German reviewers on attainable challenge caches

[Clan Riffster]

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...

 

I consistently find it ironic...

I consistently find it ironic that cachers whose irony level is normally so high, trips and falls when faced by a witticism. I suppose I'm to blame, since I neglected to add a winky emoticon. I honestly didn't think I'd need it, given this crowd. Obviously, I was wrong. Me culpa.

[+CanadianRockies]

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...

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.

Clan Riffster appears to enjoy hiding T5 caches that require walking/paddling through gator-infested swamps. Most are "less popular" in terms of the number of visitors, although many of those who seek them like the experience. Kind of like many difficult challenge caches.

 

Lots of my favorite caches are those that aren't aimed at most of the geocaching population: tough challenge caches, caches on top of mountains, island caches, clever puzzle caches, etc. Quite memorable, for the most part.

 

One nice aspect of geocaching is that if you're not a fan of these types of caches, then you don't have to search for them. There's even an "Ignore" option that premium members can avail themselves of.

 

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would get from people who've been working months or years on really difficult challenge caches and discover they've all been archived and locked?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.

My comment was directed at Clan Riffster's preference to see challenge caches join the ranks of locationless caches (which are archived and locked). But I see he has backpedaled on that.

[Keystone]

... and we are finished with that tangent! Yay, thread. Back to talking about challenge cache guidelines.

[+tozainamboku]

... and we are finished with that tangent! Yay, thread. Back to talking about challenge cache guidelines.

I'm not sure it's a tangent. The the comments on whether someone understands wit or irony are a tangent, but discussion of whether or not challenges serve any particular purpose that couldn't be better done using a different scheme than ALR caches is on topic.

 

As Keystone points out

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.

 

The issue is that once again the reviewers have been given a "wow" guideline. They have to look at the challenge and make a subjective call as to whether the challenge is attainable and whether it is based on positive geocaching accomplishments.

 

While there are plenty of challenges that clearly meet the guidelines, it is the nature of geocachers to push the envelope and suggest challenge that are in a borderline gray-area. One reviewer might go ahead and publish a cache like this while another one may roll out the question of "how many local cachers would actually bother to achieve this?"

 

The problem with requiring a particular number of people needed to achieve a challenge is that is is arbitrary and doesn't account for the fact that some difficult challenges might only attract one or two cachers. Just as a difficult puzzle may only see one or two solvers.

 

If there is no reasonable objective guideline for reviewers to use in judging a challenge cache, perhaps it is time to consider them going the way of virtual caches. (Like virtual caches I would expect existing challenges to be grandfathered).

 

Other have linked to suggestions for a Challenge replacement. On could accomplish the objective of a cacher setting goals for others to achieve without using caches that are little more than specialized ALRs. Moreover, in doing so, the reviewers could be removed entirely from the burden of determining what goals are reasonable.

[+CanadianRockies]

If there is no reasonable objective guideline for reviewers to use in judging a challenge cache, perhaps it is time to consider them going the way of virtual caches.

As reviewers are constantly explaining on these forums, many Groundspeak guidelines require subjective judgments.

 

When do two (or more) events consitute event stacking? It depends. How close can a cache be placed to a school? It depends. When does a web site link cause a cache listing to have commercial content? It depends. When does a cache placement require explicit permission? It depends. When is a cache allowed to be placed in a dry rock wall? It depends. When can events be held in pubs? It depends.

 

Shall we also get rid of EarthCaches because there's no reasonably objective guideline for reviewers to use in judging if a cache "accurately" provides information about "unique" features that assumes only a "basic" knowledge of geology? Or should we acknowledge that humans are required to make these types of judgments and accept that some level of inconsistency will exist, hopefully reduced somewhat by the appeals process?

[+tozainamboku]

If there is no reasonable objective guideline for reviewers to use in judging a challenge cache, perhaps it is time to consider them going the way of virtual caches.

