challenges should be changed

[+The_Incredibles_]

I'm really lost. What's a "WIGASS"?

 

WIGASs = plural of WIGAS. More than one WIGAS.

 

Great. So nobody's going to tell me?

[+TopShelfRob]

Technically if you're caching in a group and someone other than you finds the cache that means you didn't and shouldn't log it as found.

Generally, and the others log it as a note.... unless we're looking for a challenge cache and the person who actually finds it first hasn't completed the challenge. Then he logs its as a "Note (found note)", and the first person who finds it who actually completed the challenge, then logs it as a "Note (not first, but challenge completed note)" and the others log it as a "Note (just a note) note"

 

But any who have completed the challenge, but were not the first to find, they are allowed to go back and search again (once they've forgotten where it is) and try to get their WIGAS then.

 

Well, that's how we play. Actually, when I explain it out like this, it sounds kind of ludicrous. But to us it makes sense.

[+TopShelfRob]

I'm really lost. What's a "WIGASS"?

 

WIGASs = plural of WIGAS. More than one WIGAS.

 

Great. So nobody's going to tell me?

 

Oh I thought it was common knowledge that WIGAS = Woohoo I'm Getting A Smiley

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

You can't exactly expect to come into a forum announcing that you want a cache type changed without running into some resistance, can you?

 

No, I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me. I was hoping for a good debate on the subject.

 

If you really want to change my opinion, how about giving some concrete examples of challenges you've enjoyed either creating or logging which would be not be publishable if my proposed changes were implemented...

[+Roman!]

However, it doesn't work out so well when one of the people in a discussion is actively trying to figure out how to ruin the game for somebody else.

 

Isn't that what the forum is for?

 

If you'll let me know which other cache types are important to you, I can start a few more threads.

 

Puzzle caches: too much thinking.

Multis: too many waypoints for 1 smiley.

Earth caches: too much learning.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Roman!

[+TopShelfRob]

I was hoping for a good debate on the subject.

 

..and I think we're getting it. I've broken a sweat.

[+Roman!]

Technically if you're caching in a group and someone other than you finds the cache that means you didn't and shouldn't log it as found.

Generally, and the others log it as a note.... unless we're looking for a challenge cache and the person who actually finds it first hasn't completed the challenge. Then he logs its as a "Note (found note)", and the first person who finds it who actually completed the challenge, then logs it as a "Note (not first, but challenge completed note)" and the others log it as a "Note (just a note) note"

 

But any who have completed the challenge, but were not the first to find, they are allowed to go back and search again (once they've forgotten where it is) and try to get their WIGAS then.

 

Well, that's how we play. Actually, when I explain it out like this, it sounds kind of ludicrous. But to us it makes sense.

 

I'm sure you know what KISS stands for right?

 

Note to mods: the second "s" stands for silly. I am not calling anyone stupid.

[+fizzymagic]

 

You can't exactly expect to come into a forum announcing that you want a cache type changed without running into some resistance, can you?

 

No, I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me. I was hoping for a good debate on the subject.

 

Having a debate requires content and integrity. Your OP was merely a content-free attack on the kinds of challenges you didn't like, in which you made completely unsubstantiated claims about how challenges you don't like "negatively affect the geocaching community," and then proposed absurd new rules that would effectively destroy challenge caching.

 

With a start like that, there is no way to engage in a productive debate.

 

Please turn your desire for new rules to some other aspect of geocaching. Thanks.

[+fizzymagic]

If you really want to change my opinion, how about giving some concrete examples of challenges you've enjoyed either creating or logging which would be not be publishable if my proposed changes were implemented...

 

OBTW, in a debate there is this concept called "burden of proof." In a real debate, the person proposing changes is required to give evidence that they would make things better.

 

You have not met the burden of proof. You haven't even tried.

 

Now, on the other hand, I have discussed the problem of unintended consequences. Rule changes always have unintended consequences. In order for your proposed rules to be an inprovement, you will have to show that the unintended consequences will likely be less harmful than the (supposed) harms you outline in your original post.

 

Since you have quite evidently given exactly zero thought to the idea that your proposals might have negative consequences, you have not met this burden either.

 

So how, exactly, do you see this as some kind of debate?

Edited April 28, 2014 by fizzymagic

[+TopShelfRob]

I'm sure you know what KISS stands for right?

 

Note to mods: the second "s" stands for silly. I am not calling anyone stupid.

 

Well, it works for us. But then we're sticklers for the true meaning of the word "find." The others haven't actually found it (not like the person who first located it did), it was sort of handed to them. So we have some integrity regarding find = an actual find, note = doesn't qualify for smiley. So you can see why this "log a find as a note" on a unqualified challenge sort of throws us for a loop.

[+Roman!]

I'm sure you know what KISS stands for right?

 

Note to mods: the second "s" stands for silly. I am not calling anyone stupid.

 

Well, it works for us. But then we're sticklers for the true meaning of the word "find." The others haven't actually found it (not like the person who first located it did), it was sort of handed to them. So we have some integrity regarding find = an actual find, note = doesn't qualify for smiley. So you can see why this "log a find as a note" on a unqualified challenge sort of throws us for a loop.

 

I never thought anyone actually would take "find" so literally but I think the majority do not so if this challenge thing is an issue it's only to a small minority which wouldn't justify making any rule changes.

 

On a side note want to come do the ET highway with me, I'll drive, you can find all the caches, I have no problems claiming my smileys.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Roman!

[Tyreless]

I'm really lost. What's a "WIGASS"?

An antipodean merkin.

[+TopShelfRob]

On a side note want to come do the ET highway with me, I'll drive, you can find all the caches, I have no problems claiming my smileys.

 

LOL, don't even get me started on power trails. But, no, I'd be fine swapping out with you and only claiming finds on half of them.

 

Actually, on second thought, I'd probably be fine just finding the first and last, and settle for two finds. You could go for all the rest if you wanted. Doesn't seem like much fun for me or your brake pads.

[+Roman!]

