Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
alsterdrache

Icon for Challenge Geocaches

Recommended Posts

It exactly keeps away the numbers people and most of those who write lame logs.

 

Are you suggesting that this was the intent of creating challenge caches?

Share this post


Link to post
It exactly keeps away the numbers people and most of those who write lame logs.

 

Are you suggesting that this was the intent of creating challenge caches?

 

No, but it works and it will not work with your challenge point system and so it's not true that it is win for everyone.

You wanted to hear specific comments which are not in favour of your system and I provided some.

 

I also do not think that puzzle caches have been created for the above purpose, but they also can be used for that purpose.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
It exactly keeps away the numbers people and most of those who write lame logs.

 

Are you suggesting that this was the intent of creating challenge caches?

 

No, but it works and it will not work with your challenge point system and so it's not true that it is win for everyone.

You wanted to hear specific comments which are not in favour of your system and I provided some.

 

I also do not think that puzzle caches have been created for the above purpose, but they also can be used for that purpose.

 

While you indicate that your comments are not in favor of the Stars system, I (and possibly others) interpret them otherwise.

 

I think that enhancements that close loopholes in existing features which are being used contrary to their original intent are a good thing.

 

Thanks for your support!

Share this post


Link to post

I think that enhancements that close loopholes in existing features which are being used contrary to their original intent are a good thing.

 

I think you make the mistake to confuse "contrary to the original intent" with "not being the original intent".

 

Premium member only caches for example are nowadays also often used to exclude a particular audience that has not even existed when premium member

only caches have been created. I would not refer to this as "being against the original intent" and as closing a loophole.

Geocaching has changed and has become a mass movement (at least in some areas) and so this makes methods necessary to deal with that.

As no new methods are provided, one needs to make the best out of what already exists. It is no secret that some caches are puzzle caches only

to target the exclude a certain audience (for example those who never read cache descriptions), but I would not say that this is using puzzle

caches against their intent.

 

 

When you take away the option to target cache at specific audiences (like in the two example challenge caches I listed above), then much fewer such caches will be hidden and in some areas none at all. There will be no gain at all, except for those who want to get rid of challenge caches.

 

What do you expect from the challenge star system if it will discourage cache owners to set up new challenge caches?

 

The only reward for coming up with a cache of the ones I mentioned are the logs that are relevant to the challenge. Otherwise, one could hide a normal cache and it will not make any difference for the cache owner, it just gets easier as no check is necessary whether those you log a challenge completed have really met the qualifications. If one gets something in return as it is the case with the current system, then it can pay off. With the challenge star system I do not see a single reason for a cache owner to implement a cache as challenge cache.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
I think you make the mistake to confuse "contrary to the original intent" with "not being the original intent".

I..that... no, those statements mean the same thing :P

If A is contrary to B, then A is not B.

 

I think you mean if A is explicitly intended to be opposed to B, rather than simply not being the same (like 180 degrees is the opposite direction, while 90 degrees is just a different direction).

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
I think you make the mistake to confuse "contrary to the original intent" with "not being the original intent".

I..that... no, those statements mean the same thing :P

If A is contrary to B, then A is not B.

 

I think you mean if A is explicitly intended to be opposed to B, rather than simply not being the same (like 180 degrees is the opposite direction, while 90 degrees is just a different direction).

 

No, I do not agree that the two statements mean the same and the direction comparison does not convey what I meant.

 

One can create a concept with the intentions A and B in mind and then can use the concept for C. C is not necessarily contradicting the intent behind A and B - that depends on the case.

If C is contrary to A and B, then the concept is abused, if C is just another aspect not directly connected to A and B, I do not think that terms like loophole, abuse etc are appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
I think you make the mistake to confuse "contrary to the original intent" with "not being the original intent".

I..that... no, those statements mean the same thing :P

If A is contrary to B, then A is not B.

 

I think you mean if A is explicitly intended to be opposed to B, rather than simply not being the same (like 180 degrees is the opposite direction, while 90 degrees is just a different direction).

 

No, I do not agree that the two statements mean the same and the direction comparison does not convey what I meant.

 

One can create a concept with the intentions A and B in mind and then can use the concept for C. C is not necessarily contradicting the intent behind A and B - that depends on the case.

If C is contrary to A and B, then the concept is abused, if C is just another aspect not directly connected to A and B, I do not think that terms like loophole, abuse etc are appropriate.

 

I know what they meant. They're suggesting that since challenge caches weren't specifically prohibited from being used as a visit-throttling mechanism, it is OK to pervert the feature to that end.

 

Kind of like how it used to be ok to publish a puzzle whose solution required you to have a psychic link with the CO -- because there was nothing in the guidelines against it.

Share this post


Link to post

I know what they meant. They're suggesting that since challenge caches weren't specifically prohibited from being used as a visit-throttling mechanism, it is OK to pervert the feature to that end.

 

I think that neither aiming for decent logs nor trying to encourage people to visit/hide caches that match one's own preferences is a perversion.

 

I do not see any reason why someone who is not able or not willing to manage to reach the 300km mark with 20 multi caches should log a found it for a cache which only exists because one can target a cache at this audience.

Perverting a feature is something different to me.

With your challenge point system, such a cache would not be hidden at all. I considered for a while to hide a similar challenge cache myself with the intent to bring more people to visit/hide longer hiking caches.

If everyone could log a find, such caches have no point at all as hardly anyone from my target audience cares about any sorts of points.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
I think that neither aiming for decent logs nor trying to encourage people to visit/hide caches that match one's own preferences is a perversion.