As reviewers are constantly explaining on these forums, many Groundspeak guidelines require subjective judgments.

 

When do two (or more) events consitute event stacking? It depends. How close can a cache be placed to a school? It depends. When does a web site link cause a cache listing to have commercial content? It depends. When does a cache placement require explicit permission? It depends. When is a cache allowed to be placed in a dry rock wall? It depends. When can events be held in pubs? It depends.

 

Shall we also get rid of EarthCaches because there's no reasonably objective guideline for reviewers to use in judging if a cache "accurately" provides information about "unique" features that assumes only a "basic" knowledge of geology? Or should we acknowledge that humans are required to make these types of judgments and accept that some level of inconsistency will exist, hopefully reduced somewhat by the appeals process?

Certainly there are guidelines where the reviewers are asked to make subjective judgments. While it is correct to point out that simply having a subjective standard in a guideline isn't enough to argue that the guideline shouldn't exist, one should look at what alternatives are and if the advantage of allowing the reviewers some flexibility outweighs the inevitable criticism that will occur.

 

I'm not sure why EarthCaches are such a favorite when pointing out that sometimes reviewers make judgements. From the start EarthCache review has been handled by a separate reviewer organinization. The EarthCache reviewers have some expertise in geology and supposedly are well qualified to make the decisions on whether the EarthCache "accurately" provides information about "unique" features that assumes only a "basic" knowledge of geology.

 

As to issues on what is event stacking and the like, I suspect that these issues come up less often than imagined and that reviewers have been willing to make the judgment calls. As pointed out in the few cases where someone believes the reviewer has made the wrong call they can appeal. I'm not convinced that the appeals process has much effect on reviewer consistency. Perhaps in the reviewer forum these issues are discuss and much like case law in the real world, they give some clarification to reviewers when similar situations occur in the future.

 

My comment above addresses specifically the issues with challenge caches. I suspect that, for the time being, challenge caches that are in a grey area account for a small proportion of reviewers' time and they are willing to suffer the criticism and perhaps appeal reversals that occur when they have to make a judgement call. I do not know if the level of impact will ever reach the level of virtual caches where the reviewers will demand a change. I do know, however, that the guidelines for what is an acceptable challenge have changed over time and that the reviewers appear to have been given more guideance on this is issue. This thread is proof enough that reviewers in Germany now feel they need to ask about which cachers might complete a challenge.

 

I am not surprised that there are many geocachers who like the ability to hide caches for people who have (or will) achieve a goal, and many geocacher who see them as encouragement to try things they might not have otherwise attempted. But just as virtual caches were popular, this popularity doesn't mean that there aren't problems with this type of cache. If there are alternatives to hiding caches that can be used to make challenges and to recognize those who complete them that don't have these problems then I don't see why they shouldn't be explored.

Edited February 24, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

This thread is proof enough that reviewers in Germany now feel they need to ask about which cachers might complete a challenge.

 

As I stated earlier, it's not just in Germany. It's happening here (in RI at least) as well.

[+fizzymagic]

If there are alternatives to hiding caches that can be used to make challenges and to recognize those who complete them that don't have these problems then I don't see why they shouldn't be explored.

 

Two words: Waymarking. Challenges (the other kind).

 

I have no problem with exploring new options, but doing so by destroying what works pretty well is not a viable methodology.

 

I would have no problem with having an external group (not reviewers) determine which are achievable and which are not. I would have a problem with a non-cache "solution." I am not a fan of the idea that multiple people must have already achieved a challenge to make it approvable.

[+Harry Dolphin]

This thread is proof enough that reviewers in Germany now feel they need to ask about which cachers might complete a challenge.

 

As I stated earlier, it's not just in Germany. It's happening here (in RI at least) as well.

 

It does remind me of a discussion with a reviewer concerning one of my mystery caches. I gave her step by step instructions on how to solve the puzzle. She asked if I expected cachers to read my mind. I didn't think that was required. It seemed a fairly straightforward step to me. She said "Okay. We'll see what geocachers think."