I'm really lost. What's a "WIGASS"?

An antipodean merkin.

 

clever.

[+Roman!]

On a side note want to come do the ET highway with me, I'll drive, you can find all the caches, I have no problems claiming my smileys.

 

LOL, don't even get me started on power trails. But, no, I'd be fine swapping out with you and only claiming finds on half of them.

 

Actually, on second thought, I'd probably be fine just finding the first and last, and settle for two finds. You could go for all the rest if you wanted. Doesn't seem like much fun for me or your brake pads.

 

Firstly, you rent a car.

Secondly, it's all in the company, I did Route 66 with my kids and it was an amazing experience.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I think you are taking the word find too literal

 

I think I may be taking the 'Needs Maintenance' words too literally. I may start using that as my Finds list since Log categories don't mean what they apparently mean.

I actually wouldn't mind using the Notes log as my official log if we could have 2 different types of Notes. One Found It note, one regular note. And the Found It note would need to be filterable so I can toggle them off on the map or run a PQ that removes caches I applied a Found It note to.

[+TopShelfRob]

I think I may be taking the 'Needs Maintenance' words too literally. I may start using that as my Finds list since Log categories don't mean what they apparently mean.

I actually wouldn't mind using the Notes log as my official log if we could have 2 different types of Notes. One Found It note, one regular note. And the Found It note would need to be filterable so I can toggle them off on the map or run a PQ that removes caches I applied a Found It note to.

+1.... now what will 'Needs Archived' be used for?

[Mr.Yuck]

Folks think only 1% of cachers like challenge caches? Let me look at an example, at least in my area.

 

Here is a new challenge cache that has been out 6 months in my area, its been found 22 times in 6 months

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4PFAC_it-takes-all-types-challenge?guid=bd23230c-1715-4e0c-9391-f583e3d0e23ehs

 

So, let me look at a relatively tough puzzle posted around the same time and same area

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4ME0X_mmmmm-bacon

Hrm, found only 15 times.

 

Here is a common multi posted in the Seattle area around the same time

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4NVCW_burien-geo-walk

It has 19 finds.

 

 

I was the 1% guy, but I actually said .01%, and was referring to the number of Geocachers who qualify for some of the stupid challenges. Specifically, I linked to a crazy arsed challenge where all the finders had over 5,000 finds. So you forced me to run the numbers. According to cacherstats.com, there are just about 7,000 people in the entire world with 5,000 or more finds. There are 9,300,000+ accounts. That would be .08% of all Geocachers.

 

So enjoy your "Spell Niagara Falls with the first letter of Earthcaches you have found challenge", you .08 percenters. And yes, that's a real challenge cache in my area, I couldn't possibly make it up.

[+CanadianRockies]

You can tell me the Earth is flat, you can tell me the Moon is made of cheese, and you can tell me I didn't "find" that cache. But none of those things are true. And regardless of how I log it, whether as a note or as a "found", literally I did "find" it. We can all lie to each other and pretend I didn't find it, but literally I did "find" it, even if I haven't qualified to log a WIGAS log on it yet, I still have "found" it.

By the time they reach Grade 3, most children understand that words have meaning beyond their literal interpretations. "We're all in the same boat" doesn't always mean "we're all in the same boat." Context matters. Saying the Earth is "spherical" is fine for most situations. At a geography seminar, maybe not so much.

 

In geocaching "circles," "Found It" has evolved to have a meaning beyond the literal. Most people have no trouble understanding that.

 

I'm curious why you aren't equally upset that EarthCaches show up in your overall "Find" count. You don't literally "find" them. Same applies to virtuals, webcams, locationless caches, GPS Adventure Exhibits, and the many types of events.

 

And shouldn't Groundspeak's "Find" count include caches that people find but don't sign the physical logs for? After all, signing a log isn't necessary for literally "finding" a cache. Don't feel like climbing that tree to reach the cache? You still "found" it. Don't want to repel down a cliff? Then use binoculars to "find" the container. Too much trouble solving that field puzzle and unlocking the cache? No need, since you've already "found" it.

Edited April 28, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+jellis]

Out here I see revenge Challenges. Like someone putting out a Challenge to make it difficult for particular cacher to qualify for. Once that cacher qualified they turn and make one even more difficult to qualify. Til it becomes impossible for most of us as we watch this game they play against each other.

 

Also be careful of COs changing rules to make it more difficult after it was made published.

Edited April 28, 2014 by jellis

[+J Grouchy]

Out here I see revenge Challenges. Like someone putting out a Challenge to make it difficult for particular cacher to qualify for. Once that cacher qualified they turn and make one even more difficult to qualify. Til it becomes impossible for most of us as we watch this game they play against each other.

 

Also be careful of COs changing rules to make it more difficult after it was made published.

 

Yeah...perhaps turn off the edit feature without reviewer approval, or at least require the CO to post a note to the reviewer outlining or describing changes made.

 

I've seen a few pop up where the CO requires all the caches in a certain area be logged "found"...problem being that the CO creates this at a time when a particularly difficult cache is disabled, or when the same CO owns another nearly impossible challenge within the given area (essentially creating a double challenge). I don't think the reviewer always takes that stuff into account and there ought to be some sort of deeper analysis or review for challenges to reduce the "gaming the system" that goes on in creating these things.

[+CanadianRockies]

Technically if you're caching in a group and someone other than you finds the cache that means you didn't and shouldn't log it as found.

Generally, and the others log it as a note.... unless we're looking for a challenge cache and the person who actually finds it first hasn't completed the challenge. Then he logs its as a "Note (found note)", and the first person who finds it who actually completed the challenge, then logs it as a "Note (not first, but challenge completed note)" and the others log it as a "Note (just a note) note"

 

But any who have completed the challenge, but were not the first to find, they are allowed to go back and search again (once they've forgotten where it is) and try to get their WIGAS then.

 

Well, that's how we play. Actually, when I explain it out like this, it sounds kind of ludicrous. But to us it makes sense.

