Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
alsterdrache

Icon for Challenge Geocaches

Recommended Posts

Jeeez! I wouldn't have approved that one. How does it go along with this excerpt from the guidelines "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers." ?

Not always. There are many trails out with a bonus on the end as last cache when you have accomplished the entire trail or the entire puzzle series. The bonus is a challenge cache. At the moment when a trail+bonus is published, no one has done the trail yet and zero cachers (including the cache owner!) have done the challenge.

Yep. We have one of those, a really popular trail in Ontario where originally there was one (now very old) 5/5 that required an enormous hike and adventure.

And then a powertrail showed up...

And then a challenge cache was posted at the very end, specifically one you'd qualify to find after completing about 95% of the powertrail (minimum DT stars in a day), though the challenge is still doable by other means on other dates.

I have some issues with certain power trails and challenges, but encouraging folks to get out for an adventure along an enormous hike isn't one of my top concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
I just don't like to leave a perfectly good cache out there "unfound" simply because I don't have (and likely never will have) a one-year geostreak.[...]
I just don't like to leave a perfectly good cache out there "unfound" simply because I can't solve the puzzle to get the co-ords.[...]
How about focusing on issues that are unique to challenge caches. For example:

 

I just don't like to leave a perfectly good cache out there "unfound" when I've actually gone to the cache location, found the cache, and signed the log. There are many challenges very close to my home that I can't claim...and yes, I have put them on the ignore list. I'd like to not have to ignore them and just go find them and then log those finds online. It's not OCD or some obsession with smilie counts. I like to find geocaches and log those finds online. That's all. Why should my find count be inaccurate because of these weird rules some dude who caches every spare minute of every day created to show off his amazing statistical prowess?

 

 

Now the complaint is about a feature that is unique to challenge caches, and not about something that applies equally to puzzle caches, or to high terrain caches, or to well-camouflaged caches, or to any other non-challenge caches.

I was focusing on the ridiculousness of someone hunting a cache they know they can't log, and then complaining about it and demanding that the rules be changed so they can log it. Not being able to accept that not all caches will be found by you, and expecting that the rules be changed to suit you, is entitlement - and that's a problem with the cacher, not the cache/cache type.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Jeeez! I wouldn't have approved that one. How does it go along with this excerpt from the guidelines "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers." ?

 

Not always. There are many trails out with a bonus on the end as last cache when you have accomplished the entire trail or the entire puzzle series. The bonus is a challenge cache. At the moment when a trail+bonus is published, no one has done the trail yet and zero cachers (including the cache owner!) have done the challenge.

Just to clarify, the guideline states that the challenge needs to be attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. It doesn't say the challenge must already have been accomplished by anybody at the time of publication.

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't like to leave a perfectly good cache out there "unfound" simply because I can't solve the puzzle to get the co-ords. There are many puzzle caches very close to my home that I can't claim...and yes, I have put them on the ignore list. I'd like to not have to ignore them and just go find them and have them count. It's not OCD or some obsession with smilie counts. I like to find geocaches. That's all. Why should my found count be limited by these weird rules some dude who creates 'impossible' puzzles to show off his amazing puzzle prowess?

 

Sounds like entitlement issues to me - "I can't (or won't) do the prerequisites for the cache, but I still deserve to find it. So change the rules so I can!"

Big difference. If you find a puzzle cache you can log it as Found. You don't have to solve the puzzle, you can tag along with someone else who has solved it, or find it by using the proximity rules, or ask someone to give you the coordinates, or just accidentally stumble across the cache when looking for a place to hide your own cache. However you get there, a find is a find.

 

Perhaps my issue is that I like to take things at face value. When I go to an Event, I log "Attended". If I do a Webcam, I log a "Webcam Photo Taken". If I find a challenge cache, the log says "Found it", not "Completed Challenge".

Share this post


Link to post

I was focusing on the ridiculousness of someone hunting a cache they know they can't log, and then complaining about it and demanding that the rules be changed so they can log it. Not being able to accept that not all caches will be found by you*, and expecting that the rules be changed to suit you, is entitlement - and that's a problem with the cacher, not the cache/cache type.

 

* Emphasis is mine

 

But, again, there's the rub. The cacher has indeed found the cache so why should the logging of that find be denied? This is quite different from not being able to log a cache that involves a canoe when one doesn't own a boat. In that case, the person hasn't reached ground zero, hasn't found the container, and hasn't signed the log.

 

This is one of the reasons I won't hunt for a challenge cache until I have completed the requirements. The day I find the container is the day I find the cache, so I don't want my caching history to show I found a cache on May 19, 2015 (when I completed the challenge) when I actually found the container on June 4, 2013.

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't like to leave a perfectly good cache out there "unfound" simply because I can't solve the puzzle to get the co-ords. There are many puzzle caches very close to my home that I can't claim...and yes, I have put them on the ignore list. I'd like to not have to ignore them and just go find them and have them count. It's not OCD or some obsession with smilie counts. I like to find geocaches. That's all. Why should my found count be limited by these weird rules some dude who creates 'impossible' puzzles to show off his amazing puzzle prowess?

 

Sounds like entitlement issues to me - "I can't (or won't) do the prerequisites for the cache, but I still deserve to find it. So change the rules so I can!"

Big difference. If you find a puzzle cache you can log it as Found. You don't have to solve the puzzle, you can tag along with someone else who has solved it, or find it by using the proximity rules, or ask someone to give you the coordinates, or just accidentally stumble across the cache when looking for a place to hide your own cache. However you get there, a find is a find.

 

Perhaps my issue is that I like to take things at face value. When I go to an Event, I log "Attended". If I do a Webcam, I log a "Webcam Photo Taken". If I find a challenge cache, the log says "Found it", not "Completed Challenge".

If challenge caches had their own icon or attribute, then it probably wouldn't be a difficult programming task for Groundspeak to change their "Found It" to instead read "Completed Challenge" (or, more accurately, "Completed Challenge and Found It." While they were at it, they could make similar changes for virtuals, EarthCaches, GPS Adventure Exhibits, locationless caches, and lab caches.

 

Once they finish that, they could rename our overall "Finds" count to read "Finds, Attends, Webcam Photos Taken, Completed Challenges and Found Its, Answers Sent, Exhibits Viewed, Coordinates Posted, and Codewords Sent."

Share this post


Link to post

I was focusing on the ridiculousness of someone hunting a cache they know they can't log, and then complaining about it and demanding that the rules be changed so they can log it. Not being able to accept that not all caches will be found by you*, and expecting that the rules be changed to suit you, is entitlement - and that's a problem with the cacher, not the cache/cache type.

* Emphasis is mine

 

But, again, there's the rub. The cacher has indeed found the cache so why should the logging of that find be denied? This is quite different from not being able to log a cache that involves a canoe when one doesn't own a boat. In that case, the person hasn't reached ground zero, hasn't found the container, and hasn't signed the log.

But, according to Groundspeak, the cacher hasn't "found" the challenge cache until they both complete the requirement and find the container. This is clearly spelled out in their guidelines.

 

You're thinking too literally. "Found" is just a convenient shorthand. When Groundspeak says "found" a challenge cache, what they really mean is "completed the requirements and found the container." Just like when they say "found" an EarthCache, what they really mean is "went to the posted coordinates and sent in acceptable answers." When they display your overall "Finds" count, they don't literally mean number of containers found.

Share this post


Link to post

I really enjoy the vivid discussion here but don't get lost in minor or technical details, guys ... Have a great weekend everybody!

Share this post


Link to post

I was focusing on the ridiculousness of someone hunting a cache they know they can't log, and then complaining about it and demanding that the rules be changed so they can log it. Not being able to accept that not all caches will be found by you*, and expecting that the rules be changed to suit you, is entitlement - and that's a problem with the cacher, not the cache/cache type.

* Emphasis is mine

 

But, again, there's the rub. The cacher has indeed found the cache so why should the logging of that find be denied? This is quite different from not being able to log a cache that involves a canoe when one doesn't own a boat. In that case, the person hasn't reached ground zero, hasn't found the container, and hasn't signed the log.

But, according to Groundspeak, the cacher hasn't "found" the challenge cache until they both complete the requirement and find the container. This is clearly spelled out in their guidelines.

 

You're thinking too literally. "Found" is just a convenient shorthand. When Groundspeak says "found" a challenge cache, what they really mean is "completed the requirements and found the container." Just like when they say "found" an EarthCache, what they really mean is "went to the posted coordinates and sent in acceptable answers." When they display your overall "Finds" count, they don't literally mean number of containers found.

Agreed, which is why I would like to see challenge caches brought in line with other physical caches. Virts, Earthcaches, and Webcams have no physical container so it makes sense to have some sort of verification.

 

I don't see any difference between "Wear a funny hat and post a photo of you at the cache in order to log a Find" and "Show me you filled in your D/T grid to claim a Find". Yet Groundspeak thinks one is acceptable and one is not. A little consistency from the frog would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any difference between "Wear a funny hat and post a photo of you at the cache in order to log a Find" and "Show me you filled in your D/T grid to claim a Find". Yet Groundspeak thinks one is acceptable and one is not. A little consistency from the frog would be nice.

You don't see a difference and I don't see a difference, but as you say Groundspeak does see a difference.

 

A Toz History Lesson

 

I believe there are historical reasons for this as well as a business reason.