They seem to accept it as a difficult puzzle.

 

On the other fin, bizarre challenges are not something that interest me. (Okay. I am working on the Pennsylvania County Challenge! And the Fizzy and Jasmer Challenges.) I've qualified for some strange challenges (Find a cache hidden on the day you joined GC. Total number of stars for finds on one day.) But I would never work on those. If I qualify, I qualify. Caches with twelve pairs of animals in the name: Two caches with 'dolphin', two caches with 'bat' &c. I qualified, but would never have searched or caches to qualify.

Truly bizarre caches (Like the OP's?) They don't seem to serve any useful porpoise. I guess they don't do any harm. But why bother?

[+CanadianRockies]

While it is correct to point out that simply having a subjective standard in a guideline isn't enough to argue that the guideline shouldn't exist, one should look at what alternatives are and if the advantage of allowing the reviewers some flexibility outweighs the inevitable criticism that will occur.

I agree with fizzymagic. There's nothing wrong with exploring alternatives, but if they make the situation worse, then I'd certainly be hesitant about jumping on board.

 

I'm not even sure challenge caches really present much of a problem. I know reviewers have indicated they take more time to process than typical caches, but I suspect the same holds true for EarthCaches, puzzles, events, and multi-caches. Taking longer to publish doesn't necessarily mean these cache types should be replaced.

 

Besides, what would you replace challenge caches with? One popular alternative being tossed around is the idea of souvenirs/badges/awards. But that idea has three problems I can think of off the top of my head.

 

First, it simply shifts the workload from reviewers to programmers, and there are many, many things I think Groundspeak's programmers can better spend their time working on. One nice thing about challenge caches is the huge variety in existence, lots of which would be rather difficult to convert into souvenirs. To replace a reasonable portion of those challenge caches would require a massive effort.

 

A second problem would be the big decline in creative ideas. One reason why smartphone apps, internet browser add-ons, and GSAK macros exist is because they outsource creativity. Hundreds of geocachers are coming up with new ideas for challenges and implementing them quickly and easily. Why replace that?

 

A third problem would be the hit on Groundspeak's servers. Each time someone logs a new find, the servers would need to analyze all the geocacher's finds, compare them against that geocacher's uncompleted souvenirs, and determine if they have crossed any new thresholds. Of course, Groundspeak could do this analysis once a week (or once a month) if they didn't want to take the hit of real-time analysis, but then their staff would have to handle the increase in email queries from people asking why they haven't received their souveniors yet.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

On the other fin, bizarre challenges are not something that interest me. (Okay. I am working on the Pennsylvania County Challenge! And the Fizzy and Jasmer Challenges.) I've qualified for some strange challenges (Find a cache hidden on the day you joined GC. Total number of stars for finds on one day.) But I would never work on those. If I qualify, I qualify. Caches with twelve pairs of animals in the name: Two caches with 'dolphin', two caches with 'bat' &c. I qualified, but would never have searched or caches to qualify.

Truly bizarre caches (Like the OP's?) They don't seem to serve any useful porpoise. I guess they don't do any harm. But why bother?

 

I am with you on this. They seem to get more and more convoluted all the time. They are data mining drills vice going out and finding caches you may not have otherwise. A DeLorme or County challenge will get you out exploring places you may not have visited. Some of the new challenges have you sitting in front on GSAK sifting through your past finds.

[+tozainamboku]

I would have a problem with a non-cache "solution."

I don't think there is a compromise position here. Either you believe the cache is integral to the challenge concept or not.

 

From what I understand, many people who have placed challenge caches view the cache (and the corresponding smiley) either as a reward or as a thank-you gift to those who bother to complete the challenge. And given Groundspeak's track record with other ideas, there is is a lot to said for the success of challenges caches being predicated on this.