It does sound kind of ludicrous. Can you provide us with any examples where this actually happened? When you "found" caches with "hyperguy," for example, you both often logged "Found Its" on the same day. No logged "Notes" that I saw. Maybe you quickly forgot where it was hidden, so you both could enjoy the two literal "finds."

[+Car54]

..... And since we've agreed that challenges already appeal only to a small percentage of geocachers, "reasonable number" can effect challenge caches in much the same way as "wow" effected virtual caches.

 

I missed the part where we all "agreed" to your assumption. In fact, I see several people who have posted that in their areas, challenges appeal to many of the locals. I do not understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Please explain how you determined the low level of cachers to which challenges appeal and please explain why you think they should be handled differently from other arguably "niche" cache-types, ie puzzles, Wherigo's, power trails, etc.

 

Mrs. Car54

[+CanadianRockies]

Out here I see revenge Challenges. Like someone putting out a Challenge to make it difficult for particular cacher to qualify for. Once that cacher qualified they turn and make one even more difficult to qualify. Til it becomes impossible for most of us as we watch this game they play against each other.

Out this way, we fortunately don't have to find every published cache. It makes life much easier when you can ignore caches that you don't find appealing.

[+Car54]

I'm really lost. What's a "WIGASS"?

 

WIGASs = plural of WIGAS. More than one WIGAS.

 

Great. So nobody's going to tell me?

 

I see someone has already answered you, but this acronym appeared in post 72. Yes, I actually read all of the responses, including the long-ish ones from Toz.

 

Mrs. Car54

[+TopShelfRob]

By the time they reach Grade 3, most children understand that words have meaning beyond their literal interpretations. "We're all in the same boat" doesn't always mean "we're all in the same boat." Context matters. Saying the Earth is "spherical" is fine for most situations. At a geography seminar, maybe not so much.

Your defense of why a Groundspeak defined "find" isn't the same thing as a literal find is by making an anaolgy to "we're all in the same boat" doesn't require a real boat? That seems to back up my point: "not in the same boat" isn't necessarily a real boat, and "Groundspeak definition of 'find'" isn't necessarily a real find. But that's not what we're arguing. I can agree that we can all have different definitions of what the word "find" means. My argument - is that Groundspeak's definiton of the word 'find' is in-accurately applied if you're only letting finds on a unqualified challenge cache count as notes. So when I hear someone say "I found my 3000th find", my reaction is "not necesarily, you got your 3,000th smiley." You'd have to take your smileys, subtract the amount of other non-caches (Earthcaches, events, etc.), and add to it your found-it notes, being careful not to add in other "non-found it" notes.

 

In geocaching "circles," "Found It" has evolved to have a meaning beyond the literal. Most people have no trouble understanding that.

I understand that -- I just disagree with it. Hence my partcipation in this thread. Now you can disagree with me, but you can't tell me because I disagree with something must mean I must not understand it.

 

I'm curious why you aren't equally upset that EarthCaches also show up in your overall "Find" count. You don't literally "find" them. Same applies to virtuals, webcams, locationless caches, GPS Adventure Exhibits, and the many types of events.

Did I ever say I wasn't? However I can easily choose to not log things like an EarthCaches, etc. that aren't really "caches" so as to keep my smiley count an accurate amount of finds. If I find a challenge cache that I don't qualify for, my smiley count will forever be off by one, unless I log another cache that I haven't found (that the owner doesn't check logs for) to make up for it. Once you start going down that road, all the stats become meaningless.

 

-----

 

At this point, I'm rather neutral on the existence of challenge caches themselves, I have no desire to see them go away. I'd be fine with people getting a separate smiley (of a different color perhaps) for completing the challenge. My main criticism is that the "log a find as a note" solution for "unqualified challenge cache finders" is doing more harm than good as far as keeping finders stats accurate -- in fact it does as much harm to that accuracy as Earthcaches, virtuals, events and the like already do.

 

I mainly just take exception to the attitude that: "you want to find a challenge you haven't qualified for? Fine. Log it as a note" is presented as a serious solution. It suggests that the people who like challenge caches (or more accurately like the exclusivity of being able to gain a smiley for a cache that only people have qualified can get a smiley for) only like them for the simple reason that they can log a cache that others can't.

 

What harm does it to you to let everyone who finds it log it as a find, if you would be able to get another smiley for challenege completed? Heck, it'd still be a smiley for you for completing the challenge (and actually an additional smiley, if you logged both "find it" and "challenge completed") yet those who felt strongly about a pure definition of the word 'find' could also accurately find that reflected in their smiley count.

 

If that idea threatens how you enjoy the game, then you must only enjoy challenges for the sheer desire of getting a smiley for finding a cache that others can hold in their hands yet not be allowed to get a smiley for.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+thebruce0]

Wow... this thread is inciting a wave of deja vu... I haven't even said anything to potentially derail it yet! *cough*

Let's see what I can do... I'ma start with the light-hearted stuff first!

 

Puzzle caches: too much thinking.

Multis: too many waypoints for 1 smiley.

Earth caches: too much learning.

There are NEVER too many waypoints for 1 smiley.

 

If I had a magic wand, I'd make all challenge requirements optional. If someone wants to do the challenge, fine. If they just want to sign the logbook, that should be fine too.

Then go for it, I'm sure a reviewer would allow it

 

Heck, it's not a challenge, but look at GCNH43 and how many people still follow the instructions, because it's fun.

Make a challenge cache that doesn't require you to qualify for the challenge. I'm sure people would love it, and if the challenge seems doable or fun, I can guarantee people take it up, even if only for bragging rights (probably moreso just for the fun)

 

I was the 1% guy, but I actually said .01%, and was referring to the number of Geocachers who qualify for some of the stupid challenges. Specifically, I linked to a crazy arsed challenge where all the finders had over 5,000 finds. So you forced me to run the numbers. According to cacherstats.com, there are just about 7,000 people in the entire world with 5,000 or more finds. There are 9,300,000+ accounts. That would be .08% of all Geocachers.