 

On its face, no. However, "gaming" guidelines to achieve an end which was not their intent is the very definition of perverse.

 

With your challenge point system, such a cache would not be hidden at all.

 

By you. I believe you are in a minority, thankfully.

 

Me? I encourage decent logs and caches that match my preference the old fashioned way -- I write decent logs and hide caches that match my preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Currently, smileys also indicate: [snip]

True. But for caches with a physical container, a smiley means you've found the cache.

 

Except for challenge caches, of course.

The purpose of puzzle caches is to have the geocacher solve the puzzle and then find the cache. The purpose of multi-caches is to have the geocacher find the intermediate stages and then find the final stage. The purpose of Wherigos is to have the geocacher accomplish the specified tasks then find the final stage.

 

But it's pretty obvious that the cache owners and Groundspeak would generally have a difficult time trying to ensure that people did these caches the way they were intended. So, for these types, Groundspeak allows anybody who finds the final cache and signs the log to claim their online smiley.

 

The purpose of challenge caches is to have the geocacher accomplish a geocaching-related task and find the cache. Unlike those other types of physical caches, challenge cache owners generally don't have much trouble verifying that people did these caches the way they were intended, so Groundspeak allows these owners to delete the smileys of those who don't.

 

Challenge caches generally work the way they're intended. That's not a good justification for changing them.

Share this post


Link to post
With your challenge point system, such a cache would not be hidden at all.

 

By you. I believe you are in a minority, thankfully.

 

No, I did not mean by me. I have not hidden a single challenge cache in all these almost 12 years and I just considered once to hide a very specific one.

I'm however convinced that in least in my country the interest into challenge caches would disappear once a system like the one

suggested by you were introduced. It would be much simpler to simply abolish challenge caches to reach the same goal.

 

It appears to me that almost all among those who like your suggestion have not hidden challenge caches. Thebruce0 is an exception, but

there is a big difference in style between a challenge cache like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3D5EB_ironman-bingo-challenge

where the main intent is indeed to come up with a challenge hardly anyone would come up with for themselves as a geocaching goal without having seen this challenge

and a challenge where you have to find a multi cache in all provinces of a country.

 

The first mentioned challenge is not really location-specific and I'm not sure about the profit the log stories could provide.

In case of the latter example, one major goal of the cache could be to ask the finders to list their favourite multi cache in each province so as to end up with a nice collection

of cache recommendations without having to search for the interesting logs within the garbage TFTC logs.

 

Your challenge point system in my opinion mainly appeals to those who do not like that they cannot log finds for challenge caches without meeting the qualifications and for those

who come up with challenges where it's mainly about offering a new challenge and not having some background motivation for coming up with exactly this set of qualification requirements.

 

For the purpose to show off one's accomplishments to others, a souvenir system would be much more appropriate in my opinion.

The link to a physical cache makes only sense to me if it works like it works now.

 

 

Me? I encourage decent logs and caches that match my preference the old fashioned way -- I write decent logs and hide caches that match my preferences.

 

I noticed however that these methods get increasingly less effective and I noticed that some challenge caches had a positive effect with respect to what I mentioned.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Here is my first post on this topic.

 

Personaly, I see the problem as confusing my map. It kind of bugs me that this totaly unique cache type is bunched in with all the other ? on my map.

 

At the very least, I would like to see a new cache type.

 

In a perfect world, I would like to see an achievment based system, kind of like the badges in project-GC. All the basic typical ones could be run automaticaly by the GS server, awarding some sort of digital badge (similar, but seperate from souveniers), and the more local, specialized, unique ones could be administered by the author, and a digital badge, designed by the aurthor, could be awarded as well. I guess it may look a bit like the old Challange thing, but a geocaching related, and not so lame.

 

Like a lot of others, it seems silly to me to require that last cache find to somehow validate your already great achievment. It seems kind of like making the winner of the olympic marathon run one more mile to claim the gold medal. He already won the race, why make him do more?

Share this post


Link to post

Here is my first post on this topic.

 

Personaly, I see the problem as confusing my map. It kind of bugs me that this totaly unique cache type is bunched in with all the other ? on my map.

 

At the very least, I would like to see a new cache type.

 

In a perfect world, I would like to see an achievment based system, kind of like the badges in project-GC. All the basic typical ones could be run automaticaly by the GS server, awarding some sort of digital badge (similar, but seperate from souveniers), and the more local, specialized, unique ones could be administered by the author, and a digital badge, designed by the aurthor, could be awarded as well. I guess it may look a bit like the old Challange thing, but a geocaching related, and not so lame.

 

Like a lot of others, it seems silly to me to require that last cache find to somehow validate your already great achievment. It seems kind of like making the winner of the olympic marathon run one more mile to claim the gold medal. He already won the race, why make him do more?

 

Kind of perfectly sums up my thoughts much better than I ever did.

Share this post


Link to post
Personaly, I see the problem as confusing my map. It kind of bugs me that this totaly unique cache type is bunched in with all the other ? on my map.

Here's a prototype of the map filter that I put together over in the feature request thread:

 

792ef72b-2fb3-475c-bf51-a720ab1b3e24.png

 

This could alleviate the map confusion issue.