 

However, while many found the idea of 31 souvenirs in August laughable, there were many others who found a cache every day that month. So it is possible that you don't need a smiley to have people participate.

 

While it is correct to point out that simply having a subjective standard in a guideline isn't enough to argue that the guideline shouldn't exist, one should look at what alternatives are and if the advantage of allowing the reviewers some flexibility outweighs the inevitable criticism that will occur.

I agree with fizzymagic. There's nothing wrong with exploring alternatives, but if they make the situation worse, then I'd certainly be hesitant about jumping on board.

 

I'm not even sure challenge caches really present much of a problem. I know reviewers have indicated they take more time to process than typical caches, but I suspect the same holds true for EarthCaches, puzzles, events, and multi-caches. Taking longer to publish doesn't necessarily mean these cache types should be replaced.

At this point, challenge caches do not appear to be taking up too much of the reviewers' time. But once again, the very existence of this thread does indicate a potential. The OP is disagreement with his reviewer as to whether his cache meets the guidelines. I don't deny that this happens with EarthCaches, puzzle caches, some events, and sometimes even with traditional caches that have some sort of guidelines issues. I'm not sure what percent of challenge caches have problems. Many are approved where the reviewer can tell from the listing that the challenge is within current guidelines. I have no idea how many are rejected because they clearly are not within the guidelines or how many the reviewers have to work with the cache owners to fix a problem so the cache can be published. What I do know is that I have seen a much higher percentage of challenge caches get retracted than I see for other cache types.

Besides, what would you replace challenge caches with? One popular alternative being tossed around is the idea of souvenirs/badges/awards. But that idea has three problems I can think of off the top of my head.

The alternative for challenges cache doesn't exist yet and even if it were to include some kind of souvenir or other award, I don't think the problems you list are inevitable.

First, it simply shifts the workload from reviewers to programmers, and there are many, many things I think Groundspeak's programmers can better spend their time working on. One nice thing about challenge caches is the huge variety in existence, lots of which would be rather difficult to convert into souvenirs. To replace a reasonable portion of those challenge caches would require a massive effort.

While undoubtedly there would be some coding effort, I'm not convinced that the effort will be that great. I could see using the code from the defunct geocaching challenges for this. But I could envision an even simpler solution of just using the current system where challenges are listed as caches and just removing the cache that is hidden with the the challenge.

 

I would imagine we would see an even greater variety of challenge types. The difference would be that for a fizzy challenge, a jasper challenge, or a streak, you wouldn't need one (or more) caches in every city. Globally obtainable challenges would have one challenge for everyone to log. There would likely be a lot more challenges created with local goals. The main issue in coding that I see is to provide a way to search for both local and global challenges.

 

I'll cover how I see awarding souvenirs in your item 3 below.

A second problem would be the big decline in creative ideas. One reason why smartphone apps, internet browser add-ons, and GSAK macros exist is because they outsource creativity. Hundreds of geocachers are coming up with new ideas for challenges and implementing them quickly and easily. Why replace that?

What I envision is a system where geocachers make challenges. Not some Groundspeak lackey. That's why I think you might revive the old geocaching challenge code to do this. I would envision the challenger to write up the challenge just as they do today. They just would not hide a cache to go along with it.

A third problem would be the hit on Groundspeak's servers. Each time someone logs a new find, the servers would need to analyze all the geocacher's finds, compare them against that geocacher's uncompleted souvenirs, and determine if they have crossed any new thresholds. Of course, Groundspeak could do this analysis once a week (or once a month) if they didn't want to take the hit of real-time analysis, but then their staff would have to handle the increase in email queries from people asking why they haven't received their souveniors yet.

While I would like to see some kind of system that would automatically check the proof of meeting a challenge, I don't see that as absolutely necessary. Just as one posts their proof today in the find log, there would be a challenge completed log where you would post your proof along with describing your adventures in completing the challenge. I would imagine the souvenir would be awarded on posting the challenge completed log, however the challenger could delete your log if they were not satisfied with the proof and that would remove the souvenir.