 

So enjoy your "Spell Niagara Falls with the first letter of Earthcaches you have found challenge", you .08 percenters. And yes, that's a real challenge cache in my area, I couldn't possibly make it up.

hm. When I went to Nevada, I did some searches for interesting caches I might suggest for finding with my friends. That included some challenge caches.

 

I couldn't believe some of the challenge requirements down there. Oh, but hey, there are loads of caches on powertrails there. I guess they're not so hard for locals there. Notsomuch me or my friends.

I ignored them.

 

It wasn't hard.

 

Challenges are different difficulties to different people in different regions. Comparing people or caches in specific regions to the entire world is disingenuous.

 

On a side note want to come do the ET highway with me, I'll drive, you can find all the caches, I have no problems claiming my smileys.

I'll do it again with you

[+thebruce0]

I've been amazed at the traction this thread has received.

Sounds like you missed the other challenge thread that seems to have spilled into this one... (that was even a more specific topic than this thread, spawned from a specific improvement suggestion, while this one seems to have naturally become one that includes that suggestion among others also previously discussed)

 

LOL, don't even get me started on power trails. But, no, I'd be fine swapping out with you and only claiming finds on half of them.

 

Actually, on second thought, I'd probably be fine just finding the first and last, and settle for two finds. You could go for all the rest if you wanted. Doesn't seem like much fun for me or your brake pads.

So if we check your profile, we shouldn't expect to see any Find Logs for any Earthcaches or Virtuals, yes?

 

> I can easily choose to not log things like an EarthCaches, etc. that aren't really "caches" so as to keep my smiley count an accurate amount of finds. If I find a challenge cache that I don't qualify for, my smiley count will forever be off by one

 

Really? Then if you have logged Earthcaches and Virtuals, your 'smiley count' is already off by that amount. So what are you complaining about? If you can easily not log them, then don't. And if you hate your smiley count not being accurate to your physical finds, then you should immediately delete your "Find logs" on all those Earthcache and Virtuals. After all, that is something under your control, and it's supposedly easy for you...

 

a bunch of stuff...

> We may not always agree with the results that you get from motivation by icon or smiley, but this has proven to be a most effective tool. (It's lowered my perception of geocachers to one of mindless robots programmed to collect smileys or icons instead of having fun. But when I talk to mindless robots they all insist the doing a power trail or finding 100 caches with word "robot" in the name is fun )

 

It's ok to not like things. It's ok, but... well you know the rest.

Everyone has different preferences. No need to denigrate people who like things differently.

 

> However it shows why some people have this negative impression of challenges. If you think about it, challenge caches and power trails are one in same phenomenon. What really motivates the masses are smileys, icons, and statistics. For the small group of geocachers who simply like to occasionally go out and find a cache, the numbers don't matter. We will probably never do a power trail and many are unlikely to find nearly enough caches with the word "robot" in the name or that have a dogs allowed attribute to qualify for the challenge. But to the mindless robots programmed to get more smileys, a new "statistical" achievement in form of a challenge cache is a powerful incentive. (I'm purposely going a little over the top here. Even I like to look at my statistics. I certainly like to set personal geocaching goals. So I don't really have a issue with people who use challenges as way to set goals, other than to say you don't really need a challenge cache to set goals).

 

I like this better (along with the previous reply content) - except for the constant referral to "mindless robots", and "smileys, icons, and statistics". Please stop saying that.

 

> Sure silly and overly burdensome challenges can be ignored. And, so far, there are more than enough other caches to enjoy. But as the map from Ontario shows, when challenge cachers take up a whole trail with 50 challenges they've essentially prevented other cachers from using that trail.

 

Nothing is stopping anyone from going and finding those caches even if they don't qualify. Unless of course they really want that "WIGAS" online...

Do they just want to find caches? Or are they "mindless robots" who just care about "smileys, icons, and statistics"? hmm...

 

> Toz: "However it shows why some people have this negative impression of challenges. If you think about it, challenge caches and power trails are one in same phenomenon. What really motivates the masses are smileys, icons, and statistics."

 

Them's fighting words. I think you have it exactly backwards.

<snip>

All of this.

 

I think that's an overly simplistic and monolithic view of geocachers. I've done three relatively short power trails. It had nothing to do with the smileys. Instead, it had much do with enjoying a different kind of geocaching experience. For others, power trails have much to do with the camaraderie and/or pushing limits.

For me, challenge caches also have nothing to do with adding another smiley to my total. For typical challenge caches that I've completed, it takes much more effort and time to complete one challenge than it does to find a dozen traditional caches. For me, good challenge caches will cause me to set fun goals and experience geocaching in new ways.

Also this.

 

> Toz: "The problem with challenge (in some areas at least) it that they have become so popular. They get a lot of favorite points. And now people don't simply hide one but ehy are creating multiple challenges."

 

Yes, it's a real problem when people create popular caches that get lots of favorite points. We need more lamppost and guardrail hides.

+1. I really want to *like* this comment as well (for its sarcasm, not an actual call for more LPCs and Guardrails - though I've mostly still enjoyed those caches as well )

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+TopShelfRob]

LOL, don't even get me started on power trails. But, no, I'd be fine swapping out with you and only claiming finds on half of them.

 

Actually, on second thought, I'd probably be fine just finding the first and last, and settle for two finds. You could go for all the rest if you wanted. Doesn't seem like much fun for me or your brake pads.

So if we check your profile, we shouldn't expect to see any Find Logs for any Earthcaches or Virtuals, yes?

 

> I can easily choose to not log things like an EarthCaches, etc. that aren't really "caches" so as to keep my smiley count an accurate amount of finds. If I find a challenge cache that I don't qualify for, my smiley count will forever be off by one

 

Really? Then if you have logged Earthcaches and Virtuals, your 'smiley count' is already off by that amount. So what are you complaining about? If you can easily not log them, then don't. And if you hate your smiley count not being accurate to your physical finds, then you should immediately delete your "Find logs" on all those Earthcache and Virtuals. After all, that is something under your control, and it's supposedly easy for you...