 

 

an achievment based system, kind of like the badges in project-GC

The current souvenirs are subject to much tomfoolery and I believe this would be more of the same. Fake logs, subsequently deleted, to gain the badge. Administration of this would fall onto GS, who are clearly overwhelmed at this juncture. They can't even do a souvenir for every country but are expected to create art for completing a Jasmer or Delorme? And that's not even accounting for the creation and management of a user-side custom badge creation and verification system.

 

 

Like a lot of others, it seems silly to me to require that last cache find to somehow validate your already great achievment. It seems kind of like making the winner of the olympic marathon run one more mile to claim the gold medal. He already won the race, why make him do more?

The best analogy with which I can come up to address this is a puzzle cache. If someone has already solved it, why bother going to sign the log?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Like a lot of others, it seems silly to me to require that last cache find to somehow validate your already great achievment. It seems kind of like making the winner of the olympic marathon run one more mile to claim the gold medal. He already won the race, why make him do more?

The best analogy with which I can come up to address this is a puzzle cache. If someone has already solved it, why bother going to sign the log?

 

Not the best analogy, but I see the point.

I guess Andronicus's point, though, is that the primary consideration is the challenge itself and the only way Groundspeak allows us to use it to add to our numbers is by having the physical cache to sign with the ALR in the site log. It seems more like the marathon runner crossing the finish line without breaking the ribbon...all the "real" work of meeting the requirements is done, but essentially counts for naught on the site until the cache is found and signed.

Share this post


Link to post

How about making the Challenge Cache like a Puzzle? You only get the coordinates for the final container from the CO after submitting and having verified your completion of the requirements of the Challenge?

Edited by frinklabs

Share this post


Link to post

How about making the Challenge Cache like a Puzzle? You only get the coordinates for the final container from the CO after submitting and having verified your completion of the requirements of the Challenge?

While a good idea, I don't think GS will allow it. Also, it doesn't address the map clutter issue.

 

While the map clutter issue is not insurmountable (i.e. ignore list), I really would like to see a different icon on the map for challanges. I may even try some if they were somehow distinguishable.

Share this post


Link to post

How about making the Challenge Cache like a Puzzle? You only get the coordinates for the final container from the CO after submitting and having verified your completion of the requirements of the Challenge?

This is what the current Guildeline says:

A challenge geocache must be attainable without the need to email the owner. The container should be located at the posted coordinates on the geocache page, or if a puzzle, the geocache page must include the means to calculate the coordinates of the container.

Share this post


Link to post

How about making the Challenge Cache like a Puzzle? You only get the coordinates for the final container from the CO after submitting and having verified your completion of the requirements of the Challenge?

This is what the current Guildeline says:

A challenge geocache must be attainable without the need to email the owner. The container should be located at the posted coordinates on the geocache page, or if a puzzle, the geocache page must include the means to calculate the coordinates of the container.

 

I think it is fair to say that any new feature would also have to be accompanied by corresponding changes to the guidelines. Sort of like how the ALR rule was altered to accommodate challenge caches.

 

Meanwhile, I think that the challenge-like-a-puzzle feature would appeal to those COs who would publish only for a "target audience" and would like to restrict their caches from being found by "garbage TFTC" loggers and the "numbers people".

 

This way, the Found It log and smiley becomes the reward they intend it to be.

Share this post


Link to post

How about making the Challenge Cache like a Puzzle? You only get the coordinates for the final container from the CO after submitting and having verified your completion of the requirements of the Challenge?

This is what the current Guildeline says:

A challenge geocache must be attainable without the need to email the owner. The container should be located at the posted coordinates on the geocache page, or if a puzzle, the geocache page must include the means to calculate the coordinates of the container.

I think it is fair to say that any new feature would also have to be accompanied by corresponding changes to the guidelines. Sort of like how the ALR rule was altered to accommodate challenge caches.

 

Meanwhile, I think that the challenge-like-a-puzzle feature would appeal to those COs who would publish only for a "target audience" and would like to restrict their caches from being found by "garbage TFTC" loggers and the "numbers people".

 

This way, the Found It log and smiley becomes the reward they intend it to be.

Some older challenges required folks to email the owner. Once they were satisfied that the challenge requirements had been fulfilled, they would send the final cache's coordinates. At least that's the way it was supposed to work.

 

I suspect the no-email guideline was added because the email method was either abused by some owners and/or other owners didn't respond within a reasonable period.

 

In any case, emailing the final coordinates wouldn't solve the concerns that a few people seem to have. If a friend completed the challenge and has the final coordinates, they might be enticed to reveal them to me (or even publish them on the Internet). If I then go to the final cache and sign the log, would I then be allowed to claim my online smiley regardless of whether I had met the challenge requirements?

Share this post


Link to post

I still think the best solution would be to split Challenge Caches away from the Mystery/Unknown category into their own category and then have two log types unique to challenge caches. A "Discovered" log which could be written when the physical cache is found and a "Challenge Completed" log which would signify that the challenge component had been completed. The Discovered log would function exactly as a found log except that it would not update the find count. The challenge completed log would be locationless. When the same cacher has posted both logs for a cache then the find count would be updated and the smiley awarded. The cache-to-cache distance would be calculated when the Discovered log is written. The "Found" date would be the date that the second of these logs is written.

 

One problem with the "Caching Stars" solution would be when there are multiple caches with the same or similar challenge components. If there are, for example, a dozen challenges with "Find 10 years worth of lonely caches" could a cacher claim a dozen stars by completing that challenge?

