciate having a less work, and having fewer debates/arguments with people posting challenge caches.

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

Then it is not much of a challenge. I guess the reviewers want the challenge to be the data mining expertise.

Yeah, that's just what I was thinking, although we basically conceded that challenges will never be anything except data mining exercises as soon as we forbid challenges to specify that the finds had to be after the publication date.

 

Maybe it is time to have the challenge caches join the virtual and webcam caches.

Well, no, I don't think this makes challenges bad or undesirable, just less interesting than they could be. I remember how much fun I had tackling my first few challenges when I didn't have enough finds already logged to provide much data mining fodder, and I'm kinda sad that challenges cannot force the challenge to be met proactively. Although secretly I revel in the fact that when a challenge is issued, I immediately either do or don't qualify, since they're almost all so hard now that I'd never actually go out and try to achieve it intentionally.

Share this post


Link to post

Responding to some of the recent posts:

 

1. Groundspeak has not done away with challenge caches and I am not aware of any plans to do so.

 

2. Some reviewers, myself included, enjoy finding challenge caches. I logged one just today for finding a cache on 200 consecutive days. I'm also the co-owner of two popular challenge caches. That said, a majority of reviewers would likely agree that challenge caches are difficult to review, because of the extra time needed and the extra guidelines involved.

 

3. One reason why there are extra guidelines for challenge caches are to keep the genre from jumping the shark by turning into a new genre of "Additional Logging Requirements" or a "Look What I Did" genre. The guideline about demonstrating that the challenge is attainable helps with the latter issue. The guideline about "positive geocaching accomplishments" helps with the ALR concern.

 

4. Thanks to the post from veteran German reviewer eigengott, we've established that the German reviewer team is applying the special challenge guidelines consistent with the rest of the world. I'm unaware of any guidance to reviewers that there's an absolute minimum number of cachers who "have attained" the challenge requirements before it can be published. As I explained in my last post, the rule of thumb for attainability can change from region to region or from one type of challenge cache to another.

 

5. The challenge cache guidelines, like all listing guidelines, are set by Groundspeak. Like all guidelines, Groundspeak is always interested in hearing constructive feedback about the effectiveness of the challenge cache guidelines in promoting fun, achievable challenge cache experiences. Guidelines evolve in part because of feedback from reviewers and from the community.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe it is time to have the challenge caches join the virtual and webcam caches.

 

+1

 

Maybe have souvenirs for some of the more popular ones (DeLorme, Fizzy, etc.) that are automatically computed by GS.

Share this post


Link to post

4. Thanks to the post from veteran German reviewer eigengott, we've established that the German reviewer team is applying the special challenge guidelines consistent with the rest of the world.

 

Plain wrong.

Have you not read my reply to him???

Share this post


Link to post

4. Thanks to the post from veteran German reviewer eigengott, we've established that the German reviewer team is applying the special challenge guidelines consistent with the rest of the world.

 

Plain wrong.

Have you not read my reply to him???

 

I think that it might be time to appeal directly to Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

4. Thanks to the post from veteran German reviewer eigengott, we've established that the German reviewer team is applying the special challenge guidelines consistent with the rest of the world.

 

Plain wrong.

Have you not read my reply to him???

 

I think that it might be time to appeal directly to Groundspeak.

 

+1

 

It's really irrelevant what we say in the Forums (i.e. the Court of Public Opinion). In terms of resolving the issue, Appeals is really the only opinion that counts.

 

Let us know how it works out :)

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe it is time to have the challenge caches join the virtual and webcam caches.

I'd rather they joined the ranks of locationless caches... :ph34r:

 

I consistently find it ironic that cachers whose preferences are for less-popular caches are so willing to endorse banning other kinds of less-popular caches.

 

You'd think that kind of cacher would appreciate that a greater diversity of cache types is a good thing.

Edited by fizzymagic

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe it is time to have the challenge caches join the virtual and webcam caches.

I'd rather they joined the ranks of locationless caches... :ph34r:

I consistently find it ironic that cachers whose preferences are for less-popular caches are so willing to endorse banning other kinds of less-popular caches.

 

You'd think that kind of cacher would appreciate that a greater diversity of cache types is a good thing.

I had the same thought.

 

Plus, can you imagine the criticism Groundspeak would get from people who've been working months or years on really difficult challenge caches and discover they've all been archived and locked? Yikes.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe it is time to have the challenge caches join the virtual and webcam caches.

I'd rather they joined the ranks of locationless caches... :ph34r:

I consistently find it ironic that cachers whose preferences are for less-popular caches are so willing to endorse banning other kinds of less-popular caches.

 

You'd think that kind of cacher would appreciate that a greater diversity of cache types is a good thing.

I had the same thought.

 

How do you mean? What less-popular caches are you referring to? I'm not a fan of challenge caches. Seems COs are trying to out-do each other by coming up with more and more complicated and difficult-to-attain challenges which fewer cachers can accomplish. Can't say I'm a fan of any cache that tries to exclude most of the geocaching population.

 

Plus, can you imagine the criticism Groundspeak would get from people who've been working months or years on really difficult challenge caches and discover they've all been archived and locked? Yikes.

 

I would hope that they would go the way of virtuals - still loggable, just can't create new ones.

 

But I'd prefer to see a special list that COs would maintain - everyone gets to log the find if they find the cache, those that meet the challenge criteria get their name on a special challenge-accomplished list. A win-win.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×