 

 

My find count equals my smileys. I have logged no events, no Earthcaches, no events, etc.

 

 

And I can choose not to log Earthcaches, etc. But I can't accurately choose to count unqualified challenges caches found as smileys. Not under the current rules.

 

Not that I would even hunt a challenge cache that I didn't qualify for, but if I did, which I easily could, my stats would be screwed up.

[+TopShelfRob]

...and I have found one Earthcache, I just chose not to log it for the simple reason that (in my opinion) it would mess up my stats. And that doesn't mean that I think others should play the game the way I choose to. It was my personal choice to not log it. I don't feel that seeing a pile of rocks that marked an old Indian burial site should be counted as a find as I didn't technically "find" a hidden container, which to me is what Geocaching is about. Seeing the Earthcache was nice, but I didn't feel I wanted to +1 my accurate smiley count.

 

Just like attending a get together with a bunch of other geocachers to eat pizza would not be "finding a cache" and (to me) not deserve a +1.

 

Call me a purist, call me an idiot, call me a wigass or whatever. But that's how I feel. To me my smiley count = amount of caches I have been able to find, by my choice, not some arbitrary meaningless number that it may oy may not be for the rest of you.

 

There was one challenge cache that I could have found, which I did not qualify for. I did make the choice not to seek it. Because if I had found it, I wouldn't have been able to accurately count it. I could have tried to find it, but then I would be in a quandary... do I log it as a note (an have an inaccurate find count) do I log it (against the rules) as a "found" and have an accurate find count, until it gets deleted, or do I lie to myself and find a container that I cannot log. Now if and when I complete the challenge, sure I could go back and look for it then. Or I could have logged it as a note, and hope to someday be able to get a find. But it already would be a find, just not a loggable find.

 

So I chose to not even look for the container, which to me, choosing to not find the container is not geocaching.

 

I realize now I could have looked for and found that Challenge cache, and logged the one Earthcache that I am entitled to find, simply to keep my smiley accurate (well, by my standards. I assume you all wouldn't think I would deserve a smiley as a result of finding a challenge cache I haven't qualified for) but I'm not entirely sure if that's really within the spirit of the game, either.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+dprovan]

However, it doesn't work out so well when one of the people in a discussion is actively trying to figure out how to ruin the game for somebody else.

Isn't that what the forum is for?

The forum is for figuring out how to ruin the game for somebody else?

 

If you really want to change my opinion, how about giving some concrete examples of challenges you've enjoyed either creating or logging which would be not be publishable if my proposed changes were implemented...

In my very first response, I posted a link to a cache you would forbid, and for good measure it's a cache that did in fact generate lots of caches with particular names. Since such responsive caches were the problem you were using to justify your claim, I picked that example because those generate caches were not only not a problem, they were beneficial. Instead of changing your mind, you just tried to come up with other things that would be similarly beneficial. so forgive me if I don't believe you when you say more evidence will help.

 

But since you asked, off the top of my head, I can think of about a dozen other examples of challenge caches that I've enjoyed and were based on the name of the cache, not including the ones I'm still working on. Is that enough, or do I really have to list them all before you'll change your opinion?

 

By the way, one is for 20 caches with the word "Challenge" in the title, so I suppose that would be your worse nightmare: a challenge cache that could conceivably encourage people to plant other challenge caches!

[+L0ne.R]

I'd be fine with people getting a separate smiley (of a different color perhaps) for completing the challenge.

 

Yes.

 

Folks who meet the challenge cache requirements get a smiley, and those of who only find the physical cache get a regular old yellow smiley .

 

Personally, don't even give me a regular old yellow smiley. Just give me a personal Found list that I get to use to keep track of the caches I feel I have legitimately found.

Edited April 28, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+J Grouchy]

 

There was one challenge cache that I could have found, which I did not qualify for. I did make the choice not to seek it. Because if I had found it, I wouldn't have been able to accurately count it. I could have tried to find it, but then I would be in a quandary... do I log it as a note (an have an inaccurate find count) do I log it (against the rules) as a "found" and have an accurate find count, until it gets deleted, or do I lie to myself and find a container that I cannot log. Now if and when I complete the challenge, sure I could go back and look for it then. Or I could have logged it as a note, and hope to someday be able to get a find. But it already would be a find, just not a loggable find.

 

So I chose to not even look for the container, which to me, choosing to not find the container is not geocaching.

 

Kinda brings up an interesting point, actually. Challenges are not allowed to limit a persons finds or accomplishments (i.e., "A Challenge geocache based on non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will not be published."). Folks who play as you do (which I have no problem with and it actually makes a certain amount of sense...I've never really been keen on calling an event a "cache") are essentially barred from "finding" this cache.

 

I WOULD disagree somewhat with your statement that one doesn't "find" a virtual or an earthcache. Despite the fact that there is no container to find, the cacher DOES have to "find" answers or information at the posted location. Sure, maybe there isn't an ammo box with toys inside and a log to sign, but there is some amount of searching/scanning/parsing involved on the part of the cacher.

[+thebruce0]

There are over 500 challenge caches in Ontario. Check out this slice of the Golden Horseshoe areas:

...

I agree with you. I don't think this is good for the game.

Pffft, about 30 minutes to my west is Research Triangle Park where lots of smart people work. There's nothing but puzzles left for me in that area, dozens and dozens of puzzles that are beyond my grasp. Can you imagine being a cacher who doesn't like solving puzzles at home before they can go find a cache in the middle of that area? I don't think this is good for the game.

 

Boy that sounds silly huh?

Exactly! Hey, Waterloo was just like that for a while here. Two universities, couple colleges, tech center of Ontario, etc... a number of high D puzzles came out requiring some 'higher' knowledge (sometimes in response to each other), and you better believe there were complaints from some of the more layperson locals. And now Ontario has a controversial "challenge caching" group who regularly goes out with solved puzzles and equipment so those who wouldn't otherwise be able to solve them, or physical complete them, will be able to sign themselves in all under the group name.