[+fizzymagic]

What I envision is a system where geocachers make challenges. Not some Groundspeak lackey. That's why I think you might revive the old geocaching challenge code to do this. I would envision the challenger to write up the challenge just as they do today. They just would not hide a cache to go along with it.

You really love "solutions" that don't involve caches, don't you? You'd think with the long string of failures of such "solutions" it might start to sink in that they don't work.

 

I have tried over the years to understand why it is that you dislike non-standard caches so much. Except from the obvious fact that you see some moral "purity" issue in it, I remain mystified. What, exactly, is it about other people having fun that is so objectionable?

 

While I would like to see some kind of system that would automatically check the proof of meeting a challenge, I don't see that as absolutely necessary.

Oh, my. An automated proof system! How, exactly, would that work? The challenge creator would have to write code to verify the completion?

 

Your post was very illuminating, though. Thank you. You have very clearly showed by example that any non-caching "solution" would be poorly-thought-out, unworkable, and not very much fun.

[+L0ne.R]

What I envision is a system where geocachers make challenges. Not some Groundspeak lackey. That's why I think you might revive the old geocaching challenge code to do this. I would envision the challenger to write up the challenge just as they do today. They just would not hide a cache to go along with it.

You really love "solutions" that don't involve caches, don't you? You'd think with the long string of failures of such "solutions" it might start to sink in that they don't work.

 

Could someone remind me why ALRs bit the dust, yet challenge ALRs are sanctioned?

 

[+CanadianRockies]

At this point, challenge caches do not appear to be taking up too much of the reviewers' time. But once again, the very existence of this thread does indicate a potential.

Ah, I see why you don't like challenge caches. They might have the potential to be problematic, maybe sometime in the future. (I guess training additional reviewers is ruled out for some reason.)

 

If Groundspeak ditched everything for which forum threads indicated potential problems, then we wouldn't have any micros, puzzles, events, power trails, travel bugs, P&Gs, caches on private property, caches on public property, etc., etc., etc.

 

Anyway, what would you replace these potentially problematic challenge caches with?

 

I could see using the code from the defunct geocaching challenges for this.

And the only potential problem you see with that wildly successful idea is the bit of coding that would be needed to enable better searching.

 

What about the issue of geocaching challenges not allowing their owners to validate the completion of those challenges? Lots of people complained about this. When they flagged issues, the burden fell upon Groundspeak staff had to investigate the individual complaints and do the judging. That could be a problem.

 

And what about the issue of geocaching challenges not being reviewed? Some forum participants complain about some of the extreme challenges that make it through the current challenge cache review process. Can you imagine the bizarre challenges that would result (and did result) from the geocaching challenges idea? That could be a problem. Of course, people could flag those challenges that they feel should be deleted and the burden could fall upon the Groundspeak staff to investigate those complaints and do the judging. That could be a problem.

 

I could go on and on, but what's the point. I've already shown that your favorite alternative doesn't meet your own criteria of being free and clear of any potential problems.

[+tozainamboku]

The digging around to point out the problems in non-existent substitute for challenge caches could elicit the same response as my saying that challenge cache could potentially be problematic.

 

For now the issues of challenges caches seem to be under control. Those who think thay they can only have fun doing a challenge if they get to log a cache and get a smiley when they are done, have no fear, these are not going away anytime soon.

 

The truth is I don't like being told I can't log a a find on a cache that I found unless I've completed some task. But even when there were ALR caches and the task wasn't necessarily geocaching related, I would do the ones I though would be fun doing and log a note on caches I found where I didn't care to do the stated task. And this is what I will continue to do with challenges. I'll keep pointing out why I don't like them and that I'd prefer a solution where people could make challenges and without restricting my ability to log finds on caches; but I can live with them.