Share this post


Link to post

One problem with the "Caching Stars" solution would be when there are multiple caches with the same or similar challenge components. If there are, for example, a dozen challenges with "Find 10 years worth of lonely caches" could a cacher claim a dozen stars by completing that challenge?

 

Only if they find the caches too.

You don't just get the stars for qualifying for any cache the world over. It functions exactly like challenge caches do now, but also allows people to log the physical cache found, whether they qualify for the challenge or not.

You know how many single fizzy challenges there are out there? Qualify once, and you qualify for them all. But you don't get the smiley until you also find the cache. This moves the challenge reward from the smiley to the stars (still have to qualify and find), while keeping the smiley available for only the physical find.

 

Another benefit to that would be you could do a search for any cache with a challenge component which you haven't qualified for - and that's your list of challenges you could/should be working on :P

 

(plus, nothing changes if you qualify for a challenge before finding it - right now, you might be prompted to post a note, or just bookmark the cache as qualified but not found; that wouldn't change with the stars system)

Share this post


Link to post

One problem with the "Caching Stars" solution would be when there are multiple caches with the same or similar challenge components. If there are, for example, a dozen challenges with "Find 10 years worth of lonely caches" could a cacher claim a dozen stars by completing that challenge?

 

Only if they find the caches too.

You don't just get the stars for qualifying for any cache the world over. It functions exactly like challenge caches do now, but also allows people to log the physical cache found, whether they qualify for the challenge or not.

You know how many single fizzy challenges there are out there? Qualify once, and you qualify for them all. But you don't get the smiley until you also find the cache. This moves the challenge reward from the smiley to the stars (still have to qualify and find), while keeping the smiley available for only the physical find.

 

Another benefit to that would be you could do a search for any cache with a challenge component which you haven't qualified for - and that's your list of challenges you could/should be working on :P

 

(plus, nothing changes if you qualify for a challenge before finding it - right now, you might be prompted to post a note, or just bookmark the cache as qualified but not found; that wouldn't change with the stars system)

 

I think many challenge cache owners don't view it this way. They believe that you get a WIGAS point for finding the cache, just as you get a WIGAS point for finding any other cache. The difference for a challenge cache is that completing the challenge qualifies you to enter the online log that counts as a WIGAS. (The challenge crowd say that completing the challenge qualifies you to find the cache, but that is obviously wrong).

 

What you are saying now is that finding the challenge cache qualifies you to get the challenge stars if you complete the challenge. It does seem a bit strange to make finding a cache the qualification for logging the stars and somewhat silly to say every that time you find another cache that has the same challenge you get to log the stars again.

 

Personally I prefer the current system with the simple change of calling the challenge cache log something other than Found. Post a note, if you must, when you find the cache. Post a note, if you must, if you complete the challenge. Only when you have done both you can enter the WIGAS log and get a smiley.

Share this post


Link to post
What you are saying now is that finding the challenge cache qualifies you to get the challenge stars if you complete the challenge. It does seem a bit strange to make finding a cache the qualification for logging the stars and somewhat silly to say every that time you find another cache that has the same challenge you get to log the stars again.

You misunderstand.

 

To get the Challenge Stars, you would have to post a WIGAS after signing the logbook and then a Challenge Completed log containing the requested proof of qualifications.

 

You could post Challenge Completed logs on every similar challenge worldwide but you aren't getting the Stars until you locate the container and sign its log and then post a Found It.

 

Personally I prefer the current system with the simple change of calling the challenge cache log something other than Found. Post a note, if you must, when you find the cache. Post a note, if you must, if you complete the challenge. Only when you have done both you can enter the WIGAS log and get a smiley.

This actually happens now -- but it doesn't distinguish chronologically between the signing of the log and the completion of the requirements. So you have notes from people who signed the logbook only to complete the challenge later and post the Found It then. Equating the WIGAS with a reward for completing the challenge has issues, already mentioned, around messing up mileages and milestones etc.

 

Suggesting that things should stay as they are will always get you what you want, given the crippling inertia of development of features here; measuring their chronology of implementation requires use of the GTS.

Share this post


Link to post

You know how many single fizzy challenges there are out there? Qualify once, and you qualify for them all.

Not quite true. Some require you to find all the caches within a particular state, others anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Meanwhile, I think that the challenge-like-a-puzzle feature would appeal to those COs who would publish only for a "target audience" and would like to restrict their caches from being found by "garbage TFTC" loggers and the "numbers people".

 

Not necessarily. I prefer if the challenge cache coordinates are obtainable independently from fulfilling the qualifications as it helps in avoiding distance conflicts when hiding caches.

 

This way, the Found It log and smiley becomes the reward they intend it to be.

 

The current system works fine in this regard.

 

What would make sense is to make it easier to select/ignore challenges, but none of your suggestions is helpful for that purpose.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

You know how many single fizzy challenges there are out there? Qualify once, and you qualify for them all.

Not quite true. Some require you to find all the caches within a particular state, others anywhere.

 

I know there are variations.

I was referring to "fizzy challenges", not "fizzy challenges with a twist". Just plain old fizzy challenges. Challenges that require you to fill your grid. That's it. Tons of'em. Qualify once, qualify all. No Smiley for each until you find each cache as well, though.

 

What would make sense is to make it easier to select/ignore challenges, but none of your suggestions is helpful for that purpose.

 

That's precisely what the stars addition does. It separates the challenge from the cache, while still requiring both finding and qualifying in order to gain the 'reward' - but allows people who don't care about challenges to still find the cache, bringing the Found It log back in line with its literal meaning - I found the cache.