Seriously, it just goes on and on...

 

For the record, Hamilton is colloquially referred to as "Challenge-ville" specifically because of that region map. You know what? There are people that detest it. But they still go out and cache. There are people that love it, and people that are indifferent... All of them still go out geocaching, in this very region. AND many go out geocaching more, precisely because all these challenges present goals and targets and achievements. Some people may even go and physically find the challenges caches first, especially on the trails, and then eventually, maybe even a year or two down the road, qualify and can then log it found.

 

"Challenge ville" has added so much variety to the region's geocaching habits, it's crazy! Crazy awesome, that is. Generally speaking. Of course, YMMV. But that's true about most anything in this very awesome geocaching pastime.

 

"There are over 42,000 caches in Ontario. it's not hard to find non-challenge caches if that's what you're into."

True. But then we shouldn't complain about power trails or all the urban caches in questionable locations. It's far rarer to look at a map an see hundreds of puzzles you can't solve or hundress of terrain 5 cache that require special equipment you don't have and aren't interested in learning how to use. When communities get flooded with one particular type (breed?) of cache, there are always plenty of the other kinds around.

I think you'll find that the world will never be an even distribution of everything or anything. Regions with certain individuals who enjoy some particular aspect will tend to saturate that region with that preference. That may 'kill' the pastime in general to some people, but it certainly provides variance in the game, and depending on the preference could also attract other people to visit that area, where they otherwise wouldn't have before. That's happened with powertrails, earthcaches, challenges, puzzles, and on and on. It may be unfortunate for those who live there as they may not get a taste of other stuff within their local neighborhood - unless of course they choose to go out and make an attempt to change that - but that's the nature of the game, and I'm confident that nothing will change that unless TPTB employ all these restrictions people are bandying about. Heck some people purposefully publish caches close to others' homes, knowing they likely will never "Find" it. For fun. Or annoyance. And it usually ends up with either an ignored cache, or a challenged cacher to find a way to log it found. Rarely ever arguments and debates, let alone complaining to Groundspeak to have something about the game changed.

 

This game is about variety. And if the variety doesn't hurt the game itself, then why on earth would they try to restrict it more?

You can always find reasons why not to do something. 90% of forum discussions (not a scientific analysis) seem to be why not to do something.

 

When I go to a new place if I see a ? Cache without the word challenge in the name I ignore it, last thing I want to do is solve puzzles while on vacation, heck, I don't like solving them when I'm not on vacation.

 

To each his own, live and let live, etc.

 

For the record I'd like to see a new icon for challenge caches so I could filter out all those pesky puzzles.

See that's just the perfect example of why challenge caches should be restricted. Can you imagine being a newbie smack-dab in the middle of that area?

It is? A perfect example? Man, all those cities rife with puzzles, or treeclimbs, or caches that require chirp, even... that's gotta be awful for the locals... the non-locals though? Meh, who cares about them. Actually, what's even a "local"? What distance must you be from a cache in order for it to qualify as ruining your geocaching experience, prompting rules to restrict them? hm.

[+Traditional Bill]

By the way, one is for 20 caches with the word "Challenge" in the title, so I suppose that would be your worse nightmare: a challenge cache that could conceivably encourage people to plant other challenge caches!

 

There was a challenge published in my area last year that required 50 challenge caches. Yes, the local community responded by placing more challenges. A lot of the challenges that were published though were tons of fun and I had a great time with em. Yeah, there were some lame challenges, but you've got to take the good with the bad.

 

There's also a challenge in the area that requires you to "build a monster" with the titles of caches, having you find caches with different body parts in the title. Challenges like that are fun for me. I'd hate to see them go.

[Mr.Yuck]

..... And since we've agreed that challenges already appeal only to a small percentage of geocachers, "reasonable number" can effect challenge caches in much the same way as "wow" effected virtual caches.

 

I missed the part where we all "agreed" to your assumption. In fact, I see several people who have posted that in their areas, challenges appeal to many of the locals. I do not understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Please explain how you determined the low level of cachers to which challenges appeal and please explain why you think they should be handled differently from other arguably "niche" cache-types, ie puzzles, Wherigo's, power trails, etc.

 

Mrs. Car54

 

I know you quoted Toz, but I already agreed with him a few posts above yours. If you see a silly challenge (And I would never imply all challenges are silly, just lots of them) that is so whacked that only people with over 5,000 finds are able to qualify, then there are only 7,000 people with over 5,000 finds in the whole world, thus representing less than 1/10th of 1 percent of Geocachers. Specifically, .08%. Fringe element, baby. Do not confuse a couple dozen high profile, highly active premium members with high find counts in your area with the thousands who have ever Geocached.

 

Out here I see revenge Challenges. Like someone putting out a Challenge to make it difficult for particular cacher to qualify for. Once that cacher qualified they turn and make one even more difficult to qualify. Til it becomes impossible for most of us as we watch this game they play against each other.

 

Also be careful of COs changing rules to make it more difficult after it was made published.

 

I have seen this once!! I wouldn't really call it "revenge", more of a like, "watch this, so and so will NEVER qualify for this, and it's going to kill him". So you know what he did? He cheated.

 

I could actually see what jellis describes as happening, nothing surprises me any more.

[+thebruce0]

I WOULD disagree somewhat with your statement that one doesn't "find" a virtual or an earthcache. Despite the fact that there is no container to find, the cacher DOES have to "find" answers or information at the posted location. Sure, maybe there isn't an ammo box with toys inside and a log to sign, but there is some amount of searching/scanning/parsing involved on the part of the cacher.

By that argument, you do indeed need to "find" things to qualify for a challenge as well. You need to find qualifying caches, as well as find the posted physical cache. Then you can log the Challenge Cache as "Found" (wigaspabooswq! ...Plus A Bunch Of Other Smileys While Qualifying!)