 

In the early days of geocaching, everything became a cache. Someone had an idea for virtual caches - they became a cache type. Someone wanted to host events - we got event caches. Someone decided you should have caches you could find anywhere and we got locationless caches. Someone decided that cache owners could put conditions on when you could log a find and we got ALRs. A movie studio wanted to have a promotion using caches and we got Project A.P.E. caches. There is no doubt the idea of making everything a cache worked pretty well in the early days. Sometimes all the development needed was to add a cache type and icon. Sometimes you didn't even need that and just piggybacked on an existing type. While the forums were full of comments on whether something should be a cache or count as a find, the average geocacher just saw these as additional options in the game.

 

Overtime, however, TPTB have decided for one reason or another, to remove some of these options. They either grandfathered existing caches of these types or they archived them altogether. In some cases TPTB tried to introduce subtitutes for these caches, and I agree with fizzymagic that the track record on these substitutes has not been very good. For one, geocachers have gotten in the mindset of everything being a cache and every cache find counting as a smiley. The substitutes weren't caches so the average cacher didn't know what to make of them. In general they were ignored. Of course making something a cache doesn't guarantee success either, Wherigo caches for example.

 

fizzymagic may be right that any non-cache substitute for challenges would meet the same fate as other non-cache substitutes that Groundspeak has tried in the past. I personally know that I would try to achieve goals long before there were challenge caches. So I certainly believe that if someone were to propose some challenge that sounded interesting, I would consider trying to achieve it without a cache or a smiley (or even without a souvenir) as a reward. Simply being able to say "I've done that" would be enough motivation for me. But I'm not the average geocacher (or at least I like to believe that I am not average). It may be that some people need more motivation and it may be that a souvenir is not the same motivation as a smiley.

[+CanadianRockies]

The truth is I don't like being told I can't log a a find on a cache that I found unless I've completed some task.

But I guess you don't mind telling people what task they must complete in order to log a find on a cache. From your virtual cache description:

 

To get credit for the cache either post a picture of yourself with your GPS unit at the Sheep Corral or email me with the number of vertical posts, including the corner posts, on the south side of the Sheep Corral.

[+tozainamboku]

The truth is I don't like being told I can't log a a find on a cache that I found unless I've completed some task.

But I guess you don't mind telling people what task they must complete in order to log a find on a cache. From your virtual cache description:

 

To get credit for the cache either post a picture of yourself with your GPS unit at the Sheep Corral or email me with the number of vertical posts, including the corner posts, on the south side of the Sheep Corral.

 

Couldn't you have at least refered to my ALR cache?

 

You don't have to take anything (unless you see something you want), but you must leave something to log a find for this cache.

 

If you're going to resort to trying to catch someone as being inconsistent you could at least do your homework and find the better example.

 

BTW: I've never deleted any logs from either the virtual or the "ALR" cache. I do expect that people visit the virtual cache and not armchair log it, but I have accepted all sorts of proof even if someone didn't take the picture as described and couldn't tell me the number of posts.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Could someone remind me why ALRs bit the dust, yet challenge ALRs are sanctioned?

 

The difference is with challenge caches the task is (and must be) geocaching related (and a bunch of other requirements as listed in Geocaching Challenges.

 

While ALRs could be anything (you must post a photo of you dressed as a clown, etc).

 

The logic being that making finders do some arbitrary task is "bad", while a geocaching related task isn't.

 

Like all caches, some Challenge caches are good, others are silly or bad... (and the definition of good/bad/silly will vary from person to person).

[+niraD]

Could someone remind me why ALRs bit the dust, yet challenge ALRs are sanctioned?

As I understand it, at the time, reviewers disliked the fallout from rejecting more and more over-the-top ALRs. In contrast, Challenge Caches were not being abused to the same degree and were not producing the same kind of fallout.

 

Since then, Challenge Caches have acquired some new guidelines, because the kinds of people who tried to list over-the-top ALRs are now trying to list over-the-top Challenge Caches.