Don't like challenges? Just hide all the challenge information. The map shows the same caches, but no challenge ratings; no little challenge tags on the cache icons; no need to worry that any physical cache you find will require some ALR before being allowed to post a Found It, if you find the cache or final stage.

 

Nothing changes for the challenge cacher - name a process, and it's exactly the same, except for the fact that you can log it Found and then mark the challenge complete. If you qualify first, at the very least, exactly the same general process applies - post a note if you want, then find the cache: post the Find along with the qualification.

 

I honestly see the stars system as a win-win now, and the most significant additions to the system would be

1) An optional challenge rating on physical-style caches

2) A method for the finder to flag the challenge cache as qualified - whether a flag on the Found It log (and maybe a date of qualification), or a new log type that can only be posted on challenge caches.

3) Algorithm to total Challenge stars just like D and T. Sum all challenge stars for caches containing both a Find log (already filtered for the find count) as well as a challenge complete log.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

That's precisely what the stars addition does.

 

No, the star addition has further effects and it turns challenge caches into mass food as which many of them never have been intended.

 

A challlenge cache attribute would have effects only on the selection process.

 

Nothing changes for the challenge cacher - name a process, and it's exactly the same, except for the fact that you can log it Found and then mark the challenge complete. If you qualify first, at the very least, exactly the same general process applies - post a note if you want, then find the cache: post the Find along with the qualification.

 

But there are changes for the cache owner and the quality of the logs deteriorates.

The motivation to come up with challenge caches of many types will considerably drop as a result of the proposed system.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

That's precisely what the stars addition does.

No, the star addition has further effects and it turns challenge caches into mass food as which many of them never have been intended.

No, read what I said again.

You said: "What would make sense is to make it easier to select/ignore challenges, but none of your suggestions is helpful for that purpose."

I said that the way it's implemented does allow for that. Then I explained why. Someone who does not care about challenges has no need to do or see them. At all. And yet, they will still be allowed to find the physical cache. Caches with challenge component would necessarily be searchable (and thus ignorable, or the challenge aspect alone can be hidden)

 

A challlenge cache attribute would have effects only on the selection process.

An attribute merely addresses searching. There are more concerns to address.

 

But there are changes for the cache owner and the quality of the logs deteriorates.

You say that like it's definitive. No, some cachers may still post sub-par logs. The change does not promote in any way shape or form lesser-quality logs. Instead it allows loggers to focus more on the content of the log type. Yes, there may still be sub-par logs, but that is not a symptom of the system. That's lazy loggers. Nothing will fix that, if users are prompted by a text box for text.

 

The motivation to come up with challenge caches of many types will considerably drop as a result of the proposed system.

You say that like it's definitive. No, some cachers may still create sub-par [subjective] challenge caches. The change does not promote in any way shape or form lesser-quality challenge caches. Instead it allows COs to enjoy the fun of challenge cache rewards while creating themed caches about their associated challenges. Yes, there may still be sub-par challenge caches, but that is not a symptom of the system. That's a freedom COs should have. Nothing will fix that (issues with the 'wow factor' prove that).

 

At worst, it disallows COs from forcing people to find AND qualify, since people can now post a Found It (which means what it says), without qualifying.

If that is big enough of an issue, then all that would be needed would be an option for the CO to toggle saying whether Finds can be posted without the Qualification. Then the CO can control whether he wants to let non-challenge cachers also log the physical cache found without having to do the challenge.

Then at least the cachers who want to Find a physical cache online can't blame Groundspeak any more, but only the CO (who believes the smiley is a WIGAS, not a FIND)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

You said: "What would make sense is to make it easier to select/ignore challenges, but none of your suggestions is helpful for that purpose."

I said that the way it's implemented does allow for that.

 

It depends of course on the implementation. The mere presence of challenge stars, does not help the select/ignore portion of the caches alltogether (not just the challenge aspect).

 

Then I explained why. Someone who does not care about challenges has no need to do or see them. At all. And yet, they will still be allowed to find the physical cache. Caches with challenge component would necessarily be searchable (and thus ignorable, or the challenge aspect alone can be hidden)

 

That's true, but it will change something for those who are not willing to log a find for such caches without meeting the challenge.

They still cannot not easily automatically identify such caches.

 

 

But there are changes for the cache owner and the quality of the logs deteriorates.

You say that like it's definitive. No, some cachers may still post sub-par logs. The change does not promote in any way shape or form lesser-quality logs.

 

Of course, there will always be individual differences in logs.

I have provided examples before for what I mean with the effect on the logs.

Consider a challenge cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4Y7WG_challenge-steiermark-13-bezirke?guid=2232c089-6947-4a74-ba64-47372d099a4b

 

Taking all the logs together gives you very nice lists for multi cache suggestions in the province I'm living in.

If the challenge qualification and the physical cache were separated, at least half of the visitors of the cache

(including myself) had not visited it and at least 30 others who are into T5 caching at boring locations would have visited the cache.

It then gets extremely tiresome to scan the logs for the only interesting ones with respect to the challenge.

 

 

 

Instead it allows loggers to focus more on the content of the log type. Yes, there may still be sub-par logs, but that is not a symptom of the system. That's lazy loggers. Nothing will fix that, if users are prompted by a text box for text.

 

Lazy loggers will always exist, but that was not the aspect I tried to discuss here. Everyone who wants to qualify for the challenge above (or similar ones), has to provide the requested list and has to have visited enough multi caches. The cache container in itself is not remarkable anyway and that's not the interesting part of that cache at all. This cache owner never ever would have hidden this type of cache without the challenge part.

And there are many examples like that.

Share this post


Link to post

I still believe this a solution to a non problem . I am seeing multiple passionate posts from a handful of forum regulars. I do not see this as a reason to require a change that will inevitably result in just as much passionate posts from people who don't like the change. One of the problems with forum feedback is that you only hear from people who are unhappy.

Share this post


Link to post

It depends of course on the implementation. The mere presence of challenge stars, does not help the select/ignore portion of the caches alltogether (not just the challenge aspect).

...of course. That's why you take the entire suggestion, not just bits and pieces and criticize them alone. No one said implement the stars, and just the stars. There's a whole system being suggested.

 

That's true, but it will change something for those who are not willing to log a find for such caches without meeting the challenge.

They still cannot not easily automatically identify such caches.

...yes they can, as I just explained, and as explained in the feature request thread. It would be searchable, and challenges would be hideable, because they have an explicit challenge property.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "not willing to log a find without meeting the challenge". That's a good thing. That's the intent. Even right now, you don't have to log a Find if you haven't qualified. With the stars, you still don't have to log a find if you haven't qualified. No one has to log a find. "not willing" is a personal choice. Your sentence doesn't make sense.

Found it, but don't yet qualify? Log it found (new!), or post a note, or don't do anything. Qualify later.

Found it, but don't want to qualify? Log it found. (new!)

Found it, and qualify? Log it found, and qualified. (new!)

Qualify, but haven't found it? Post a note, or don't do anything. Find later.

Qualify, but don't want to find it? Too bad, bub.

 

Taking all the logs together gives you very nice lists for multi cache suggestions in the province I'm living in.

If the challenge qualification and the physical cache were separated, at least half of the visitors of the cache

(including myself) had not visited it and at least 30 others who are into T5 caching at boring locations would have visited the cache.

It then gets extremely tiresome to scan the logs for the only interesting ones with respect to the challenge.

There is no guarantee you can do that with any challenge cache right now. Nothing would change. Actually, it would be easier to find relevant or interesting information in logs, because you'd only need to look through challenge qualification logs (or finds marked as qualified) in the history to find other nice caches.

And, you know you can contact finders and ask, right? There's also their qualifier bookmark lists if people create them.

But there is zero guarantee (or promise) that any challenge cache's log history will provide "nice lists" for cache suggestions. So that cannot be used as a criticism of the feature suggestion.

 

Lazy loggers will always exist, but that was not the aspect I tried to discuss here. Everyone who wants to qualify for the challenge above (or similar ones), has to provide the requested list and has to have visited enough multi caches.

That's an arbitrary requirement set up by the CO. The same can be required by the CO in the suggested system. Automated challenge verification is another feature entirely, and one I'm not a fan of.

 

The cache container in itself is not remarkable anyway and that's not the interesting part of that cache at all. This cache owner never ever would have hidden this type of cache without the challenge part.

And there's nothing stopping the same thing from happening in the suggested system.

Share this post


Link to post

I still believe this a solution to a non problem . I am seeing multiple passionate posts from a handful of forum regulars. I do not see this as a reason to require a change that will inevitably result in just as much passionate posts from people who don't like the change.

It's a discussion forum.

Let's use it to discuss.

Also, people have expressed concerns and problems with the challenge cache concept. That's been made clear in multiple threads. So the discussion is about ways - which may or may not ever get implemented - to address those concerns. Because it's a discussion forum. So yeah. B)

 

One of the problems with forum feedback is that you only hear from people who are unhappy.

I'm not unhappy. I like the current system. I also like the suggested stars system, after having decided that the alternative ideas for challenge caching changes were, imo, insufficient.

I would still be happy if nothing changes. But I would also be happy if the system is changed, arguably improved. So, let's discuss ideas - benefits and drawbacks.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

It depends of course on the implementation. The mere presence of challenge stars, does not help the select/ignore portion of the caches alltogether (not just the challenge aspect).

...of course. That's why you take the entire suggestion, not just bits and pieces and criticize them alone. No one said implement the stars, and just the stars. There's a whole system being suggested.

 

Maybe I misunderstood something.

 

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "not willing to log a find without meeting the challenge". That's a good thing. That's the intent.

 

It's a good thing for some and a bad one for others. I have encountered challenges where I can imagine that the cache owner would not care if the new system came,

but I know many challenge caches that would get archived immediately.

 

 

There is no guarantee you can do that with any challenge cache right now.

 

No, no guarantee, but the practical experience in my country shows that it works well.

I'm convinced that this would not work any longer with the new system and most of the old challenge caches (if not grandfathered) would get archived.

 

Actually, it would be easier to find relevant or interesting information in logs, because you'd only need to look through challenge qualification logs (or finds marked as qualified) in the history to find other nice caches.

 

It would not be easier at all as there is no approach on the website to look only at a specific log type, not even for trackables.

 

And, you know you can contact finders and ask, right? There's also their qualifier bookmark lists if people create them.

 

First, not everyone can create bookmarks. Second clicking at 30 or more bookmarks lists takes much more time than browsing through 30 consecutive logs on the web page.

 

But there is zero guarantee (or promise) that any challenge cache's log history will provide "nice lists" for cache suggestions. So that cannot be used as a criticism of the feature suggestion.

 

Lazy loggers will always exist, but that was not the aspect I tried to discuss here. Everyone who wants to qualify for the challenge above (or similar ones), has to provide the requested list and has to have visited enough multi caches.

That's an arbitrary requirement set up by the CO. The same can be required by the CO in the suggested system. Automated challenge verification is another feature entirely, and one I'm not a fan of.

 

You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about automatic verification and not about a list in a specific format. Just the free text lists in the logs.

What I meant is that those who do not deal with the challenge aspect, will not provide any visited caches at all and there is hardly anything to write about the cache itself.

 

The cache container in itself is not remarkable anyway and that's not the interesting part of that cache at all. This cache owner never ever would have hidden this type of cache without the challenge part.

And there's nothing stopping the same thing from happening in the suggested system.

 

Of course not, but right now it's the challenge part that makes such caches stand out for some caches and not the container. If you take away the first, then nothing interesting remains.

The majority of challenge caches I know would not have been hidden without the challenge requirement which can be enforced.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
I know there are variations.

I was referring to "fizzy challenges", not "fizzy challenges with a twist". Just plain old fizzy challenges. Challenges that require you to fill your grid. That's it. Tons of'em.

Ironically, the original Fizzy challenge is not one of them. It includes a "twist" beyond just filling your difficulty–terrain grid.

 

But I digress...

Share this post


Link to post

At worst, it disallows COs from forcing people to find AND qualify, since people can now post a Found It (which means what it says), without qualifying.

If that is big enough of an issue, then all that would be needed would be an option for the CO to toggle saying whether Finds can be posted without the Qualification. Then the CO can control whether he wants to let non-challenge cachers also log the physical cache found without having to do the challenge.

Then at least the cachers who want to Find a physical cache online can't blame Groundspeak any more, but only the CO (who believes the smiley is a WIGAS, not a FIND)

Um, if I read this right, you just described the current system. The "toggle" I flipped for mine was making it a challenge cache so that finders need to qualify before they can log online.

 

As to "blame" - GS would take just as much in the above as they do now. They would be listing caches with the same restrictions placed by CO's.

 

So, I'm behind this - just leave out the rest of the complicated stars/new log types/etc. that add nothing to the process. (For those that haven't followed all this: don't change anything except maybe a cache type for challenges.)

Share this post


Link to post
Um, if I read this right, you just described the current system. The "toggle" I flipped for mine was making it a challenge cache so that finders need to qualify before they can log online.

But in the current system you can't provide a challenge cache that lets people "Find" it without qualifying.

Well you can, but arbitrarily (CO turning a blind eye to requirements), and results in creating an inaccurate log history on your cache (where Finds aren't necessarily also qualifications).

 

Nonetheless, currently what you allow to happen with your listing may or may not be consistent with the guidelines and what cachers would expect to see. So yes, you're right you can "toggle" the switch in the current system, but it's arbitrary and contrary to intended meaning (in context, of the Find log and the Challenge cache).

 

As to "blame" - GS would take just as much in the above as they do now. They would be listing caches with the same restrictions placed by CO's.

Ok, yes people can always blame Groundspeak, but right now it's an issue with the system (which doesn't distinguish between one or the other) so it is in Groundspeak's court, the system can be blamed for disagreements. But if the system explicitly allows for one or the other, then they'd be able to ring their hands and say it was specifically the CO's choice, as provided by the system, to list it one way or the other. If you prefer it the other way, take it up with the CO. Currently, the system only allows the one way - Find and Qualify (apart from arbitrary and/or incorrect CO maintenance of the log history)

 

So, I'm behind this - just leave out the rest of the complicated stars/new log types/etc. that add nothing to the process. (For those that haven't followed all this: don't change anything except maybe a cache type for challenges.)

 

The remaining issue with the cache type however is that people still can't "Find" it, even though it's a physical cache. The issue of the meaning of the Find log (vs WIGAS log) still exists.

 

It is a step in the right direction, but still leaves issues unaddressed. (and, of course, one can say that's fine, leave them unaddressed because they're not important, but personally I don't like that as a solution :P, especially when there are interesting ways to address them B))

Share this post


Link to post
Um, if I read this right, you just described the current system. The "toggle" I flipped for mine was making it a challenge cache so that finders need to qualify before they can log online.

But in the current system you can't provide a challenge cache that lets people "Find" it without qualifying.

Well you can, but arbitrarily (CO turning a blind eye to requirements), and results in creating an inaccurate log history on your cache (where Finds aren't necessarily also qualifications).

In the current system you can have a traditional (or any other physical cache) with an optional task. For example, you can ask people to post a list caches that qualifies for some "challenge" and have a "wall of honor" where you list the names of the finders who posted their qualification. In fact you don't even have to follow the guidelines for challenge caches or even have a chalenge be geocaching related (although you probably have to keep the challenge simple, fun, and free from agendas).

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

In the current system you can have a traditional (or any other physical cache) with an optional task. For example, you can ask people to post a list caches that qualifies for some "challenge" and have a "wall of honor" where you list the names of the finders who posted their qualification. In fact you don't even have to follow the guidelines for challenge caches or even have a chalenge be geocaching related (although you probably have to keep the challenge simple, fun, and free from agendas).

...and that wouldn't change at all with the suggested system, because that's not a challenge requirement. That's just the owner asking you to do something that's not required to post a Find.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

In the current system you can have a traditional (or any other physical cache) with an optional task. For example, you can ask people to post a list caches that qualifies for some "challenge" and have a "wall of honor" where you list the names of the finders who posted their qualification. In fact you don't even have to follow the guidelines for challenge caches or even have a chalenge be geocaching related (although you probably have to keep the challenge simple, fun, and free from agendas).

...and that wouldn't change at all with the suggested system, because that's not a challenge requirement. That's just the owner asking you to do something that's not required to post a Find.

I didn't want to say it. But in the current system, a cache owner could hide a traditional with an optional challenge and say "If you did the challenge you can log a find (WIGAS) twice". All this proposal is doing is providing a separate counter for the duplicate log to keep someone from getting their knickers in a twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Um, if I read this right, you just described the current system. The "toggle" I flipped for mine was making it a challenge cache so that finders need to qualify before they can log online.

But in the current system you can't provide a challenge cache that lets people "Find" it without qualifying.Well you can, but arbitrarily (CO turning a blind eye to requirements), and results in creating an inaccurate log history on your cache (where Finds aren't necessarily also qualifications).

 

Nonetheless, currently what you allow to happen with your listing may or may not be consistent with the guidelines and what cachers would expect to see. So yes, you're right you can "toggle" the switch in the current system, but it's arbitrary and contrary to intended meaning (in context, of the Find log and the Challenge cache).

Bold: So what? That's the point of challenge caches. The only "problem" that's been brought up is that a few people whine that they can't log a find on every cache (which I doubt they could anyway, few people can handle every T5*, so why pick on challenge caches).

 

You missed my overall point. Under the system you're pushing, I flip a toggle and have the cache I now have, so why should I as a CO of a challenge have to go thru all the rigamaroll just to publish a cache I can now? The idea behind a challenge cache is you (generic) meet the challenge and find the cache.

 

As to "blame" - GS would take just as much in the above as they do now. They would be listing caches with the same restrictions placed by CO's.

Ok, yes people can always blame Groundspeak, but right now it's an issue with the system (which doesn't distinguish between one or the other) so it is in Groundspeak's court, the system can be blamed for disagreements. But if the system explicitly allows for one or the other, then they'd be able to ring their hands and say it was specifically the CO's choice, as provided by the system, to list it one way or the other. If you prefer it the other way, take it up with the CO. Currently, the system only allows the one way - Find and Qualify (apart from arbitrary and/or incorrect CO maintenance of the log history)

They'd still get the same blame "for allowing CO's flip that 'toggle'".

 

So, I'm behind this - just leave out the rest of the complicated stars/new log types/etc. that add nothing to the process. (For those that haven't followed all this: don't change anything except maybe a cache type for challenges.)

 

The remaining issue with the cache type however is that people still can't "Find" it, even though it's a physical cache. The issue of the meaning of the Find log (vs WIGAS log) still exists.

 

It is a step in the right direction, but still leaves issues unaddressed. (and, of course, one can say that's fine, leave them unaddressed because they're not important, but personally I don't like that as a solution :P, especially when there are interesting ways to address them B))

They can still "Find" it, just do the qualifing challenge first. You keep harping the "it can't be found even though it's a physical cache" as a problem. There are very few rules in this life that don't have exceptions, why is this such a big deal? The guidelines don't allow virtual caches, but Earthcaches exist as an exception to this - same sort of thing. So there is a physical cache that takes something extra, most Mystery/Puzzle caches do.

Share this post


Link to post

They can still "Find" it, just do the qualifing challenge first. You keep harping the "it can't be found even though it's a physical cache" as a problem. There are very few rules in this life that don't have exceptions, why is this such a big deal? The guidelines don't allow virtual caches, but Earthcaches exist as an exception to this - same sort of thing. So there is a physical cache that takes something extra, most Mystery/Puzzle caches do.

 

My theory is that the people agitating for this cannot be happy unless they are actively searching for a way to ruin somebody else's enjoyment.

 

That, and they consider themselves morally superior, sneering that they "feel sorry" for anyone who doesn't agree with them.

 

If it weren't this issue they would find something else: perhaps they would try to do away with Mystery caches altogether because not everyone can get the cache coordinates; maybe they would try to remove Wherigo caches because not everyone as a GPS that can play the cartridges. But it is guaranteed to be something.

 

If you pay attention over any significant length of time, you will notice that it is always the same group of people trying to figure out how to ruin the game for somebody else. I personally find it infuriating, but I know there is nothing I can do to make them stop. I've tried mockery and/or just being nasty but, while it is effective, it also tends to skate near the edges of acceptable discourse in the forums. I've tried ignoring them but they just keep eating at it. Frankly, I don't know what to do.

 

This is what I do know:

  • Many thousands of geocachers love doing challenge caches.
  • Many thousands of geocachers have found that good challenge caches inspire them to cache in new ways outside their comfort zones.
  • A few cachers on the forum are whining because, despite the existence of (quite literally) millions of traditional caches available for them to find and log, they can't handle the notion that there could be a container out there they won't be allowed to log as a "find."
  • Every single one of the proposed "solutions" is horrible. Most don't even rise above the minimum threshold of not being stupid, but even those that do are still poorly-thought-out and would ruin challenge caches for many thousands of others.

Share this post


Link to post

I propose a simple solution.

 

Challenge caches should remain, however the smilie should be split into 2 parts.

 

You get 1/2 smilie for Finding the physical cache.

 

You get 1/2 smilie for Completing the challenge.

 

The new icon for Challenges should be either a letter C or a cow.

 

cow-head-vector-sketch_318-2048.jpg

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

×