[+L0ne.R]

There's also a challenge in the area that requires you to "build a monster" with the titles of caches, having you find caches with different body parts in the title. Challenges like that are fun for me. I'd hate to see them go.

 

They wouldn't go. They would just be loggable, like all other physical caches.

 

You get to still enjoy meeting the challenge requirements.

 

[+TopShelfRob]

I WOULD disagree somewhat with your statement that one doesn't "find" a virtual or an earthcache. Despite the fact that there is no container to find, the cacher DOES have to "find" answers or information at the posted location. Sure, maybe there isn't an ammo box with toys inside and a log to sign, but there is some amount of searching/scanning/parsing involved on the part of the cacher.

 

...and I have thought about that. If I had decided to log the Earthcache for a smiley, I wouldn't have loss much sleep over accepting a +1 to my smiley count there. Certainly less sleep than I would have loss had I found that challenge cache that I wouldn't have been able to count.

 

-----

 

And all I'm suggesting is changing the left to the right:

 

 

Nothing else would change.

 

Would that really affect how you all play the game that much, or is it just easier to not want to be in favor of any changes for the simple reason that any change must be an unnecessary bad change?

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+J Grouchy]

I WOULD disagree somewhat with your statement that one doesn't "find" a virtual or an earthcache. Despite the fact that there is no container to find, the cacher DOES have to "find" answers or information at the posted location. Sure, maybe there isn't an ammo box with toys inside and a log to sign, but there is some amount of searching/scanning/parsing involved on the part of the cacher.

By that argument, you do indeed need to "find" things to qualify for a challenge as well. You need to find qualifying caches, as well as find the posted physical cache. Then you can log the Challenge Cache as "Found" (wigaspabooswq! ...Plus A Bunch Of Other Smileys While Qualifying!)

 

So...like I've already stated several times (with no response, actually)...why not make challenges containerless and with their own icon? First, it eliminates the extraneous and often awkward or uninspired cache container placement; and second, it falls more in line with the data collection necessary with virtuals and earthcaches.

[+thebruce0]

But are you advocating a Found It log AND a Challenge Completed log? Or a Found It log with a check-box for Challenge Completed? Or a Challenge Completed log with a check box for Found It too?

It's not a simple change.

[+thebruce0]

So...like I've already stated several times (with no response, actually)...why not make challenges containerless and with their own icon? First, it eliminates the extraneous and often awkward or uninspired cache container placement; and second, it falls more in line with the data collection necessary with virtuals and earthcaches.

 

My personal view on that, as discussed in the other thread, is that is introduces the same potential issues that Geocaching Challenges had; primarily Worldwide challenges - locationless tasks. Why even have anything at the posted coordinates if the posted coordinates have nothing to do with the challenge? They become 'completable' by anyone worldwide. Defeats the whole purpose of challenge caches, imo.

[+J Grouchy]

I WOULD disagree somewhat with your statement that one doesn't "find" a virtual or an earthcache. Despite the fact that there is no container to find, the cacher DOES have to "find" answers or information at the posted location. Sure, maybe there isn't an ammo box with toys inside and a log to sign, but there is some amount of searching/scanning/parsing involved on the part of the cacher.

 

...and I have thought about that. If I had decided to log the Earthcache for a smiley, I wouldn't have loss much sleep over accepting a +1 to my smiley count there. Certainly less sleep than I would have loss had I found that challenge cache that I wouldn't have been able to count.

 

-----

 

And all I'm suggesting is changing the left to the right:

 

 

Nothing else would change.

 

Would that really affect how you all play the game that much, or is it just easier to not want to be in favor of any changes for the simple reason that any change must be an unnecessary bad change?

 

Well...as I just posted above, I feel like my solution is even easier than what you posted. I don't object at all to your solution, though...and it definitely is preferable to the way things are now. I still think the actual cache container placement is pointless. By the time most folks complete a challenge, it's more of a chore to go sign the log.

[+thebruce0]

Well...as I just posted above, I feel like my solution is even easier than what you posted. I don't object at all to your solution, though...and it definitely is preferable to the way things are now. I still think the actual cache container placement is pointless. By the time most folks complete a challenge, it's more of a chore to go sign the log.

 

It's not a chore, if one considers it a cache. Because once you've completed the challenge, well, it's a physical cache like any other. How is it a chore to find and log a cache? I've never seen that as a criticism of challenge caches... It's always been the other way, that the challenge is the chore. So, which is the chore? The challenge, or the physical find? Or neither? Because the "challenge cache" requires both steps?

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+Traditional Bill]

So...like I've already stated several times (with no response, actually)...why not make challenges containerless and with their own icon? First, it eliminates the extraneous and often awkward or uninspired cache container placement; and second, it falls more in line with the data collection necessary with virtuals and earthcaches.

 

I see your reasoning on why you think that might be a good idea, however what about challenges that are released that most of the community already qualifies for? I see a new challenge get published, check my stats and then just log a find from my couch? Personally, I like the satisfaction of signing a log and finding a cache when I've completed a challenge. I will say that it bothers me to find a difficult challenge cache hidden in a less than desirable fashion (parking lot micro), but it's all part of the game these days. It's up to the CO to put out a challenge with a cache worth finding after qualifying.

 

I do agree though that challenges should be separated from other caches whether that be with an icon or an attribute.

[+TopShelfRob]

But are you advocating a Found It log AND a Challenge Completed log? Or a Found It log with a check-box for Challenge Completed? Or a Challenge Completed log with a check box for Found It too?

It's not a simple change.

 

 

I would be advocating them being two separate logs. If you qualified and cared about an accurate find count, you could log just the "Completed Challenge" and get one smiley. Or you could log "found it" and get a smiley for finding the cache plus log "Completed Challenge" and get a second smiley for completing the challenge. Could you log "Challenge Completed" and not find the cache? I would say not, but it would depend on how Groundspeak would implement it. I would assume to keep the "location requirement" that part of completing the challenge would have to be meeting the requirements and finding the cache.