 

Historically there had always been ALRs that were geocaching related accomplishments. Some of the earliest were seed caches that has a bunch of smaller caches inside any where you had to hide one of these as new cache in order to log a find. Eventually TPTB banned this particular type of ALR (prior even to banning other ALRs), because they felt it resulted in low quality caches being places and because they wanted to emphasize that cache ownership is a long term commitment that people should make because they wanted to hide a cache an not to get some kind of reward for doing so. However there were other hides that required finding certain caches or finding a certain number of caches, or even having actually picked trash at a CITO event.

 

The major change occurred when someone placed a Delorme Challenge where you had to email the cache owner with proof you completed the challenge to get the final coordinates. Reviewers denied the cache because it seemed to violate two guidelines - it was commercial in that it promoted Delorme, and it required emailing the cache owner for the final (which had already become a restriction for puzzle caches). Appeals to Groundspeak revealed a business reason to allow this cache. This specific type of challenge would (in the opinion of Groundspeak) appeal to many geocachers. It would result in people geocaching in more areas than just locally and would encourage caches to be places in more remote areas of the state that had few caches. Delorme either already was advertising GPS units and maps, or they started doing so soon afterward, so the commercial aspect could be covered as this not being free advertising for a company but good will toward a company that already advertised on Geocaching.com. The email part was still problematic but was given an exception for the special nature of the cache.

 

Sometime later, complaints about silly ALRs reached a level that Groundspeak felt the need to deal with them. Their initial attempt (mistake?) was to specifically allow ALRs if listed as Unknown type. The idea was that people knew they needed to read the cache page before looking for an Unknown type cache. This allowed a slew or challenge caches ideas that TPTB would not give the same exceptions as were given to Delorme and some similar challenges. After all completing as challenge was just an ALR and by hiding the cache at the posted coordinated, the issue with emailing a cache owner was removed.

 

During this period there was a flood of caches with silly ALRs - escalating as people tried to outdo each other's ALRs. There was also a flood of silly challenges that appealed to ever smaller number of geocachers. But there were a few ideas for ALRs that were fun to do and some of these were for challenges that would appeal to a significant number of caches and benefit geocaching.

 

Groundspeak's next attempt (IMO, not a "better" mistake but a "bigger" mistake), was to ban all ALRs. They decided that the idea of making ALRs be listed as Unknown had backfired as now everyone seemed to want to create the most obtuse and difficult ALRs. The reviewers were unable to do anything short of having another "wow" requirement to decide which ALRs were fun and worthwhile. However, when this change was announced, geocaching-related challenge ALRs were excepted. After all, challenge caches had always been part of geocaching and many of them were seen as popular and beneficial.

 

But challenges, like ALRs in general, could be abused. Again there was an escalation of the difficulty or the complexity of completing a challenge. Many challenge no longer has the general appeal to geocachers, and many resulted in low quality caches getting placed to make it easier to meet a challenge. In their third attempt (IMO a "better" mistake, but probably still a mistake), Groundspeak created guidelines to limit or forbid the most egregiously bad challenges. The grandfathered in any existing Challenge caches, meaning there are a lot of challenges out there that have potential issues. In addition, the guidelines give reviewers discretion - necessary to allow things like Jasper challenges and fizzy challenges (which if used judiciously can have broad appeal)- but which can also be use to create complex requirements that make a challenge either nearly impossible to complete or just too much work to track one's progress.

 

There are historic and business reasons why, I believe, Groundspeak is not about to put an end to challenge caches. When I, and others, criticize challenge caches, it isn't to get them banned; that just isn't going to happen. It's to try and find better ways to deal with problems caused by challenge caches. That may be better guidelines or it may be ways to redo the challenge so that it doesn't create an ALR.

 

This thread has sure moved away from the issue of whether Challenge caches deserve their own icon.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you, tozainamboku, for this both elaborate and considered contribution which I really enjoyed reading. Groundspeak is the leading platform for geocaching on the Internet and they just try their best to develop the game. In the early days, one needed to have a GPSr device, very expensive and available only for a small elite. Nowadays, after the invention of smartphones, geocaching has become a hobby for the masses. I personally consider that to be great that it has lost its elitarian character but for others, this is the pure decline of the West (I exaggerate, you know what I mean.) Along with all this, newer features like souvenirs which you reject or Challenges (those abolished in December 2012), or Challenge Geocaches are simply parts of keeping the game attractive to a broader audience. While I give all inventions at least a try before I judge on them, some people simply want to old days of, say, 2000 to 2004 back but that will not happen. Asking for having Challenge Geocaches their own icon and sub-category is a consequence of their existence that would help some people to identify them easier on the interactive map and others to avoid them in a quicker way. And yes, if there were a new icon for a "new" geocache type, some people would probably just place such a geocache in order to have that icon on their owner's list, ok, but isn't that true with all invention, use and (at least "felt") misuse, I wonder? Although that was way before I found my way to this hobby, I am really convinced that there were great, good, average, and very bad geocaches already in the early years ... Am I right, asking you as one of the pioneers? Take care & regards to Sherman Oaks! I used to live there (Hazeltine Ave.), a long time ago ... Alex

Share this post


Link to post

My whole thing with challenge caches is shouldn't "finding 12 caches with 'chicken' in the title" be what is being rewarded, rather than "finding 12 caches with 'chicken' in the title and also finding a cache that can only be logged by people who have found 12 caches with 'chicken' in the title." All that does is result in a cache that people can find but that they can't "log".

 

I'm all for honoring people who complete such a challenge, I just don't see the point in having to validate an accomplishment by finding another cache that can only be found and logged by those. Let there be "accomplishment cache page".. if you meet the requirement, you can log it, no tupperware to find. Heck the person who makes up the "accomplishment" cache could even place a separate tradtional cache if they wanted "in honor" of those who have completed the accomplishment. But having caches out there that can be physically found, but some people aren't qualifed to log, is basically just an ALR.

 

And the 'scuba' analogy (not everyone has to find every cache) doesn't apply. If I can get to a scuba cache without scuba gear (or if I can get to a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle) I can still log it.

 

A challenge cache is what it is - a permitted ALR.

 

p.s. I would think the only way for challenge caches to work within the ALR guidelines would be to only release the co-ordinates to people who have completed the challenges. If a non-qualifier stumbles upon the "challenege" cache, much like someone who has stumbled upon a puzzle cache (whether by luck or "phoning a friend") then they could log it.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all for honoring people who complete such a challenge, I just don't see the point in having to validate an accomplishment by finding another cache that can only be found and logged by those. Let there be "accomplishment cache page".. if you meet the requirement, you can log it, no tupperware to find.

One common denominator for all current geocache types is going to a particular location. If a challenge cache didn't require the "geocacher" to go to a particular location, then I think it would stretch the definition of a geocache too far. One (of many) factors that killed "Geocaching Challenges" (with the caped superhero) was the "Kiss a Frog" challenge, which you could do on your sofa. For most of us, that just isn't geocaching. I'd rather see challenge caches turned into some sort of Achievement Badges with no smiley, although even that's far less preferable than the current system.

 

And the 'scuba' analogy (not everyone has to find every cache) doesn't apply. If I can get to a scuba cache without scuba gear (or if I can get to a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle) I can still log it.

My SCUBA analogy wasn't to demonstrate that "not everyone has to find every cache." The analogy was in reference to the statement that "challenge caches exclude a lot of people." There are many examples of caches that exclude lots of people, including SCUBA caches, boat caches, mountain-top caches, and tricky puzzle caches. Many of us think that not every cache has to appeal to every geocacher. A subtle but important difference.

 

A challenge cache is what it is - a permitted ALR.

Yep. And many of us think that having a diverse range of cache types is a good thing rather than a bad thing. I probably would have gotten very bored of geocaching long ago if it was limited to only traditional caches. Vive la différence.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

If a challenge cache didn't require the "geocacher" to go to a particular location, then I think it would stretch the definition of a geocache too far.

 

One (of many) factors that killed "Geocaching Challenges" (with the caped superhero) was the "Kiss a Frog" challenge, which you could do on your sofa. For most of us, that just isn't geocaching. I'd rather see challenge caches turned into some sort of Achievement Badges with no smiley, although even that's far less preferable than the current system.

Wouldn't have call it a cache, just call it an achievement. Heck let 'em even have a smiley.

 

My SCUBA analogy wasn't to demonstrate that "not everyone has to find every cache." The analogy was in reference to the statement that "challenge caches exclude a lot of people."

But if I'm excluded from a cache because I don't have the equipment or knowledge to find or solve it, it's my choice to not attempt it, that's different than merely excluding people who haven't met the requirments.

 

Yep. And many of us think that having a diverse range of cache types is a good thing rather than a bad thing.

I think that having a diverse range of cache types is a good thing, too. But any argument as to why we allow these types of exclusionary ALR challenge caches, but not other ALR's doesn't make sense to me.

 

Cacher A logs a challenge cache he signed the log of but didn't complete the requirements for = CO can delete the log.

Cacher B logs a puzzle cache he signed the log of but cheated in solving because he called a friend = CO can't delete the log because "requiring cacher to jump through the hoops of actually solving the puzzle" would be an un-allowable ALR.

 

I get that that is how it is, but explain how that is not an illogical double-standard.

 

How about this: can I make a challenge cache, where the 'challenge' is to merely solve a puzzle without cheating. Hmmm. Conundrum.

 

In another thread about puzzle caches and preventing cheating, etc., I was told that an underlying basic tenet of Geocaching is: If you can sign the log, you have deserve the smiley, end of story. (Unless it's a challenge cache, apparently)

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

The fact is, the way we're playing the game has progressed, but Groundspeak isn't keeping up with us.

 

More likely, they'll tell us something we're doing and enjoying isn't up to snuff with them and to stop doing it.

Share this post


Link to post

In the early days, one needed to have a GPSr device, very expensive and available only for a small elite.

 

It gets slightly off-topic, but I need to comment on that.

I have found my first caches without a GPS-receiver and could easily have continued to do so for quite a while. I bought a GPS for the purpose of hiking and not for geocaching. My GPS-receiver was cheaper than smartphones are.

I do not own a smartphone and do not have a mobile phone contract. I could afford them, but have no need for them.

 

I personally consider that to be great that it has lost its elitarian character but for others, this is the pure decline of the West (I exaggerate, you know what I mean.)

 

The real issue for me is not whether someone uses a dedicated GPS-unit or a smartphone (e.g. a friend of mine who likes hiking caches very much caches with a smartphone). It's the shift in interests and in what geocaching is about for the cachers. Personally I think that geocaching stores with all the types of non standard containers they sell and the fact that most of those who entered geocaching recently are not outdoor persons and do not enjoy hiking had much more dramatic effects on geocaching than the usage of smartphones.

 

In earlier days a cache that invited for a nice and decent walk and at the end a container into which trackables fitted was the standard. Nowadays such caches somehow are the exception in some area.

 

It is not about being elitist, but missing the aspects for which I started geocaching. For me it never has been about finding miniature fake bird nests and fiddling around with tiny log sheets etc

 

While I give all inventions at least a try before I judge on them, some people simply want to old days of, say, 2000 to 2004 back but that will not happen.

 

Of course that will not happen. However not everything needs to be tried to know that one does not like it.

 

Asking for having Challenge Geocaches their own icon and sub-category is a consequence of their existence that would help some people to identify them easier on the interactive map and others to avoid them in a quicker way.

 

Still it is very unlikely that this ever will happen.

 

Although that was way before I found my way to this hobby, I am really convinced that there were great, good, average, and very bad geocaches already in the early years ...

 

You did not ask me, but I'd like to reply nevertheless. I do not like the notion of good/bad/average etc applied to geocaching. I distinguish between caches I enjoy/like and those I do not enjoy/like. I often recommend caches to other caches that I did not like at all and the other way round. I like to visit caches that you would regard as average as my daily life is stressing enough. I do not want to be exposed to adventures and special things too often. The expectations of people are too different to judge the quality of a geocache in the way it is often tried.

 

I cannot say something about the quality of the caches in the early days in my area. I can only tell you that a huge proportion of them was well suited for me. Drive ins hardly existed - likewise caches with tricky hideouts, almost no micros and almost always a nice walk or even hike was involved. Many of the caches kept me busy for several hours but with walking and not with standing around and searching or opening tricky containers.

That's not an issue of good vs bad, but of what people enjoy to do. I do not enjoy playing games and geocaching has never been a game for me, but a nice database for hikes and interesting places to visit and a database for recording my own experiences.

 

To return to challenge caches: The biggest issue I have with challenge caches will not change if there existed a seperate cache type. It is very easy for me to ignore challenge caches, but their existence still has effects on the way others cache and also on all caches that are needed for challenges.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

So some people like challenge caches, some don't.

 

It seems most agree that if they are going to stay it would be good to have something to identify them. To have a "type" of cache which has quite detailed rules, but can only be identified by the word "challenge" in the title is a bit odd I think. (And not all caches with the word challenge are challenge caches).

 

Icon or attribute doesn't matter much to me, though as I said before the "type" seems distinct enough to warrant an icon.

 

I don't feel the fear of people trying to get a new icon should be a barrier to creating one. And while it does happen, as has been pointed out there are relatively few Letterbox Hybrids, and all that needs is a stamp.

Share this post


Link to post

One (of many) factors that killed "Geocaching Challenges" (with the caped superhero) was the "Kiss a Frog" challenge, which you could do on your sofa. For most of us, that just isn't geocaching. I'd rather see challenge caches turned into some sort of Achievement Badges with no smiley, although even that's far less preferable than the current system.

Wouldn't have call it a cache, just call it an achievement. Heck let 'em even have a smiley.

 

But then it's not a geocache. It's a (worldwide) "Geocaching Challenge". Those failed. There needs to be a location-based component to make it geocaching, whether there's a physical container or not (though other than Earthcaches, those are grandfathered cache types).

 

But if I'm excluded from a cache because I don't have the equipment or knowledge to find or solve it, it's my choice to not attempt it, that's different than merely excluding people who haven't met the requirments.

Nope, it's exactly the same. If you're excluded (for not having the equipment or knowledge) it's your choice to not attempt it -- if you're excluded (because you haven't met the requirements) then it's also your choice to not attempt it.

Alternatively, if you're "merely" excluded because you haven't met the requirements, it's exactly the same being "merely" excluded because you don't have the equipment or knowledge.

That's why they're called ALRs - they are by definition a line that must be crossed in order to be 'allowed' to log a Find. Just as having the right equipment or knowledge. Of course you could debate that someone could 'cheat' to log a cache for which they don't have equipment or knowledge; since all that's needed is your name in the log book. But the CO still has the right to make a judgement call if they can show that a supposed finder did not find the cache. Most CO's don't care to take it to that level, but the CO can indeed clean up 'false logs' and ensure the integrity of their listing. Not without potential drama (which Groundspeak encourages people to avoid, for obvious reasons), but it's there.

Challenge Caches are just like the above, except it's much easier to determine if a supposed finder has actually cheated - the logging requirements need to be verifiable.

 

Ultimately, a cache one is incapable of doing for whatever reason is exactly the same as a cache they are incapable of qualifying for. It's easier to cheat and log the former than it is to illegitimately log the latter. And both may be ignored just as equally.

 

Cacher A logs a challenge cache he signed the log of but didn't complete the requirements for = CO can delete the log.

Cacher B logs a puzzle cache he signed the log of but cheated in solving because he called a friend = CO can't delete the log because "requiring cacher to jump through the hoops of actually solving the puzzle" would be an un-allowable ALR.

No, it's just that puzzles aren't ALRs. Challenges are.

How does one verify that someone has solved a puzzle?

Challenges based on statistics are enforceable by checking the user's statistics.

Thus, Groundspeak allows logging of physical caches based on puzzle solving, not considered an ALR, precisely because there's no verification.

 

As toz's excellent history lesson showed, they tried to remove ALRs entirely, but realized that all that was really needed was a verification. The only controlled system in place to do any sort of trustworthy verification is the statistics system. And so Challenge Caches with guidelines were brought back, because ultimately they are enforceable and verifiable requirements. Unlike photos (which btw, were also removed as logging requirements on Earthcaches)

 

I get that that is how it is, but explain how that is not an illogical double-standard.

I hope I just did ;P

 

How about this: can I make a challenge cache, where the 'challenge' is to merely solve a puzzle without cheating. Hmmm. Conundrum.

Nope, because it's not verifiable.

 

If you can sign the log, you have deserve the smiley, end of story. (Unless it's a challenge cache, apparently)

Unless there is an ALR (such as qualifying for a challenge cache which has been approved), then yep this is true, as that is the definition of the "ALR" ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any difference between "Wear a funny hat and post a photo of you at the cache in order to log a Find" and "Show me you filled in your D/T grid to claim a Find". Yet Groundspeak thinks one is acceptable and one is not. A little consistency from the frog would be nice.

 

Sometime later, complaints about silly ALRs reached a level that Groundspeak felt the need to deal with them. Their initial attempt (mistake?) was to specifically allow ALRs if listed as Unknown type. The idea was that people knew they needed to read the cache page before looking for an Unknown type cache. This allowed a slew or challenge caches ideas that TPTB would not give the same exceptions as were given to Delorme and some similar challenges. After all completing as challenge was just an ALR and by hiding the cache at the posted coordinated, the issue with emailing a cache owner was removed.

 

 

I'm really not reviewer bashing (really!!) but I did not see a massive user backlash against ALR's, and I thought it was more of a reviewer backlash. I also stated earlier that I thought the stricter Challenge guidelines enacted a couple years ago were from reviewer input, and no one was bothered by the "old" challenge guidelines. I do admit "all finds have to be after a certain date" got quite a few complaints from the general public though (those are no longer allowed). EDIT TO ADD: Challenge caches were almost totally unheard of in my area before the ALR ban. The fact that we could still create challenge caches brought attention to them. Now we have lots.

 

Most regions don't have a guy who owns 240 of them. I wouldn't doubt he's number 1 in the world. And I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. :P

There is absolutely no question :)

 

And he's told me that there will be no more challenge caches. So, we'll see if he holds to his word, hehe

 

heck he has a challenge cache to find 66 DT combos of caches owned by him. When you've placed enough caches to fill a DT grid of owned caches, it might be time to take a break :P

 

I get very few of his cache notifications. My 50 mile notification radius picks up Stoney Creek, and I believe just a handful of caches a stones throw inside Hamilton over the years. I do imagine a lot of casual players in the area might get those notifications, and say "never mind one of those challenges again". Quit? He won't quit. Owning challenge caches is like crack. :P

Edited by Mr.Yuck

Share this post


Link to post

I'm all for honoring people who complete such a challenge, I just don't see the point in having to validate an accomplishment by finding another cache that can only be found and logged by those. Let there be "accomplishment cache page".. if you meet the requirement, you can log it, no tupperware to find.

This is very similar to something Jeremy posted in the forums a few years back when there was talk of how to deal with challenge caches. He also talked about removing the location requirement for a challenge. I'm too lazy to find the original quote, but it was something like "Why should Cacher X not get a reward (smiley) for his achievement but Cacher Y does just because there happens to be a specific challenge cache close to Cacher Y?"

 

I had high hopes for a badge system (added to Souvenirs?) that would reward players automatically for certain milestones such as completing their D/T grid or filling in all the dates. Never happened and Jeremy/Groundspeak seem to have pretty much gone mute on the topic since.

Share this post


Link to post

But you know, just as finding an Unknown cache can happen by many methods that don't involve solving a puzzle (stumbled upon it, deduction, along with those who did solve, etc), a signature on any Unknown cache type should count--Challenges included.

 

To me a signature is a signature, is a find is a find. It's what the game is all about--finding containers and signing the log. (Ok, go ahead and grab pitchforks and proclaim, "Puritan! Hang him!") What would really help out is to add another log type to "challege cache" unknowns. Just give another statistic for how many challenges you have logged. Voila!

 

When someone logs a "Found it", they get another smilie and an uptick on their find number. If they log it "Challenge Completed", it upticks the find count, and adds a tick to the new stat "Challenges completed". It could even automatically bring up a log screen and a place to enter your screenshot, bookmark list, or whatever that helps verify completion.

 

Instead of a new cache icon (Traditional, Multi, Unknown, etc.), it just creates an "icon" like the Found It smilie, or DNF blue frown. Perhaps a gold star for "Challenges Completed". It doesn't add anything to the find count, but it certainly can add bragging rights for those who love challenges. It'll show on your profile, and in your stats. Whoopee, there's the flag on the mountaintop.

 

Q: But what about the Challenges I've already completed? :lostsignal:

A: Well, that'll happen if there is a new cache type, or if there is a new stat, or whatever. It all starts from the day of implementation. :drama:

 

I hardly think that Groundspeak or any Reviewer would want to go through every single Unknown cache to find out if it was, indeed, an "official" challenge that should get the icon or the stat or whatever extra recognition people are arguing for or against. So, it would all start from the launch date, and that's it.

Edited by NeverSummer

Share this post


Link to post

Not being a challenge cache owner, I can only speculate, but is seems that the idea of a challenge cache is that the smiley is for finding the cache, not for completing the challenge. For example if you complete a fizzy grid, you don't get any smiley. But once you complete a fizzy grid you are now eligible to log any fizzy challenges you find.

 

The issue is that challenge caches, like other ALRs, perverts the original purpose of the online found log. A "puritan" should feel that the purpose of logging an online Found log is to record that you have found the cache. ALRs change the purpose of the online log from reporting that you have found a cache to one of scoring points.

 

When Groundspeak decided to make cache owners responsible for the quality of posts to their cache pages, they opened the door to cache owners deleting Found It logs on caches that were legitimately found. ALRs began to popup almost immediately. Groundspeak may not have anticipated that people would treat the online 'Found It' log as the ultimate goal of geocaching. For the most part, however, they decided to allow people to add restrictions on posting an online find. Only later did they decide that this was not good for geocaching.

 

By making a exception for challenge caches, they are sending a mixed message. If the goal of geocaching is to find caches then it makes sense to restrict cache owners from deleting logs when the cache was found and the physical log signed. If the goal of geocaching is to log 'Found It' online, then any restrictions on what requirements a cache owner can place on logging need to be explained some other way.

Share this post


Link to post

But you know, just as finding an Unknown cache can happen by many methods that don't involve solving a puzzle (stumbled upon it, deduction, along with those who did solve, etc), a signature on any Unknown cache type should count--Challenges included.

 

To me a signature is a signature, is a find is a find. It's what the game is all about--finding containers and signing the log. (Ok, go ahead and grab pitchforks and proclaim, "Puritan! Hang him!") What would really help out is to add another log type to "challege cache" unknowns. Just give another statistic for how many challenges you have logged. Voila!

And again, that's the difference between a 'standard' geocache listing, and one with an ALR. The ALR means that a physical find is insufficient. Whether that's due to challenge qualification or any other form of ALR (most of which are not allowed any more, outside of Earthcache tasks, save photo evidence).

 

Not being a challenge cache owner, I can only speculate, but is seems that the idea of a challenge cache is that the smiley is for finding the cache, not for completing the challenge. For example if you complete a fizzy grid, you don't get any smiley. But once you complete a fizzy grid you are now eligible to log any fizzy challenges you find.

 

The issue is that challenge caches, like other ALRs, perverts the original purpose of the online found log. A "puritan" should feel that the purpose of logging an online Found log is to record that you have found the cache. ALRs change the purpose of the online log from reporting that you have found a cache to one of scoring points.

Yeah, this seems to be the point of contention.

It's not so much "challenge caches" that are the problem, it's moreso the concept of the ALR itself that distinguishes a (basic) "Find" from a (qualified) "Find"; the former is what "puritans" essentially feel is what geocaching is all about, whereas the latter is what geocaching has become. Not that there's a huge difference - at this point, cache types and attributes make the difference much easier to swallow, but in the case of challenge caches, which are essentially traditionals with an ALR (sometimes an additional puzzle, but in my experience those have been disallowed; perhaps just local reviewers?) - the line is very hazy and frustrating. To some.

 

I'm on board with providing a better method to distinguish Unknown (non-ALR) caches from Challenge caches. How? I really don't know. I favour an attribute over a cache type, but that's not free from its difficulties either.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Not being a challenge cache owner, I can only speculate, but is seems that the idea of a challenge cache is that the smiley is for finding the cache, not for completing the challenge. For example if you complete a fizzy grid, you don't get any smiley. But once you complete a fizzy grid you are now eligible to log any fizzy challenges you find.

 

The issue is that challenge caches, like other ALRs, perverts the original purpose of the online found log. A "puritan" should feel that the purpose of logging an online Found log is to record that you have found the cache. ALRs change the purpose of the online log from reporting that you have found a cache to one of scoring points.

Yeah, this seems to be the point of contention.

It's not so much "challenge caches" that are the problem, it's moreso the concept of the ALR itself that distinguishes a (basic) "Find" from a (qualified) "Find"; the former is what "puritans" essentially feel is what geocaching is all about, whereas the latter is what geocaching has become. Not that there's a huge difference - at this point, cache types and attributes make the difference much easier to swallow, but in the case of challenge caches, which are essentially traditionals with an ALR (sometimes an additional puzzle, but in my experience those have been disallowed; perhaps just local reviewers?) - the line is very hazy and frustrating. To some.

 

I'm on board with providing a better method to distinguish Unknown (non-ALR) caches from Challenge caches. How? I really don't know. I favour an attribute over a cache type, but that's not free from its difficulties either.

I think that's where something that pleases both sides of the issue could work. Just as there are many different, unique log types for events or webcams, etc, they can add a "Challenge Completed" log type.

 

But, that isn't without its issues. The cache owner would have to select something to say that the cache should be published with the new log type option--essentially creating a new cache type. This would mean a signature on a logbook would be a find no matter what, but that the additional "Challenge Completed" log would give the "score-keepers" something to track in addition to the find count.

 

In that sense, if "challenges" are here to stay, then Groundspeak needs to acknowledge the mixed message and get going on an alternative way to log them. Either that, or they acknowledge the mixed message and disallow ALRs completely for caches other than Earthcaches--which are a specially-run partnership cache type with its own review process. I highly doubt that Groundspeak is going to have special Reviewers for "challenges", and I frankly don't like how there can be such room for personal interpretation by Reviewers on what is or isn't a worthy "challenge" cache. It's all back to the "Wow" factor, etc...and really the root of ALR issues from not that long ago.

 

I will openly admit that challenge-style Unknown caches are an interesting way to add something to the game. But in all truth, the game was and continues to be about finding containers outside using a GPS-enabled device or other navigation processes. So long as a physical cache has a log to sign, it should be a find of a geocache recorded on one's account whether you completed the challenge (or a puzzle) or not. If Groundspeak is going to embrace the "challenge" Unknown cache, it needs some clarity and legitimacy beyond the directive of an owner saying that, because you found the container and signed the log, but didn't complete the alternative logging requirement(s), you can't log that you found the container and signed the log.

 

Therein is why a new cache type might be possible, but it shouldn't exclude players from logging a find if they found the container and signed the log. If one wants the record that they completed some challenge, they can create the new log type for these caches as I describe above. Everyone gets what they want...except those who don't want to see a new geocache type added to the list of currently active and publishable cache types.

Share this post


Link to post

I will openly admit that challenge-style Unknown caches are an interesting way to add something to the game. But in all truth, the game was and continues to be about finding containers outside using a GPS-enabled device or other navigation processes. So long as a physical cache has a log to sign, it should be a find of a geocache recorded on one's account whether you completed the challenge (or a puzzle) or not. If Groundspeak is going to embrace the "challenge" Unknown cache, it needs some clarity and legitimacy beyond the directive of an owner saying that, because you found the container and signed the log, but didn't complete the alternative logging requirement(s), you can't log that you found the container and signed the log.

 

Therein is why a new cache type might be possible, but it shouldn't exclude players from logging a find if they found the container and signed the log. If one wants the record that they completed some challenge, they can create the new log type for these caches as I describe above. Everyone gets what they want...except those who don't want to see a new geocache type added to the list of currently active and publishable cache types.

 

On that point (bolded), it's not like Challenge Caches are challenges that have nothing to do with geocaching. At this point, challenges are entirely about your geocaching career/statistics. Geocaching Challenges could have been many things that weren't geocaching, and previous ALRs had no geocaching standard either. So, at least Groundspeak has allowed an enforceable, verifiable, and geocaching related logging requirement. This is likely why they are still around.

 

So yes, while you might have found the challenge cache physically (part of the geocaching experience), you haven't completed that cache's specific geocaching experience (which includes finding all the other caches needed to qualify).

 

Sort of like Multicaches - technically you're supposed to find each stage of the multicache to find the final. The difference between a challenge and a multi is that the multi can still be logged even if you find only the final (the stages aren't an ALR) while the challenge is sort of like a 'virtual' multistage wherein each 'waypoint' is like a cache that gets you one step closer to qualifying.

 

So again the difference really is the ALR factor - you cannot log it found until you complete additional requirements (unlike the multi, which has more like additional 'suggestions' :P).

 

From that angle, Challenge Caches are exactly what they should be. Well, except for the application of the ALR, which at this point is what drops the cache into the "unknown" category.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

So yes, while you might have found the challenge cache physically (part of the geocaching experience), you haven't completed that cache's specific geocaching experience (which includes finding all the other caches needed to qualify).

 

Sort of like Multicaches - technically you're supposed to find each stage of the multicache to find the final. The difference between a challenge and a multi is that the multi can still be logged even if you find only the final (the stages aren't an ALR) while the challenge is sort of like a 'virtual' multistage wherein each 'waypoint' is like a cache that gets you one step closer to qualifying.

 

So again the difference really is the ALR factor - you cannot log it found until you complete additional requirements (unlike the multi, which has more like additional 'suggestions' :P).

 

From that angle, Challenge Caches are exactly what they should be. Well, except for the application of the ALR, which at this point is what drops the cache into the "unknown" category.

But you don't have to find all stages to find a final. That can happen any number of ways. If you get to the final location of a cache and sign the logbook, then you've found the cache.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

I'm not against the challenge caches being a more legitimate way of having an ALR. Quite the opposite. I've presented an option that would help both sides of the argument get what they want, and still stick to the common thread of geocaching: Finding containers with a GPS and signing the logbook, then recording the find online.

 

All physical caches have the same common thread: there is a container at the "final" location that a person signs in at, then logs online. It doesn't matter what it is, that's how the game is played at its core. To keep that common thread, a find on a challenge Unknown should be recorded if the container was found and the log signed. As for accomplishing the challenge set out before them, that is apart from finding the cache--otherwise it is still an ALR and sends a mixed message from TPTB.

 

So, create the new cache type, allow standard "found it" logs, and also have the separate log type of "Challenge Completed" that awards both the smilie and a Challenge +1 to that new stat.

Share this post


Link to post

So yes, while you might have found the challenge cache physically (part of the geocaching experience), you haven't completed that cache's specific geocaching experience (which includes finding all the other caches needed to qualify).

 

Sort of like Multicaches - technically you're supposed to find each stage of the multicache to find the final. The difference between a challenge and a multi is that the multi can still be logged even if you find only the final (the stages aren't an ALR) while the challenge is sort of like a 'virtual' multistage wherein each 'waypoint' is like a cache that gets you one step closer to qualifying.

 

So again the difference really is the ALR factor - you cannot log it found until you complete additional requirements (unlike the multi, which has more like additional 'suggestions' :P).

 

From that angle, Challenge Caches are exactly what they should be. Well, except for the application of the ALR, which at this point is what drops the cache into the "unknown" category.

But you don't have to find all stages to find a final. That can happen any number of ways. If you get to the final location of a cache and sign the logbook, then you've found the cache.

 

That's all I'm saying.

That's... exactly what I said (see the text right after the single sentence you bolded :P )

 

All physical caches have the same common thread: there is a container at the "final" location that a person signs in at, then logs online. It doesn't matter what it is, that's how the game is played at its core. To keep that common thread, a find on a challenge Unknown should be recorded if the container was found and the log signed. As for accomplishing the challenge set out before them, that is apart from finding the cache--otherwise it is still an ALR and sends a mixed message from TPTB.

I don't disagree. There are numerous potential suggested ways to help to distinguish a regular physical cache with no ALR from a physical cache with an ALR.

 

Currently, caches with an ALR are listed as Unknown, and the only acceptable ALR on a physical caches falls under the "Challenge Cache" category.

That's all I'm saying. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I personally, would love Challenge Caches to have their own icon. I love them, but they are not for everyone. However, I'm not a fan of puzzle caches, and challenges give me attainable goals and gives me something to work for, instead of sitting at a computer for hours trying to solve a puzzle. To me, geocaching is about adventure, and sitting inside solving puzzles, to go to a LPC to claim the find, is NOT an adventure.

 

But, this falls into the category, " Not every cache is for every cacher!"

and they shouldn't be. We all play differently, that should be respected.

Share this post


Link to post

So, create the new cache type, allow standard "found it" logs, and also have the separate log type of "Challenge Completed" that awards both the smilie and a Challenge +1 to that new stat.

 

I like this general idea, separating the found/ALR aspect. But I think it still has one major flaw in that once someone completes a challenge, they may be able log their Challenge Completed over and over again for each instance of that challenge. For example, let's say there are roughly 100 Fizzy challenges throughout the world. Once someone completes their Fizzy, they would be able to log "Challenge Completed" a hundred times over. This seems somewhat ridiculous, but it would happen. Currently, having to have found the physical cache limits this somewhat. What would the "Challenges Completed" stat mean if a single challenge can have hundreds of accompanying "Completed" logs?

 

This gets back to a point I was trying to make earlier. That Challenge Caches should be targeted to a certain location/population. When I put out a challenge cache in my area, I am challenging the local geocachers to try to complete said challenge. Sure, if someone outside the area notices this cache, and decides to visit to log a found they can do so. But I am not throwing down the gauntlet for the entire world, simply by the act of putting the cache right here near me.

Share this post


Link to post

I like this general idea, separating the found/ALR aspect. But I think it still has one major flaw in that once someone completes a challenge, they may be able log their Challenge Completed over and over again for each instance of that challenge. For example, let's say there are roughly 100 Fizzy challenges throughout the world. Once someone completes their Fizzy, they would be able to log "Challenge Completed" a hundred times over. This seems somewhat ridiculous, but it would happen.

My thought as to the answer in the "new log type" solution would be that you can log a Found on a challenge cache without Completion, but you can't log a Completion without a found.

That would stop people from finding all the fizzy challenges and logging them all complete without finding the cache. But would still allow people who don't care about the challenge to just go and Find the cache (at the posted coordinates).

 

(similar log type restrictions have already been employed for trackables; eg, you can't place a TB unless you've already grabbed it from somewhere. So you can only log a challenge cache found, then once you've found it, you can post your challenge completed log)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

So, create the new cache type, allow standard "found it" logs, and also have the separate log type of "Challenge Completed" that awards both the smilie and a Challenge +1 to that new stat.

I like this general idea, separating the found/ALR aspect. But I think it still has one major flaw in that once someone completes a challenge, they may be able log their Challenge Completed over and over again for each instance of that challenge. For example, let's say there are roughly 100 Fizzy challenges throughout the world. Once someone completes their Fizzy, they would be able to log "Challenge Completed" a hundred times over. This seems somewhat ridiculous, but it would happen. Currently, having to have found the physical cache limits this somewhat. What would the "Challenges Completed" stat mean if a single challenge can have hundreds of accompanying "Completed" logs?

It would mean the same thing as any stat on the website means -- nothing to anyone except the account holder.

 

What's the Find count mean? Something different to each person. I've seen people claim Finds in situations where I would never count it as a Find for myself. I'm sure I've claimed Finds for situations where someone else would never claim it for themselves.

 

What does it mean when someone has filled in all 366 days of their calendar? To one person, it means that found a cache on every day of the year. To someone else, it means they went out and physically located a cache and post-dated their log so they can log it online later on a day where they have a hole in the grid.

 

What would "Challenges Completed" stat mean? Whatever that person wants it to mean. It could mean "I completed 100 Fizzy challenges" or it might mean "I completed 100 completely unique challenges."

 

Really, when everyone plays by their own personal rules, everyone's numbers are completely meaningless to anyone except that person.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, of the proposed possible solutions, I'm actually leaning toward the new log type option.

1. Cache types - major overhaul

2. Attribute - complex to allow for only Unknown cache type

3. New log type - addresses challenge logging, is an addon to the geocaching.com process and not a change

 

How to decide whether a cache can have the new log type posted would be the question. Instinct would be if the cache has an attribute; but that's problematic as the attribute could be add/removed afterwards leaving stranded logs in the history.

Ideally, it should be a setting saved with the creation of the cache itself. It might need to be an exception for the Unknown type in this case - a checkbox that shows on the creation form if you change to that cache type.

 

So while not creating a brand new cache type specifically, it's more like a sub-type of Unknown (similar to their already excepted Geocaching HQ is an Unknown, and other event types are related to the Event type), but adds the ability to post the new type of log - Challenge Completed.

 

The CO would still have every right to verify and remove logs if invalid.

Presumably, if the CO deletes a Find log for someone who's posted the Completed, then it would also delete the Completed log...

 

---- hold up. Wait.

 

What if the Find log actually merely has another option to select called Challenge Completed, just like you can add alternate coordinates to a log?

 

Check the option when posting your find (only for challenge-flagged caches), and it becomes a Found (and Completed) log. That way people can Find the cache without completing it, and the addition of that flag means completions can be tracked, and log deletions don't get more complex (especially when there may be more than one find log)

 

ALTERNATIVELY (man, ideas!)

 

A Challenge Cache has a listing-level checkbox (on the same level as the Personal Note) that you can check if you've completed the associated challenge. So no new log type, but checking this option - and this can be done on ANY challenge cache worldwide - keeps it trackable like your Watchlist or a Bookmark list - and for public viewing your stats can automatically list all the challenge caches you've both marked Complete and posted a Found log.

 

In that implementation, you can still view privately all the caches you've marked as complete, but only the challenges you physically found and completed will be visible in your stats. Data-wise, it's just one additional property to a listing on a per user basis. It allows the Find log to remain a physical find log, and even in the log history Find logs that are flagged as Completions can also be displayed differently. No new cache type, no new attribute.

Only changes would be:

1. Option when creating an Unknown cache to mark as containing a Challenge.

2a. Option (visibility reliant on #1) when creating a Found It log to also mark the challenge Completed.

2b. Option (visibility reliant on #1) to flag a challenge cache as completed (via a web listing checkbox or an api call in an app)

3. Retrieving/displaying all related data for statistics parsing could be done any current way (on the public profile c/o Groundspeak, or as an optional piece of data provided by the Live API for custom stats parsers)

4(if 2a). An additional property/attribute to the Found It GPX log data (though this might be the biggest addition as it would mean updating the schema, I believe).

 

hmm...

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Really, when everyone plays by their own personal rules, everyone's numbers are completely meaningless to anyone except that person.

 

Right. The find count is a personal thing. Now it's turned into a commodity, that can be controlled by challenge cache owners.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

2. Attribute - complex to allow for only Unknown cache type

How is this complex? Certainly from a programming perspective, it would be much easier than the contortions you'd have Groundspeak go through to implement a new type of log.

 

What if the Find log actually merely has another option to select called Challenge Completed, just like you can add alternate coordinates to a log?

 

Check the option when posting your find (only for challenge-flagged caches), and it becomes a Found (and Completed) log. That way people can Find the cache without completing it, and the addition of that flag means completions can be tracked, and log deletions don't get more complex (especially when there may be more than one find log)

Many people like to find and sign the physical logbooks for challenge caches even before they complete the requirements. They will log an online "Note" indicating that they have done so. Once they complete the requirements, they will go back and log an online "Found It."

 

Using your system, they would log an online "Found It" when they initially find and sign the physical logbook. If they eventually complete the challenge requirements, then they would have to log another online "Found It" so they can check the box that indicates they have completed the requirements. Hopefully, most will remember to go back and delete their duplicate "Found It" logs, which, of course, will generate plenty of unnecessary email for the cache owners. Sounds to me like a rather awkward method of implementation.

Share this post


Link to post

2. Attribute - complex to allow for only Unknown cache type

How is this complex? Certainly from a programming perspective, it would be much easier than the contortions you'd have Groundspeak go through to implement a new type of log.

 

What if the Find log actually merely has another option to select called Challenge Completed, just like you can add alternate coordinates to a log?

 

Check the option when posting your find (only for challenge-flagged caches), and it becomes a Found (and Completed) log. That way people can Find the cache without completing it, and the addition of that flag means completions can be tracked, and log deletions don't get more complex (especially when there may be more than one find log)

Many people like to find and sign the physical logbooks for challenge caches even before they complete the requirements. They will log an online "Note" indicating that they have done so. Once they complete the requirements, they will go back and log an online "Found It."

 

Using your system, they would log an online "Found It" when they initially find and sign the physical logbook. If they eventually complete the challenge requirements, then they would have to log another online "Found It" so they can check the box that indicates they have completed the requirements. Hopefully, most will remember to go back and delete their duplicate "Found It" logs, which, of course, will generate plenty of unnecessary email for the cache owners. Sounds to me like a rather awkward method of implementation.

Rather, they could edit their existing "Found it" log to add the check box...but that process isn't as intuitive and would likely create more use of a secondary "Found it" log and no removal of the previous log (double found logs for that cache).

 

For the people who log a Note first, then log a find when they complete the requirements, they wouldn't have to do that anymore if there is a new log type worked into the (yes, yes...convoluted and complex new programming required to work this up...) challenge-Unknown cache. They just +1 a "Challenge Completed" stat when they log it "Found it" first, then "Completed" second...if they ever complete the challenge.

 

If the "challenge completed" log type used for someone who is using it for both the cache find and completion/qualification for the challenge, then it is programmed to add a +1 to find count and +1 to challenge completed count.

 

The cache creation page can add a "Is this Unknown Cache a "challenge" cache?" Y/N button. Then the system knows to add the new cache log type to the listing.

 

I think this is where the old, "mistake" Challenges were trying to go, but with a Virtual replacement instead of a true geocaching-related challenge.

 

The point still stands that Unknowns used as a challenge are ALRs. Owners dictate who and when people can log a find, even if they have found the container and signed the log. If someone finds a container and signs a log, it is a found geocache--but not a completion of someone's designed challenge to other cachers.

 

Some will qualify, some won't. Some will try to qualify, some won't. Some just won't bother, and the game somehow maintains an ALR even though they are no longer allowed.

 

I mean, really, what is to say that a photo of you in a tutu at the cache site isn't something an owner can verify to say that you've completed that "challenge" to log the geocache? That's just as much verification as a screen shot stat list or a link to a bookmark list. They're all ALRs, and these examples are all verifiable. Right?

 

So, what's to say that there shouldn't be some re-thought and programming to go into validation and justification for an Unknown used as a challenge? If Groundspeak is condoning their use, yet condemned other ALRs years ago, why wouldn't they put their "money where their mouth is" and put the time into creating a solid verification system, new cache type, or new logging process to validate the existence of this type of ALR?

 

Between the now-dead Challenges and the recent "I <3 Geocaching" Lab Caches, they've test-run ways that alternative logging could be worked back into the game like Virtuals and Webcams used to be. A new way to integrate a log type to keep the "spirit of the game" on the "hide it, find it, log it" simplicity at the root of our gameplay.

 

I may not complete challenge Unknowns. I may not solve all the puzzle Unknowns. I may not do all the lengthy Multicaches. But the big difference is that I might happen on the final for a puzzle Unknown or a Multi, sign the log, and then log it online. The owner can't deny me that find. But with a challenge Unknown cache, they owner gets to dictate what a find "really is", and delete my find on their cache if I don't complete their challenge even if I happen upon the container, or find it at posted coordinates. That's where this all gets pretty screwed up when put up against the rationale for getting rid of ALRs, Virtuals, and Webcams.

Share this post


Link to post

And I just had this thought...

 

If we need to hash out something this complicated to make challenge Unknowns "work" for all members, isn't that a sign they might not belong as they are?

 

All other cache types are pretty simple and straightforward with how to find and log them. Aren't we really debating, at the foundation, the original common thread of the game set in motion all those years ago that geocaching is having fun with GPS technology to hide containers with logbooks, take the hiding location coordinates, publish it online, have people find it, sign the logbook, and record their experience online?

 

Public find counts, stats, and souvenirs all incentivise the game. Challenge Unknown caches aren't a "type" of cache like a Traditional, Multi, or Unknown (most commonly puzzles or something requiring some thought outside the box to obtain the coordinates). Unknown caches created to be "challenges" puts the owner of the listing firmly in control of who can log that cache and when. The argument that they are "allowable ALRs because it challenges you to get out to cache more in diverse ways, and are a verifiable ALR" is invalid. To me the complexity of reconciling the ALR vs. challenge conundrum demonstrates why I think they might need to be disallowed in their current form.

 

It's not because I "hate" challenges. It's not because I'm bitter that I don't qualify for them. It's more about the history of the game, the way the game's "spirit" was presented to me and supported by the management of gameplay on this site, and these discussions.

 

And I'm just saying this based on where I see this conversation going. This discussion is doing a pretty good job of creating conversation in a productive way. My mind isn't made up, but this is just what I was thinking...

Edited by NeverSummer

Share this post


Link to post

That's where this all gets pretty screwed up when put up against the rationale for getting rid of ALRs, Virtuals, and Webcams.

Do you even know the rationale for getting rid of ALRs, Virtuals, and Webcams? And isn't it probable that there are different reasons - as Virtual and Webcams were grandfahered and Earthcaches were allowed to continue, unlike ALRs where exsting ALRs could no longer be enforced, and where geocaching related challenges (and Wherigo) caches were exempted from day one.

 

Groundspeak has never had a particularly good recorde of consistency with guidelines. In part that is because the rationale for adding each guideline is different. The problems each guideline addresses are different.

 

While I have concerns about abusive Challenge caches owners, the fact is there doesn't seem to a problem with current challenges that requires either a guideline change or a new icon.

 

The OP, and others, certainly have a point that they can't get a PQ or easily search for Challenges without gettting a bunch of puzzles they are not interested in (or visa versa). But the reality is that even in areas where Mystery/Unknown are a higher proportion of caches, they still are not so many that it is impossible to look at the cache pages and figure out which are puzzles and which are challenges. Challenges are even supposed to have Challenge in the title, so you may only need to look a the title to tell which it is. I suppose there could be better tools to search for caches of differnt types and genres, but it doesn't appear to be that high of a priority.

 

As far as a problem with people stumbling on a Challenge cache and not being able to log it found, I'm just not seeing this. It's another one of those hypotheticals that does occur in reality. Everyone seems to understand that you don't log a find on a challenge cache until you have completed the challenge.

 

While there are some challenges that seem excessively burdensome and put out just because the cache owner want a cache that is seldom, if ever, going to be logged; what one man sees a burdensome another finds as difficult - and perhaps believes that the more 'exclusive' a challenge is, the more inspired they will be to attempt it. We now have guidelines that reviewers can use to deal with excessivly burdensome or restrictive challenges. While I would like to seem them clarified, I'm not sure they need to be changed. The overwhelming majority of challenges I see getting published today are not asking for cacher to impossible things or to give up looking for geocaches they like.

 

There may be some debate over whether requiring expensive travel is too restrictive or not. Most cachers accept that some travel may be necessary for certain challenges. (We had a local cacher who travels alot, start putting out a slew of challenges requiring travel to various states and/or countries. After he had gotten about a half-dozen or so published, it looks as it the reviewer decided to limit how many of these challenges one person could hide. While that may be controversial to some, others will see it as a compromise on the issue of travel being too restrictive).

Share this post


Link to post

If we need to hash out something this complicated to make challenge Unknowns "work" for all members, isn't that a sign they might not belong as they are?

No. It just shows that it would be complicated to create the new challenge caches in the fashion you describe. No type of cache "works" for all members. Never have. Never will. Some people complain that traditional caches allow for power trails, lamppost hides, and guardrail caches. Some people complain that virtuals make it easy to armchair cache. Some people complain that multi-caches don't give enough smileys for the extra work. Etc.

 

All other cache types are pretty simple and straightforward with how to find and log them. Aren't we really debating, at the foundation, the original common thread of the game set in motion all those years ago that geocaching is having fun with GPS technology to hide containers with logbooks, take the hiding location coordinates, publish it online, have people find it, sign the logbook, and record their experience online?

That ship sailed a long time ago. We now have lots of caches that don't require people to find a hidden container, sign the logbook, and record their experiences online: virtuals, EarthCaches, multiple types of events, webcams, GPS Adventure Exhibits, and lab caches. And, for many, there's nothing simple and straightforward about how to find and log Wherigos.

 

If people want simple and straightforward, then there are plenty of traditional caches around. For those who enjoy more diverse geocaching experiences, there are other types of caches available as well. Win/win.

 

Unknown caches created to be "challenges" puts the owner of the listing firmly in control of who can log that cache and when.

No, they don't. If a cache owner deletes a valid challenge completion, then the geocacher can take the matter to Groundspeak and get their find reinstated. Challenge requirements are fairly black-and-white, and my impression is that disputes between challenge cache owners and finders are rare.

 

From your perspective, are EarthCache owners also "firmly in control of who can log that cache and when?" If so, shouldn't we change EarthCache logging procedures as well? After all, the "correct" answers to EarthCache questions usually are much more subjective than deciding whether or not someone has completed challenge cache requirements.

 

Finally, your proposed change wouldn't eliminate cache owners' control over other geocachers. Instead it would just shift it from "find counts" to "challenge completion counts."

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a simple way to cut thru all the complex "solutions" so far proposed: Leave all the programing alone and don't hunt Challenge Caches you haven't qualified for!

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a simple way to cut thru all the complex "solutions" so far proposed: Leave all the programing alone and don't hunt Challenge Caches you haven't qualified for!

 

If people who cheat on puzzles are allowed to "find" puzzle caches, I see no reason people who don't qualify for challenges shouldn't be allowed to "find" challenge caches. Whether or not that find = a smiley, that's a different story.

 

Because of the existence of challenege caches, the numbers of smileys doesn't necessarily have to equal the number of "finds". Whether or not something has been found is a simple fact, the number of smileys is a matter of accounting. No matter if I'm not good enough to log it as "found" or not, you can't change the fact that I have found it.

 

All challenge caches have done is render the amount of smileys an inaccurate count of finds.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a simple way to cut thru all the complex "solutions" so far proposed: Leave all the programing alone and don't hunt Challenge Caches you haven't qualified for!

 

If people who cheat on puzzles are allowed to "find" puzzle caches, I see no reason people who don't qualify for challenges shouldn't be allowed to "find" challenge caches. Whether or not that find = a smiley, that's a different story.

 

Because of the existence of challenege caches, the numbers of smileys doesn't necessarily have to equal the number of "finds". Whether or not something has been found is a simple fact, the number of smileys is a matter of accounting. No matter if I'm not good enough to log it as "found" or not, you can't change the fact that I have found it.

 

All challenge caches have done is render the amount of smileys an inaccurate count of finds.

Why are hunting/finding Challenge Caches that you know you don't qualify for?

Share this post


Link to post

If people who cheat on puzzles are allowed to "find" puzzle caches, I see no reason people who don't qualify for challenges shouldn't be allowed to "find" challenge caches. Whether or not that find = a smiley, that's a different story.

You're being overly literal. When Groundspeak says "find a challenge cache" what they are really saying is "find a challenge cache AND complete its requirements." Just like when Groundspeak says "find an EarthCache" they mean "go to the posted coordinates AND provide the owner with appropriate answers." And "find a lab cache" means "determine the correct codeword AND enter it online."

 

Because of the existence of challenege caches, the numbers of smileys doesn't necessarily have to equal the number of "finds". Whether or not something has been found is a simple fact, the number of smileys is a matter of accounting.

The number of smileys quit being an accurate count of literal "finds" long before challenge caches. Think virtuals, EarthCaches, a wide variety of events, webcams, GPS Adventure Exhibits, locationless caches, and lab caches.

 

No matter if I'm not good enough to log it as "found" or not, you can't change the fact that I have found it.

It has nothing to do with whether you are good enough or not. Rather, it's a question of whether or not you completed the challenge requirements, as per Groundspeak guidelines. If you want to say you "found" the challenge cache, then you can do so, of course. But Groundspeak has spelled out what you must do to log a legitimate online "Found It," which is simply a shorthand for "Found It and Completed the Requirements."

 

All challenge caches have done is render the amount of smileys an inaccurate count of finds.

In a literal sense, you're right. But most geocachers understand what the smileys really represent.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, regardless of that, a find is a find, whether you've cheated on a puzzle cache or you've "found" a challenge cache you don't qualify for. It's still a piece of tupperware, bison tube or ammo can that has been found. At the heart of this game it is about finding caches. The rest of it is just people telling other people how they should play the game.

 

If at some point I do find "caches that begin with every letter from A to Z in South Carolina", I would consider that an accomplishment (or not) on it's own merit and finding an additional "challenge cache" in order to validate that with a smiley seems ludicrous. If I were to fail to find that cache, does it make finding the A-Z caches any less of an accomplishment? All that I will have not found is that one cache. Why being a challenge cache should tie a cache to a separate unrelated accomplishment, when finding that cache is still worth one smiley, and all that is physically required to find it is to be able to find it, what does that accomplishment intrinsically have to do with that cache?

 

If fact, it's diminishing the value of the accomplishment -- it's as if you're saying "finding a cache that begins with every letter of the alphabet" isn't good enough of an accomplishment, you have a find an additional cache in order to validate the accomplishment. All it is is an exclusionary tactic to only allow people who have jumped through certain hoops to log a cache.

 

As far as earthcaches, webcam caches, lab caches, virtuals, events, etc., I agree, those too mess with accurate smiley counts as well.

 

Look at it this way, if someone who caches (and is unqualified for a challenge cache) doesn't try to find that cache, then they must be in it only for the smileys. If you don't care about smiley counts and merely want to find caches for the joy of finding caches or exploring locations, then to not seek it merely because you won't get a smiley for it on the website seems ludicrous as well.

 

Tell you what, I'll look for whatever caches I want, regardless of whether the website thinks I am entitled to a smiley face for them, and you guys keep patting yourselves on the back for getting one more smiley face for finding an extra cache after completing a challenge that would still be just as much of an accomplishment whether you found the additional cache or not.

 

Don't think I don't think challenge caches should exist. If you like doing them, then great. If you feel the need to validate your accomplishments with another find, then that's great for you. Just don't tell the rest of us what caches we are and aren't allowed to find because of unrelated accomplishments that we have or haven't completed yet.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

That ship sailed a long time ago. We now have lots of caches that don't require people to find a hidden container, sign the logbook, and record their experiences online: virtuals, EarthCaches, multiple types of events, webcams, GPS Adventure Exhibits, and lab caches. And, for many, there's nothing simple and straightforward about how to find and log Wherigos.

 

We have challenge caches because soon after Groundspeak made cache owners responsible for the quality control of logs posted on their cache page we got ALRs. Many of the earliest ALRs in fact required some geocaching related accomplishment (though many would not pass muster with the current restrictions we have on challenges). Among other early ALRs were one from people who didn't even hide a container. They simply had a requirement to take a picture or email in an answer to a question - the virtual cache began as am ALR (or at least and LR since there was no log to sign).

 

I'm certain some people found it amusing the the Found Log seemed to have some value that you could get people to comply with some requirement, or that you could use it when there wasn't actually something to find. But TPTB seemed content to allow cache owners to threaten or actually delete people's logs for not complying.

 

After seven or eight years of this however, somebody thought this early free for all was a mistake. First locationless caches were archived and new webcams and virtuals would no longer be published.

 

Later Groundspeak formalized ALRs and required they be listed under the unknown cache type. That opened a flood of all kinds of ALRs including many of the kinds of challenges we see today.

 

But this turned out to not be a "better" mistake but just another mistake. People began requiring things that were inappropriate or otherwise seen as excessive. TPTB tried to keep up with new guidelines to limit what ALRs there could be (including some of the limits we now have on challenge caches).

 

They finally gave up and announced that ALRs were going away. But they decided that if the ALR was geocaching related it could be still be listed. People used this "loophole" to continue to require thing that TPTB thought were inappropriate to ask other cachers to do. A set of guidelines restricting challenges was added. And TPTB tweak these guideline when necessary.

 

There may exist today other examples of caches where you don't simply sign the log to be allowed to log it online, but Challenge caches sure stick out like a sore thumb given the guidelines changes in the past.

 

I believe, however, that Groundspeak knew what they were doing when they exempted challenge caches from the no more ALR guidelines. Almost certainly there were someone at the lilypad who felt that most of the existing challenge caches appealed to, and were attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. In addition they felt that the geocaching nature of these challenges was something that benefited geocaching.

 

Still they found they need to publish additional restrictions on challenges, indicating there were issues in the months following.

 

Had ALRs never been allowed, some believe that geocaching would be better off - or at least much closer to the original vision. ALRs created an impression that the Found Log and the smiley are a reward given out by the cache owner. This has contributed to the ides that the find count is a score. Had we never had ALRs it is unlikely we would ever have had challenge caches. At least we would have fewer - like the old Delorme challenges where you had to email the cache owner for coordinates of the final after you completed the challenge. However we may have found a different way for geocachers to recognize when other had some accomplishment.

 

Suggestion are being made here of ways to continue using caches to recognize geocaching accomplishments without need to use ALRs for logging finds. I'm a little baffled that there is so much opposition to these ideas. I know people get used to doing things a certain way and see any change as overly complicated or unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a simple way to cut thru all the complex "solutions" so far proposed: Leave all the programing alone and don't hunt Challenge Caches you haven't qualified for!

If people who cheat on puzzles are allowed to "find" puzzle caches, I see no reason people who don't qualify for challenges shouldn't be allowed to "find" challenge caches. Whether or not that find = a smiley, that's a different story.

...

Well, regardless of that, a find is a find, whether you've cheated on a puzzle cache or you've "found" a challenge cache you don't qualify for.

No, it doesn't.

The Challenge is an ALR. A Puzzle is not.

You're not arguing about challenge caches, you're arguing about ALRs as a whole.

This thread is a discussion about how to better implement ALRs (or if necessary, only the challenge implementation of the concept).

 

At the heart of this game it is about finding caches.

No, it's not. As has been expressed numerous times - there are many types of 'caches' that are 'found' which are not physical containers, and which require various methods of "finding" that do not include 'find the physical log sheet and sign it'.

 

If at some point I do find "caches that begin with every letter from A to Z in South Carolina", I would consider that an accomplishment (or not) on it's own merit and finding an additional "challenge cache" in order to validate that with a smiley seems ludicrous.

Sure. If it were just a challenge. You know, like Worldwide Geocaching Challenges were. However in the case of Challenge Caches, which as a whole also include the physical cache component, then no. Completing the accomplish does not allow you to 'find' every challenge cache with that qualification requirement. By its nature, you must locate the physical cache and complete the challenge to log it found. That is the ALR. If you don't do either of those things, you don't qualify to log it found, by Groundspeak guidelines.

However, you can (now, at least, without date restrictions) accomplish the challenge once, then log every challenge cache requiring that accomplishment as soon as you find each of their physical caches.

 

it's as if you're saying "finding a cache that begins with every letter of the alphabet" isn't good enough of an accomplishment, you have a find an additional cache in order to validate the accomplishment.

That's exactly what is being said. It's all part of that cache's "Find" requirement; just like other classes of caches have different requirements to qualify for an online "Find" log.

 

As far as earthcaches, webcam caches, lab caches, virtuals, events, etc., I agree, those too mess with accurate smiley counts as well.

Ok! Now that's better. Now you sound like someone who prefers geocaching to be entirely about finding physical caches. Or at least that the Find count reflects ONLY your physical cache finds.

Yeah, that's not going to happen...

 

If you don't care about smiley counts and merely want to find caches for the joy of finding caches or exploring locations, then to not seek it merely because you won't get a smiley for it on the website seems ludicrous as well.

Does not compute.

If you don't care about smiley count, and only care about finding caches, then why would you care if you can't log it found online?

I've heard of a few people who have premium accounts but keep track of their finds without using their profile. What's to stop them from just going and finding any cache they know physical location of, and just enjoying that aspect of it? They don't care about the smiley (they really don't), just the fun of finding the cache. If you really don't care about the smiley, then you have no argument to make about what the smiley "should" represent.

 

Tell you what, I'll look for whatever caches I want, regardless of whether the website thinks I am entitled to a smiley face for them, and you guys keep patting yourselves on the back for getting one more smiley face...

To enthusiastically criticize people who value the smiley whatever it means, while asserting you don't care about smileys, does not computer.

 

Just don't tell the rest of us what caches we are and aren't allowed to find because of unrelated accomplishments that we have or haven't completed yet.

You're conflating the "find". No one's telling you you can't physically find any cache you want. Go right ahead. But to log it online (which shouldn't matter if you don't care about the smiley), then you must follow the guidelines for what constitutes a Found It log with Groundspeak on their listing website geocaching.com.

 

Go find all the physical caches you want. No one will stop you! B)

Share this post


Link to post

Go find all the physical caches you want. No one will stop you! B)

 

Well, that's my point.. I can find them physically... it's just a shame that my smiley count doesn't equal my correct amount of finds, but rather it is a score that is a sum of how many finds I have of caches that I happen to be qualified for, plus how many virtuals, plus how many events, etc. that winds up being a rather meaningless number showing under your name by your logs.

 

If someone (for this argument, let's assume someone not a geocacher who you're explaining geoaching to) asks you how many finds you have and you answer ("well, I have 271 smileys, which includes 240 traditional caches I have found, plus 12 multi-caches, 16 events I've gone to, 2 webcam caches and 1 Earthcache, but it doesn't include 3 challenge caches that I have logged as a note, but can't 'count' because I haven't completed the requirements of." "Uh, okay, well, how many caches have you actually found?" "255"

 

When you think of how many finds you have do you think of the smiley score, or the actual number of caches that you have found? Which do you think of when you're thinking of milestones?

 

To enthusiastically criticize people who value the smiley whatever it means, while asserting you don't care about smileys, does not computer.

 

That's my point, I do care about them, but I'd care a lot more if they were an accurate reflection of my amount of finds.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post
If you don't care about smiley counts and merely want to find caches for the joy of finding caches or exploring locations, then to not seek it merely because you won't get a smiley for it on the website seems ludicrous as well.

Does not compute.

If you don't care about smiley count, and only care about finding caches, then why would you care if you can't log it found online?

 

I can answer that for me.....

  1. On the GC site, I like keeping an accurate record of the caches I've found.
  2. I like to filter out the caches I've found when looking for caches I want to find.
  3. On the map I like to see the smiley faces of the caches I've found compared to the caches I haven't found.
  4. On the map I like to toggle the Filter>My Finds option to get a better picture of what I have found vs what I haven't found.
  5. And every few months I like run a PQ of the caches I've found.

If smileys no longer mean 'these are the caches I've found' and rather 'these are competitive game pieces' or 'this is my score', than keep the smileys but give those of us who don't care to compete, a new way/icon for keeping track of our actual finds.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a little baffled that there is so much opposition to these ideas.

 

Same here.

Share this post


Link to post

If smileys no longer mean 'these are the caches I've found' and rather 'these are competitive game pieces' or 'this is my score', than keep the smileys but give those of us who don't care to compete, a new way/icon for keeping track of our actual finds.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
If you don't care about smiley count, and only care about finding caches, then why would you care if you can't log it found online?

I can answer that for me.....

  1. On the GC site, I like keeping an accurate record of the caches I've found.
  2. I like to filter out the caches I've found when looking for caches I want to find.
  3. On the map I like to see the smiley faces of the caches I've found compared to the caches I haven't found.
  4. On the map I like to toggle the Filter>My Finds option to get a better picture of what I have found vs what I haven't found.
  5. And every few months I like run a PQ of the caches I've found.

If smileys no longer mean 'these are the caches I've found' and rather 'these are competitive game pieces' or 'this is my score', than keep the smileys but give those of us who don't care to compete, a new way/icon for keeping track of our actual finds.

But they don't mean "these are competitive game pieces" or "this is my score". Not fundamentally. People imbue that count with that arbitrary meaning. There is no basis, no standard, to assert that challenge caches make anything competitive.

Your points are all the exact same for me too... once we at least clarify what is meant in #1:

1. What do you consider "found"? Physically found? Or logged as found on gc.com?

2. You can do that, by what gc.com considers a "found" cache online.

3. Again, all based on what gc.com considers "found".

4. Of course, all by gc.com's "found" definition.

5. Which, as we all know, contains all caches that have at least one of gc.com's "found" logs.

 

"keeping track of our actual finds"

 

So what is this "actual find"?

Edited by thebruce0

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 6

×