 

For those who haven't qualified for completing the challenge, you could choose to merely log it "found" as a traditional cache, which physically it is. Then at a later date if you did complete the challenge, you could get another smiley for completing the challenge, if you didn't care about your find count being off. If so, well, you've already got the smiley for finding it.

 

And both yellow and orange smileys would count in your smiley count. This way challenger completers would still get a +1 to their WIGAS that regular people can't get, but regular people who find it could still have an accurate find count if they wanted. Whether or not they log events and EarthCaches and virtuals is up to them.

 

I fail to see how this solution doesn't (pretty much) please everybody - except people who just don't like change.

 

Now whether or not something like that could be implemented, who knows? But that's my proposal.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+thebruce0]

I would be advocating them being two separate logs. If you qualified and cared about accurate finds, you could log just the "Completed Challenge" and get one smiley. Or you could log "found it" and get a smiley for finding the cache plus log "Completed Challenge" and get a second smiley for completing the challenge.

Ok that's not what you depict in your image.

You fail to include that the history would be doubled up with two logs from each person who Found and Qualified. An argument can easily be made that that alone would be a downfall. Why should someone have to post two logs for the cache if they did exactly what was instructed to do in order to log it Found? People would end up copy/pasting the log for both, if they felt that was fine. So if I complete a challenge cache, why should I have to post a completed, and a Found log, with text for both?

Ok, you may say, let them post both automatically in one click. Ok, then how would it display? Two separate logs? What about the text, duplicated? How about just combining the two logs into one list item then? Ok, then isn't that the same as the option to also toggle Completed on a Find log, or also toggle Found on a completed log?

See, it's not that simple. On the surface, it seems like a great idea, but as with pretty much any other suggestion, there are more complicated nuances that for some may be ok, and others would just be too much; certainly not 'KISS'.

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+lamoracke]

 

I was the 1% guy, but I actually said .01%, and was referring to the number of Geocachers who qualify for some of the stupid challenges. Specifically, I linked to a crazy arsed challenge where all the finders had over 5,000 finds. So you forced me to run the numbers. According to cacherstats.com, there are just about 7,000 people in the entire world with 5,000 or more finds. There are 9,300,000+ accounts. That would be .08% of all Geocachers.

 

So enjoy your "Spell Niagara Falls with the first letter of Earthcaches you have found challenge", you .08 percenters. And yes, that's a real challenge cache in my area, I couldn't possibly make it up.

 

Well, I will have to agree with that, am sure there are some challenges that only 1% of the cachers qualify for, as long as we are not saying that challenges are only enjoyed by 1% of the cachers.

 

I think its fine to have really tough challenge caches. I think Roman's one where you have to get a different state or province for 10 different days is a bit crazy as it forces folks to really change their caching behavior for a week and a half. Its one thing to get a single puzzle for a day or a single cache for a streak but to go to a different state or province for 10 different days? That is really driving your vacation agenda. Honey, can we spend an extra night and relax? No honey, we need to drive to a different state again tomorrow. His others are okay he pointed out earlier, I just found that one a bit crazy.

 

I have a really tough challenge, you have to find 100 caches that are 2001 or older. I know some folks who are working on it but it has few finders. Maybe some day I will have to archive it as the # of caches diminish but for now, its okay.

[+J Grouchy]

Well...as I just posted above, I feel like my solution is even easier than what you posted. I don't object at all to your solution, though...and it definitely is preferable to the way things are now. I still think the actual cache container placement is pointless. By the time most folks complete a challenge, it's more of a chore to go sign the log.

 

It's not a chore, if one considers it a cache. Because once you've completed the challenge, well, it's a physical cache like any other. How is it a chore to find and log a cache? I've never seen that as a criticism of challenge caches... It's always been the other way, that the challenge is the chore. So, which is the chore? The challenge, or the physical find? Or neither? Because the "challenge cache" requires both steps?

 

Having completed a few challenges...yes, going after an LPC or a guardrail cache IS a chore after putting in the effort of data collection. I do see your point about armchair logging, though. I just don't see signing the physical log even worthwhile...pretty anticlimactic after having done the "real" work.

[+TopShelfRob]

Ok that's not what you depict in your image.

You fail to include that the history would be doubled up with two logs from each person who Found and Qualified. An argument can easily be made that that alone would be a downfall. Why should someone have to post two logs for the cache if they did exactly what was instructed to do in order to log it Found? People would end up copy/pasting the log for both, if they felt that was fine. So if I complete a challenge cache, why should I have to post a completed, and a Found log, with text for both?

Ok, you may say, let them post both automatically in one click. Ok, then how would it display? Two separate logs? What about the text, duplicated? How about just combining the two logs into one list item then? Ok, then isn't that the same as the option to also toggle Completed on a Find log, or also toggle Found on a completed log?

See, it's not that simple. On the surface, it seems like a great idea, but as with pretty much any other suggestion, there are more complicated nuances that for some may be ok, and others would just be too much; certainly not 'KISS'.

 

Well I was approaching this assuming that most people do generally care about some sort of accuracy, and they would just being posting the "Challenge Completed", and while entitled to log both "Found It!" and "Challenge Completed" the only ones in practice who would actually do so would be 1.) those who found the cache first and went back and completed the challenge later or 2.) those who just had to log both a Found It and a Challenge Completed in order to feel they were better than non-qualifiers.

 

In practice, I would assume most people finding the cache after completing the requirements (the usual way) would log just the "Challenge Completed" and leave it at that, feeling that that would be their smiley. (sort of an enhanced smiley over just the "found it" smiley) They would, I assume, feel that logging "found it" also, would be redundant and unnecessary, however they'd be entitled to do so if they wanted to.

 

certainly not 'KISS'.

 

Well, it might not be 100% simple, but certainly better than what we have, IMO. And I could take a little less simple, for a lot more better, again, in my opinion.

 

Certainly, those who are opposed to any change could find fault with anything.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob