challenges should be changed

[Mr.Yuck]

 

2) Limit the number of challenge caches in a certain area. 99% of cachers have no interest in challenges. Alot of people simply do not cache enough to meet challenges. There's no reason that a whole trail should be taken up by caches that these people can't/won't be able to log. I know someone's going to bring up puzzle caches...the difference is that at least with puzzle caches, if someone doesn't want to solve it, they can still log a find.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

Not too far from me. These aren't like "find 5 letterboxes" challenges. There's some crazy arsed stuff going on there. Look at the "Challenge Power Trail" in the lower left. I just chose 1 cache at random. Look at the find counts of every log entry. Seriously? Miles of rails to trails taken up to cater to like .01% of the Geocaching populace?

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

Just saying that because people like challenges isn't a reason not to look at what problems challenges cause other geocachers.

I agree. But, in your above comment, you suggested that one problem with challenges is that "they have become so popular." I don't agree with that notion.

 

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.

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.

[+Roman!]

I've published 4 really tough challenges and only one has been logged by someone half way across the world but boy have I received flak for not publishing challenge caches that everyone prequalifies for.

 

Can you imagine actually having to do something to qualify for a challenge?

[+steben6]

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.

Just saying that because people like challenges isn't a reason not to look at what problems challenges cause other geocachers.

I agree. But, in your above comment, you suggested that one problem with challenges is that "they have become so popular." I don't agree with that notion.

 

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.

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.

Yeah, what he said. ^^^^

[+The_Incredibles_]

I'd like to see finding the cache separate from satisfying the challenge.

 

- When I find the physical challenge cache, I should be able to log a find. Because, the log type is "Found it"

 

We don't allow cache owners of puzzles to delete logs of cachers who don't solve the puzzle but find the cache. I don't see why we should treat challenges differently.

 

I agree. Ironically, the same people who say 'I don't care how they got the coords for my puzzle as long as they enjoyed themselves' are the same ones making a fuss over whether you complete a challenge requirement.

 

It makes no sense.

 

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.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I've published 4 really tough challenges and only one has been logged by someone half way across the world but boy have I received flak for not publishing challenge caches that everyone prequalifies for.

 

Can you imagine actually having to do something to qualify for a challenge?

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with a well-designed, tough challenge. It's the silly challenges I can do without.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

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?

 

First of all, there is nothing stopping you from finding and logging those puzzles as long as you have brainy friends.

 

Second of all, my personal opinion of that area would depend on the puzzles. If the puzzles were:

 

1) incredibly stupid and pointless

2) or so difficult that only a tiny fraction of people could do them

3) and/or they were influencing people to hide alot of crappy caches

 

then I might be of the opinion that puzzles in that area should be restricted.

[+fizzymagic]

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.

 

I like challenge caches because they let me achieve interesting things without the obsession with smileys.

 

I rather think there is a certain amount of projection going on here... Perhaps you are a little more concerned with your statistics than you claim?

 

Anyway, I want to request again, politely, that you cease your crusade against challenge caches.

 

Me, I personally don't care for power trails. It is indisputable that they affect my geocaching experience. Yet I am somehow able to restrain myself from starting multiple forum threads about how we need new restrictions on them. I am also able to refrain from making multiple long-winded posts about my hatred of them in every tangentially-related thread. That's because I realize that geocaching isn't all about me.

 

You, and the OP, on the other hand, seem to be unable to let go of this crusade of yours against challenge caches. You could make exactly the same arguments against power trails, and more (for example, most people who do power trails don't sign the log; should they get to log finds?). Yet you don't. Why not? Because you know that power trails are popular and lucrative for gc.com, so they will ignore any posts on the subject.

 

But apparently you've decided that the people who want to enjoy challenge caches are a vulnerable minority upon whom you can impose your need for control.

 

Well, I have a message for you from those, like me, who enjoy challenges:

 

Leave us alone.

 

Thanks ever so much.

[+dprovan]

I'm repeating myself now. Maybe if I do point form that will help?

 

1) You don't need challenges to hide a series of themed caches or do other creative stuff as a community. A rule change would not 'forbid' you from doing anything, you could easily find another way to do it.

You aren't listening. We do find other ways to do it. We also did it that way. You specifically suggested forbidding what we did. You think we're having fun wrong, so you want to stop us.

 

2) It's not practical to sit someone down and tell them they shouldn't hide lame caches.

Utter nonsense. No wonder you have so many lame caches you have to worry about if you don't consider it "practical" to talk to someone about their lame caches.

 

3) Rules should be made for the greater good. I suspect what goes on in your community is the exception.

Well, I hope what goes on in your community is the exception, but in any case, my community works a heck of a lot better than yours, so maybe you should fix yours instead of inventing rules to inflict your idea of "good" on the rest of us.

[+tozainamboku]

I've published 4 really tough challenges and only one has been logged by someone half way across the world but boy have I received flak for not publishing challenge caches that everyone prequalifies for.

 

Can you imagine actually having to do something to qualify for a challenge?

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with a well-designed, tough challenge. It's the silly challenges I can do without.

The problem with deciding what is silly is you have another "wow" requirement like what doomed virtuals. What you think is silly, someone else may view as a reasonable goal and accomplishment. What Roman! says is challenging others may say is not attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.

 

And there's the rub. We already have a subjective "wow" requirement when the guidelines say challenges must appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

 

Most people have little problem with a few high terrain caches, or a few puzzles that may appeal only to students at Cal Tech. We can accept caches in space - so long as it is limited to one cache. We can accept a difficult challenge that only a few people will ever accomplish. We can accept a reasonable number of silly challenges. But when any of these become too popular there is conflict.

 

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.

 

Of course this argument has been used in the past against power trails or even against micros when there were becoming popular. The general response has been to hide more of the caches you like and not worry about what other people are hiding.

 

I think the people who like challenges are a little worried that, more so than power trails or urban micros, challenges really only appeal to a small segment of the geocaching community. The vast majority of geocachers don't go finding thousand of caches or go caching every day for an entire month - or for an entire year. Some challenges require you cache obsessively. All challenges are orders of magnitude easier for someone who caches obsessively.

 

Now Groundspeak has to decide if the sport is for the people who cache obsessively or for the casual geocahers who make up 99% of the community. With giga-events, power trails, and August souvenirs, it seems clear that Groundspeak knows that the 1% of obsessed geocachers is where they make their money. These people are the ones who pay for premium memberships, buy trackables, and spend money on merchandise. The Intro App is fine for the casual geocacher. But the Intro App is free. Getting people to be obsessed with geocaching is what Groundspeak depends on; and there are few ways better to do this than to flood the world with silly geocaching goals - some easy and some more difficult and then telling the newly obsessed they can't record their find until they accomplish the goal.

Edited April 27, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+fizzymagic]

I think the people who like challenges are a little worried that, more so than power trails or urban micros, challenges really only appeal to a small segment of the geocaching community.

 

You are correct. That is why I, for one, am so upset that you are attacking them. We don't have the numbers of the power trail people, and so are more vulnerable to having the part of the game we enjoy ruined by people like you.

 

Go pick on somebody else.

[+fizzymagic]

I'm repeating myself now. Maybe if I do point form that will help?

 

1) You don't need challenges to hide a series of themed caches or do other creative stuff as a community. A rule change would not 'forbid' you from doing anything, you could easily find another way to do it.

You aren't listening. We do find other ways to do it. We also did it that way. You specifically suggested forbidding what we did. You think we're having fun wrong, so you want to stop us.

 

This ^^^ is exactly what the OP (and a couple others) are trying to do. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I've published 4 really tough challenges and only one has been logged by someone half way across the world but boy have I received flak for not publishing challenge caches that everyone prequalifies for.

 

Can you imagine actually having to do something to qualify for a challenge?

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with a well-designed, tough challenge. It's the silly challenges I can do without.

 

+1

[Mr.Yuck]

I've published 4 really tough challenges and only one has been logged by someone half way across the world but boy have I received flak for not publishing challenge caches that everyone prequalifies for.

 

Can you imagine actually having to do something to qualify for a challenge?

 

Dude, what an oversimplistic answer. Having to work for something is a given. But have you seen some of the ridiculous nonsense out there? I don't even know where these people come up with some of this stuff. You would think the possibilities ARE endless, but apparently not.

[+DanOCan]

Funny, I don't see much of an attack on challenge caches.

 

I see a lot of people suggesting ways to make the experience better for more people while still allowing people who enjoy hiding challenge caches to do so. I see people suggesting ways to make challenge caches fall in line with the same guidelines that apply to all other physical caches.

 

This is far different than most of the debates on power trails where much of the talk is about banning them.

 

I still don't see why having a distinct log/statistic for "challenge completed" would hurt those who like to hide challenge caches, I do understand why having them listed as Souvenirs or achievements would change things for the hider though. Personally, I would be ok with either idea. Ultimately, I would like to see the same guideline apply to all physical caches -- sign log, log as Found.

[+lamoracke]

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 could look at high terrain caches, boat or not, and find less finds on them too. The point is, I could find many types of caches that have not a ton of finds whether its a boat cache, a long hike, a challenge, a tough puzzle, a multi, a Wherigo that are not found by the masses of cachers. If its a good challenge, a good multi, etc, folks will find it, otherwise, they probably will not. I like challenge caches and make a point of looking at them while on trips. Are there lame ones? Yes. I think some 10 stage multis are lame where you have to get trivial information at each stage. I think some earth caches are lame. I think some wherigos are lame. I think most power trails are lame. However, I like the variety and do not have to do every cache.

 

I think the guidelines can be tweaked and have been to avoid the most silly of challenges and many of them do not get published thankfully, but I am glad they are around.

 

However, if a system could be developed that we could incorporate finding the challenge and finding the cache separately, I would be okay with that. However, then you could do the same for tough puzzles, long multis, solving a Wherigo. Would be hard to know where to draw the line but I once thought about listing a challenge where you could find the cache if you want and only those who completed the challenge got to be mentioned in the cache page description. Was an idea.

[+frinklabs]

I am paraphrasing some previous posters whose contention is that it should be enough to sign the log whether the challenge requirements are met or not.

 

There is no reason that they cannot do that, and submit their log as a Note instead of a Found It. I see it all the time.

 

Someone more cynical than me might think those previous posters are more worried about their find count than experiencing the search and find of the container and all the other stuff that makes geocaching fun.

[+Mudfrog]

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 could look at high terrain caches, boat or not, and find less finds on them too. The point is, I could find many types of caches that have not a ton of finds whether its a boat cache, a long hike, a challenge, a tough puzzle, a multi, a Wherigo that are not found by the masses of cachers. If its a good challenge, a good multi, etc, folks will find it, otherwise, they probably will not. I like challenge caches and make a point of looking at them while on trips. Are there lame ones? Yes. I think some 10 stage multis are lame where you have to get trivial information at each stage. I think some earth caches are lame. I think some wherigos are lame. I think most power trails are lame. However, I like the variety and do not have to do every cache.

 

I think the guidelines can be tweaked and have been to avoid the most silly of challenges and many of them do not get published thankfully, but I am glad they are around.

 

However, if a system could be developed that we could incorporate finding the challenge and finding the cache separately, I would be okay with that. However, then you could do the same for tough puzzles, long multis, solving a Wherigo. Would be hard to know where to draw the line but I once thought about listing a challenge where you could find the cache if you want and only those who completed the challenge got to be mentioned in the cache page description. Was an idea.

 

I'm not sure who came up with the 1% but i can safely say that this figure is not even remotely correct for our area. Every cacher i know is interested in challenge caches. Of course, some tougher CCs are found rarely which thereby makes it seem that few people want to do them. But, just like all other cache types, the easier ones are definitely found often and by many.

[+TopShelfRob]

Someone more cynical than me might think those previous posters are more worried about their find count than experiencing the search and find of the container and all the other stuff that makes geocaching fun.

 

Right, but someone more logical than me, might think it makes more sense to call a find a "find", and call a challenge completed, a "challenge completed", than it does to call a find a "note" and a challenge completed a "find".

 

But than again, maybe instead of A=A and B=B, it makes more sense to say A=B, while B=C, and A≠A. Makes sense to me. Only in the case of challenge caches does find ≠ "find".

[+geodarts]

If "finding" a cache and not being able to log it as a "find" until the challenge is completed is a problem, then perhaps challenges should only have a "completed option" that can be logged once the physical container is signed and the requirements are met. If you cannot "find" a cache with an approved ALR, then the angst might be reduced over find counts - except there would still be an issue with the smileys. It all gets so complicated. I have a hard time understanding why this is a problem.

 

Similarly, if challenges are replaced with badges, souvenirs, or a separate "completed" icon, then we might as well bring back those other type of challenges. I can't imagine my challenge cache ever having an Aura Raines souvenir so I suppose I would just archive it and put the UFO container in my yard.

 

I am content to ignore challenges that I have absolutely no interest in doing. I would not bother finding most of the containers on the Ontario challenge trail cited above. If I don't think I will ever find local containers that also want me to visit six western states in a day or find a given number of caches with "eyes." These days I am getting more and more selective. On the other hand, I enjoyed tracking down superheroes for a challenge and am planning on finishing a paddling challenge within the next month. What is silly to some may be challenging to others.

 

I know of a repetitive puzzle trail that I could easily do if I wanted to look up a hundred Wikipedia entries, fill in the blanks, and then go from one cache to the other. I suppose it could be argued that this kind of series is taking up valuable space. But really, it is not depriving me of an otherwise valuable caching experience. I probably will be heading out to a lake to get a single cache that is there rather than spending a day doing busy work.

[+TopShelfRob]

If you cannot "find" a cache with an approved ALR, then the angst might be reduced over find counts - except there would still be an issue with the smileys. It all gets so complicated. I have a hard time understanding why this is a problem.

 

I don't think there is any angst, just people suggesting a way to improve something.

 

I was under the impression that what people are suggesting would be for a 'challenge completed' to also be a smiley, perhaps a smiley of a different color. Find the cache, log "find it", get your yellow smiley. Complete the challenge requirements, log "challenge completed", get another smiley, (maybe this one is an orange smiley). Still get a smiley for completing the challenge, but you aren't preventing people who only merely found the cache from getting theirs. Heck, this would "double" the experience, complete the challenge and find the cache -- you'd get two smileys!

 

I fail to see how this suggestion would "ruin the fun" for people who enjoy challenges. Unless their fun is mainly derived from logging a cache that others can't. If that's the case, I guess I could see why they'd like to keep it the way it is. Keep out the riff-raff.

 

I am content to ignore challenges that I have absolutely no interest in doing.

 

There is a difference between having no interest in completing the challenge and having no interest in finding the cache.

Edited April 27, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+tozainamboku]

I think the people who like challenges are a little worried that, more so than power trails or urban micros, challenges really only appeal to a small segment of the geocaching community.

 

You are correct. That is why I, for one, am so upset that you are attacking them. We don't have the numbers of the power trail people, and so are more vulnerable to having the part of the game we enjoy ruined by people like you.

 

Go pick on somebody else.

Thanks for being honest about the reason you are concern. As I went on to say, I don't think you need to worry, because even though challenges may appeal to a small fraction of cachers, it happens to appeal to those who are more obsessed with the hobby, on whom Groundspeak relies for a larger portion of it's income.

 

Nobody is concern that tough puzzles, five star terrain, or caches in space are going to be banned, because they account for relatively few caches.

 

There were few complaints in the forum till recently about too many challenges. I think that the reviewers have their "wow" requirement that can be used to control the flow of challenges. "Reasonable number of geocachers" can be used to deny nearly any difficult challenge, and with the "appeals to" phrase could likely be used to control what a reviewer sees as a silly challenge.

 

Rather than feeling picked on, you should be lobbying to have clear guidelines written that will allow the challenges you like to continue to be published. (I believe that already the "lonely cache" challenge you liked so much would not get published under todays guidelines.)

 

Someone more cynical than me might think those previous posters are more worried about their find count than experiencing the search and find of the container and all the other stuff that makes geocaching fun.

 

Right, but someone more logical than me, might think it makes more sense to call a find a "find", and call a challenge completed, a "challenge completed", than it does to call a find a "note" and a challenge completed a "find".

 

But than again, maybe instead of A=A and B=B, it makes more sense to say A=B, while B=C, and A≠A. Makes sense to me. Only in the case of challenge caches does find ≠ "find".

The logical inconsistency can be fixed by renaming the online Found log to the WIGAS log. This isn't likely to happen, but I've found that if you say out loud, "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley!", each time you click "submit" when logging caches; you will soon be able to separate the act of finding a geocache from the act of logging online.

[+fizzymagic]

Rather than feeling picked on, you should be lobbying to have clear guidelines written that will allow the challenges you like to continue to be published.

 

Your answer to all problems in geocaching always seems to be "more rules."

 

My position is that geocaching already has too many rules. Common sense has given way to a legalism that continues to erode the fun of caching. Rather than allowing people (including reviewers) to use common sense, new rules must be proposed to cover every possible eventuality.

 

Even with the multitude of existing rules, some people (like you) seem to feel there are still not enough, so they go out and find potential problems where they can propose new rules.

 

Me? I am very happy to ignore caches I don't want to do. There are a lot of challenges that I think are stupid or unachievable. No big deal for me; I just ignore them. If some people like them, that's fine. I don't need to do every single cache that is ever placed.

 

What I don't do is propose new rules that will increase angst and (through unintended consequences) make the challenges I do like harder to place.

 

The problem with instituting new rules is that they inevitably have unintended consequences. Geocaching has seen a lot of that in the past, although many are unable to recognize it. Those who are constantly trying to propose new rules rarely stop to consider the true consequences.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I've been amazed at the traction this thread has received. This morning, I was already to post my thoughts on unnecessary rules, but I remembered I had a cache to fix. I just enabled it and was about to post my thoughts when I see fizzymagic beat me to it almost verbatim.

[+niraD]

My position is that geocaching already has too many rules. Common sense has given way to a legalism that continues to erode the fun of caching. Rather than allowing people (including reviewers) to use common sense, new rules must be proposed to cover every possible eventuality.

The problem with relying on common sense is that it isn't so common. And that isn't really "uncommon" (as in "rare"), but "not in common" (as in "not shared").

 

I think it's fine for someone to leave a geocache next to the gravestone of a departed relative (assuming adequate permission exists, of course). Someone else thinks it is disrespectful and completely inappropriate to leave a geocache anywhere inside the cemetery, let alone next to a gravestone. Where is the common ground?

 

Many think it's great for someone to hide a couple dozen puzzle caches that can be found only through days/weeks of collaboration by dozens of people in an online forum. Others consider puzzles to be an artificial barrier to finding the caches, and have even asked for puzzles to be made optional by requiring the final locations of puzzle caches to be listed on the cache page. Where is the common ground?

 

And I'm sure that Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines are based on a "common-sense" attitude that challenge caches should be "affirmative" personal geocaching accomplishments, and not based on refraining from something, on winning a competition, or on owning caches. Others want to list challenge caches based on puzzle-only streaks, on non-micro streaks, on FTFs, on DNFs, on caches owned, on Favorites points received, etc. Again, there doesn't seem to be much common ground.

 

So we end up with rules and guidelines, and in some cases, state laws that regulate our game.

[+tozainamboku]

The problem with instituting new rules is that they inevitably have unintended consequences. Geocaching has seen a lot of that in the past, although many are unable to recognize it. Those who are constantly trying to propose new rules rarely stop to consider the true consequences.

I agree with the part you bolded. Unfortunately with challenges this is water under the bridge.

 

Once upon a time there only a few challenges. They mostly had to get a special exception from Groundspeak, because they required emailing the challenge owner to get the coordinates for the challenge once you had a list of qualifying caches that could be checked. Some got around this by using the then unofficial additional logging requirement, and because there were few of them, issues rarely came up where someone wanted to log a find without having done the challenges.

 

Rule change #1 with unintended consequences: ALR caches must be listed as mystery/unknown. The intent was to ensure that a cacher would read the cache page and know there was an ALR. Then they could decide beforehand if they wanted to find the cache and do the ALR in order to log a find online. The unintended consequence was that instead of having a few ALR caches - most with silly but trivial tasks and some with geocaching challenges - you now had a flood of new ALR caches. Almost immediately there was a competition to see just how inane and difficult you could make the ALR. A second unintended consequence was that geocaching challenges that had previously not gotten an exception for emailing the owner, were told they could list the cache as an ALR, provided the cache was at the specified coordinates.

 

Rule change #2 and more consequences: Because TPTB saw the increase in ALR cache as moving away from the basic idea of geocaching, and because they could not find a reasonable guideline the reviewers could use to limit the most extreme or silly ALRs, the ability to use ALRs to control who could log a find was removed. Geocaching related challenges were given an exception to the rule. The unintended consequence was that the owners of ALRs who simply wanted to see how extreme or silly you could make an ALR, submitted ALRs that were extreme or silly but were geocaching related. Another unintended change was that a portion of the geocaching community interpreted the no ALRs rule as meaning that signing the physical log in a cache was all it took to "find" a cache. Exceptions allowing cache owners to delete online logs when the physical log is signed are difficult to explain to someone with this view.

 

Rule change #3. In order to deal with the most extreme and/or silly challenges, TPTB added new guidelines and restriction for challenge caches. In particular "challenge caches need to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers". Additional guidelines refer to not having undue restrictions, not requiring publication or ownership of caches, be based on a personal achievement and not a competition among cachers, and not having to give up finding other caches.

 

It may be that reviewers are capable of interpreting these guidelines so that they don't have unintended consequences. But based on my experience with other rules, I doubt it. The base guideline's reference to "reasonable number" appears to me to be a "wow" requirement. 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.

[+L0ne.R]

I am paraphrasing some previous posters whose contention is that it should be enough to sign the log whether the challenge requirements are met or not.

 

There is no reason that they cannot do that, and submit their log as a Note instead of a Found It. I see it all the time.

 

Someone more cynical than me might think those previous posters are more worried about their find count than experiencing the search and find of the container and all the other stuff that makes geocaching fun.

 

Challenge caches have changed the meaning of the find count. It has become a reward, I wouldn't mind so much if challenge caches were somehow recognized separately, so that they didn't turn the find count into a competitive reward. I want my find count to reflect the caches I have visited. I want an accurate Found It list so I can easily use the map and filtering to see which caches I haven't found yet. I want my list of Notes to reflect instances where I was passing information to the community or owner that was not covered by the DNF, NM or NA options. I do not want my Notes list mixed in with actual cache finds.

Edited April 27, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I am paraphrasing some previous posters whose contention is that it should be enough to sign the log whether the challenge requirements are met or not.

 

There is no reason that they cannot do that, and submit their log as a Note instead of a Found It. I see it all the time.

 

Someone more cynical than me might think those previous posters are more worried about their find count than experiencing the search and find of the container and all the other stuff that makes geocaching fun.

 

Challenge caches have changed the meaning of the find count. It has become a reward, I wouldn't mind so much if challenge caches were somehow recognized separately, so that they didn't turn the find count into a competitive reward. I want my find count to reflect the caches I have visited. I want an accurate Found It list so I can easily use the map and filtering to see which caches I haven't found yet. I want my list of Notes to reflect instances where I was passing information to the community or owner that was not covered by the DNF, NM or NA options. I do not want my Notes list mixed in with actual cache finds.

Help me out here, as we have only completed a few challenges, but we found a physical cache for each. I'm sure that I am uninformed of some practice out there.

[+fizzymagic]

The problem with instituting new rules is that they inevitably have unintended consequences. Geocaching has seen a lot of that in the past, although many are unable to recognize it. Those who are constantly trying to propose new rules rarely stop to consider the true consequences.

I agree with the part you bolded. Unfortunately with challenges this is water under the bridge.

 

So you propose to deal with unintended consequences by making more rules with more unintended consequences.

 

Sigh.

 

If you actually agreed with what I posted, you would not make literally hundreds of posts proposing new rules. So your words ring hollow.

 

Once again, I implore you: please find some other aspect of geocaching onto which to turn your rulemaking compulsion. If you need suggestions, I can probably come up with several.

[+wimseyguy]

I am paraphrasing some previous posters whose contention is that it should be enough to sign the log whether the challenge requirements are met or not.

 

There is no reason that they cannot do that, and submit their log as a Note instead of a Found It. I see it all the time.

 

Someone more cynical than me might think those previous posters are more worried about their find count than experiencing the search and find of the container and all the other stuff that makes geocaching fun.

 

Challenge caches have changed the meaning of the find count. It has become a reward, I wouldn't mind so much if challenge caches were somehow recognized separately, so that they didn't turn the find count into a competitive reward. I want my find count to reflect the caches I have visited. I want an accurate Found It list so I can easily use the map and filtering to see which caches I haven't found yet. I want my list of Notes to reflect instances where I was passing information to the community or owner that was not covered by the DNF, NM or NA options. I do not want my Notes list mixed in with actual cache finds.

Help me out here, as we have only completed a few challenges, but we found a physical cache for each. I'm sure that I am uninformed of some practice out there.

 

Of course you found a container and logged a find for a properly done challenge cache. But before you went out to find that container you had to jump through a hoop of varying size (or you posted a note if you hadn't qualified yet and then the find log after completing the required tasks.)

 

For many of us, geocaching has morphed beyond find a container-log a find and get your smiley.

For some it's jump through a hoop and qualify for the challenge first.

For others it's solve a puzzle from home first, then get the correct coords.

For others it's visit several intermediate steps to get the coords to the final cache and log a multi.

For others it's climb a tree, rappel down a cliff, or some other terrain challenge to get to the container.

 

While I agree that some challenges have silly requirements, the same could be said about pretty much any aspect of the game as it has grown out as well as up. But I don't see a reason to curtail the challenges because a few vocal forum regulars don't like them. I have enjoyed working on challenges the past few years to help me with some direction and focus on the days when I'm not sure where to go or which caches I want to look for.

[+tozainamboku]

The problem with instituting new rules is that they inevitably have unintended consequences. Geocaching has seen a lot of that in the past, although many are unable to recognize it. Those who are constantly trying to propose new rules rarely stop to consider the true consequences.

I agree with the part you bolded. Unfortunately with challenges this is water under the bridge.

 

So you propose to deal with unintended consequences by making more rules with more unintended consequences.

 

Sigh.

 

If you actually agreed with what I posted, you would not make literally hundreds of posts proposing new rules. So your words ring hollow.

 

Once again, I implore you: please find some other aspect of geocaching onto which to turn your rulemaking compulsion. If you need suggestions, I can probably come up with several.

Sigh.

 

I happen to enjoy the discussions in the forums on guidelines and the reasons behind them. Certainly we'd all like to go back to the early days of geocaching, where almost everything was published. I don't know what the "approvers", as they were called back then, actually did. I suppose they used common sense to deny caches that were clearly placed without permission, or perhaps clearly weren't geocaches.

 

I know that a typo I made in a much earlier thread on challenges has earned me a reputation of someone trying to get challenges banned. I have never intentionally wanted to ban challenges, but I do see problems in the guidelines that currently exist for them.

 

I suppose I could make a suggestion on how fizzymagic can ignore forum posts from someone he has decided has an agenda to interfere with other people having fun based on some typo made ages ago.

 

Challenge caches have changed the meaning of the find count.

You can't blame challenges for this. Early on, people started having all kinds of ALRs on caches. While many were geocaching related not all were. Clearly the concept that you haven't found the cache (or scored the points) until you posted a Find online was established early on. While many in the community have bemoaned the fact that log types no longer reflect the experience you had searching for the particular cache, truth is the Found It log has been the WIGAS log since about 2001.

[+TopShelfRob]

Although I would be okay with a 'challenge completed' type of log being added, for those people who are okay with the current confusing system of logging actual finds on unqualifed challenge caches as "notes", perhaps they could log all their finds (traditionals, etc.) as notes so that they could try to have a more accurate find count. Would it then be possible to consider a way where people could choose whether their note count or their smiley count could be displayed below their name on logs? Because it would seem to me that the smiley count would perhaps be (or some would say already is) a rather meaningless statistic, and I could see the "note" count being a more accurate count of actual finds. This would also weed out other "sort of" finds like virtuals and events that deserve a "WIGAS" but not necessarily a "find".

 

Of course then you would have to come up with another log type for "actual notes" -- in case you wanted to leave a note that was just a note, and not a "find disguised as a note". Perhaps also they could change the icon for note to a smiley face, and change the icon for "Found It!" (the current WIGAS) to a check mark or an unique original WIGAS logo or something similar.

 

I'm sure there is some sort of arrangement possible for those who counts WIGAS, those who count smileys, and those who count literal finds, that could make everyone happy. Perhaps WIGAS could be made an unoffical stat and those who for instance want to count FTFs, or non-GC.com caches or other unrelated achievements or other non-offical stats (travel bugs moved, celebrities met, country badges, DeLorme challenges completed, whatever) could choose to awards themselves a WIGAS for those types of things as well. (Your team wins the Super Bowl -- give yourself a WIGAS!)

 

Then people could choose which stat is most appropiate for them to display on their logs... WIGAS, actual find note smileys, or none at all. I mean since we're all playing the game the way we want to play it to get the most enjoyment out of it, and it isn't really about the numbers, anyway, or so I'm told.

 

(I'm going to - for the moment at least - resist the urge to nominate this as post of the year, as it is only April.)

[+Roman!]

Although I would be okay with a 'challenge completed' type of log being added, for those people who are okay with the current confusing system of logging actual finds on unqualifed challenge caches as "notes", perhaps they could log all their finds (traditionals, etc.) as notes so that they could try to have a more accurate find count. Would it then be possible to consider a way where people could choose whether their note count or their smiley count could be displayed below their name on logs? Because it would seem to me that the smiley count would perhaps be (or some would say already is) a rather meaningless statistic, and I could see the "note" count being a more accurate count of actual finds. This would also weed out other "sort of" finds like virtuals and events that deserve a "WIGAS" but not necessarily a "find".

 

Of course then you would have to come up with another log type for "actual notes" -- in case you wanted to leave a note that was just a note, and not a "find disguised as a note". Perhaps also they could change the icon for note to a smiley face, and change the icon for "Found It!" (the current WIGAS) to a check mark or an unique original WIGAS logo or something similar.

 

I'm sure there is some sort of arrangement possible for those who counts WIGAS, those who count smileys, and those who count literal finds, that could make everyone happy. Perhaps WIGAS could be made an unoffical stat and those who for instance want to count FTFs, or non-GC.com caches or other unrelated achievements or other non-offical stats (travel bugs moved, celebrities met, country badges, DeLorme challenges completed, whatever) could choose to awards themselves a WIGAS for those types of things as well. (Your team wins the Super Bowl -- give yourself a WIGAS!)

 

Then people could choose which stat is most appropiate for them to display on their logs... WIGAS, actual find note smileys, or none at all. I mean since we're all playing the game the way we want to play it to get the most enjoyment out of it, and it isn't really about the numbers, anyway, or so I'm told.

 

(I'm going to - for the moment at least - resist the urge to nominate this as post of the year, as it is only April.)

 

Why does everything need to be so complicated?

 

A challenge cache is just that, you need to do the challenge to log the cache. There is absolutely no need to change how it is logged..

[+fizzymagic]

I know that a typo I made in a much earlier thread on challenges has earned me a reputation of someone trying to get challenges banned. I have never intentionally wanted to ban challenges, but I do see problems in the guidelines that currently exist for them.

 

No, your reputation comes from your actions, not some long-ago typo.

 

Your behavior in this thread is a textbook example of the most effective way to get a cache type eliminated.

 

That is: make multiple, complex rules that are difficult for the reviewers to interpret and enforce. That results in a lot of angst and cache hiders challenging reviewer decisions until it gets to be so much work for gc.com that they just punt and eliminate the cache type.

 

It works even better if you can propose some lame alternative (e.g. a "challenge met" log type) and claim that it should be equivalent for all right-thinking people.

 

From my perspective, the above is exactly what you are trying to do here. Make more rules covering every possible situation to make approving these caches more burdensome on the reviewers, and they will complain and eventually the caches will be eliminated. Meanwhile, you have suggested a completely lame alternative that nobody will like as effectively equivalent.

 

The method I see being used here has worked in the past; I have no reason to believe that without intervention it wouldn't work again here.

 

So it seems to me that your talk of how you really like challenges but just want to tweak them is (to put it mildly) disingenuous.

 

Or maybe not. Perhaps you are simply not intelligent enough to realize that rules proliferation will lead to cache type elimination. I don't believe that, though. You seem quite intelligent to me.

 

I suppose I could make a suggestion on how fizzymagic can ignore forum posts from someone he has decided has an agenda to interfere with other people having fun based on some typo made ages ago.

 

I am very glad that I have seen the posts here and can take action to prevent the elimination of challenge caches. Ignoring your posts would just leave me ignorant, which is not useful.

 

Once again, can you please find some other aspect of caching on which to focus your rule-making compulsion?

[+TopShelfRob]

Why does everything need to be so complicated?

 

A challenge cache is just that, you need to do the challenge to log the cache. There is absolutely no need to change how it is logged..

Right. That's fine if you complete the challenge -- I'm talking about for those who haven't completed the challenge, who have been told the only way they can log it is as a note, which is leading to confusion and inaccurate stats.

 

Yes, once you complete the challenge, you are then allowed to log it as a WIGAS, but what does a Found It! log really mean, if others who have really found it can only log it as a note? I would submit that under these rules of engagement a note/find log is the only truly accurate way to log it (challenge completed or not) as an actual "Find It" log can only be logged by those who have completed the challenge.

 

That previous post (for those who couldn't tell) was partially in jest, I don't really think it's a good idea to log finds as note, but under the current system we have, that's really the only way for those who haven't completed challenge requirements to log such a cache. I was just following that logic.

[+Roman!]

Why does everything need to be so complicated?

 

A challenge cache is just that, you need to do the challenge to log the cache. There is absolutely no need to change how it is logged..

Right. That's fine if you complete the challenge -- I'm talking about for those who haven't completed the challenge, who have been told the only way they can log it is as a note, which is leading to confusion and inaccurate stats.

 

Yes, once you complete the challenge, you are then allowed to log it as a WIGAS, but what does a Found It! log really mean, if others who have really found it can only log it as a note? I would submit that under these rules of engagement a note/find log is the only truly accurate way to log it (challenge completed or not) as an actual "Find It" log can only be logged by those who have completed the challenge.

 

That previous post (for those who couldn't tell) was partially in jest, I don't really think it's a good idea to log finds as note, but under the current system we have, that's really the only way for those who haven't completed challenge requirements to log such a cache. I was just following that logic.

 

And what's wrong with having to complete a challenge to log a cache? It just adds a different aspect to the game. If you don't meet the challenge then you have something to shoot for or move on. Not everyone has to be able to log every cache, I don't understand this entitlement?

 

Let's take it further, no more puzzle caches, they discriminate against people that can't solve puzzles and have no friends. Then there's caches on mountains, too many people can't climb mountains, basically every cache discriminates against someone.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Roman!

[+The_Incredibles_]

I suppose I could make a suggestion on how fizzymagic can ignore forum posts from someone he has decided has an agenda to interfere with other people having fun based on some typo made ages ago.

 

I agree. The point of the discussion forum is to discuss things and if there's something you don't like, you don't have to read it. I've enjoyed reading all the different points of view in this thread. There are many aspects of challenges I had never even thought of and it is interesting to see what goes on in other parts of the world. I think it's OK to disagree without anybody getting upset or taking it personally. It's unlikely Groundspeak will suddenly change challenges because of 1 thread.

 

And for those who would like challenges to stay just the way there are? They won't. The hobby is constantly evolving and my crystal ball says challenges will too.

[+TopShelfRob]

 

And what's wrong with having to complete a challenge to log a cache? It just adds a different aspect to the game. If you don't meet the challenge then you have something to shoot for or move on. Not everyone has to be able to log every cache, I don't understand this entitlement?

 

Let's take it further, no more puzzle caches, they discriminate against people that can't solve puzzles and have no friends. Then there's caches on mountains, too many people can't climb mountains, basically every cache discriminates against someone.

 

No, I'm saying the exact opposite of that... I'm all for including all those things... puzzle caches, mountain caches, challenge caches, etc. You find them, you get a "find". You complete a challenge you get a WIGAS... We're just proposing a more accurate way of counting what a find is, whether it's tabulated by logging a note or by logging a WIGAS. Whoever changed the definition of the word "find" which existed long before geocaching, is the one who started us on the road of making it more complicated.

 

I'm saying that if I physically "find" the cache, and haven't completed the challenge requirements, you can't tell me, that by the dictionary definition of the word "found", that I haven't found it. You can call it a WIGAS, but you can't tell me I didn't find it. Literally I did physically find the log. Hence the literal definition of "found it".

 

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.

 

And if I log it as a note, and not as a find, then literally what my stats are telling me is lying about how many caches I have "found". Now you can tell me that my smiley count isn't my find count, it's my WIGAS count, and that's fine then. Just don't pretend that that number is a find count. It's a WIGAS count, nothing more, nothing less. When people refer to their number of finds, it's not their numbers of finds, that number is their number of WIGASs. And as long as people are referring to their smiley count as their number of finds, that's why it is inaccurate to call a find a note.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+The_Incredibles_]

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

[+Roman!]

 

And what's wrong with having to complete a challenge to log a cache? It just adds a different aspect to the game. If you don't meet the challenge then you have something to shoot for or move on. Not everyone has to be able to log every cache, I don't understand this entitlement?

 

Let's take it further, no more puzzle caches, they discriminate against people that can't solve puzzles and have no friends. Then there's caches on mountains, too many people can't climb mountains, basically every cache discriminates against someone.

 

No, I'm saying the exact opposite of that... I'm all for including all those things... puzzle caches, mountain caches, challenge caches, etc. You find them, you get a "find". You complete a challenge you get a WIGAS... We're just proposing a more accurate way of counting what a find is, whether it's tabulated by logging a note or by logging a WIGAS. Whoever changed the definition of the word "find" which existed long before geocaching, is the one who started us on the road of making it more complicated.

 

I'm saying that if I physically "find" the cache, and haven't completed the challenge requirements, you can't tell me, that by the dictionary definition of the word "found", that I haven't found it. You can call it a WIGAS, but you can't tell me I didn't find it. Literally I did physically find the log. Hence the literal definition of "found it".

 

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.

 

Yes you found the cache, you're free to tell the whole world you found the cache, you can even create on you're stats page a list of all the challenge caches you have found, but you can't log it as found on geocaching,com.

 

If you were allowed to log them as found without meeting the challenge I guarantee we'd see the end of challenge caches.

[+Roman!]

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

 

See how complicated its getting

Edited April 28, 2014 by Roman!

[+TopShelfRob]

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

 

WIGASs = plural of WIGAS. More than one WIGAS.

[+TopShelfRob]

Yes you found the cache, you're free to tell the whole world you found the cache, you can even create on you're stats page a list of all the challenge caches you have found, but you can't log it as found on geocaching,com.

 

If you were allowed to log them as found without meeting the challenge I guarantee we'd see the end of challenge caches.

 

Right. I don't want to log them as a "Found It" - under the current definition of challenge caches I haven't "found" it (although I have "found" it) - I want to count my actual finds as my finds, not my "WIGAS" as finds. Right now finds aren't finds. Finds are finds for trads, but finds are notes and challenge completeds are finds on challenge caches.

 

Don't say "so-and-so has 4000 finds", when people mean to say "so-and-so has 4000 smileys"

 

Someone's amount of finds are their amount of finds, regardless of how you count them, you can't change facts. The system is fine, the method of counting is what screwed up. If baseball applied this logic, it'd be like saying "home runs count as doubles on Thursday". If you do that then the amount of Home Runs and the amount of Doubles are screwed up.

 

You can say I've got 52 Home Runs and 12 doubles, but if I've really got 56 Home Runs and 8 doubles, don't go around telling people that Cecil Fielder over there with 54 Home Runs is leading the league, because you chose to count four of my HRs as doubles, if literally I have hit 56 home runs.

 

Or something like that.

[+Roman!]

Yes you found the cache, you're free to tell the whole world you found the cache, you can even create on you're stats page a list of all the challenge caches you have found, but you can't log it as found on geocaching,com.

 

If you were allowed to log them as found without meeting the challenge I guarantee we'd see the end of challenge caches.

 

Right. I don't want to log them as a "Found It" - under the current definition of challenge caches I haven't "found" it (although I have "found" it) - I want to count my actual finds as my finds, not my "WIGAS" as finds. Right now finds aren't finds. Finds are finds for trads, but finds are notes and challenge completeds are finds on challenge caches.

 

Don't say "so-and-so has 4000 finds", when people mean to say "so-and-so has 4000 smileys"

 

Someone's amount of finds are their amount of finds, regardless of how you count them, you can't change facts. The system is fine, the method of counting is what screwed up. If baseball applied this logic, it'd be like saying "home runs count as doubles on Thursday". If you do that then the amount of Home Runs and the amount of Doubles are screwed up.

 

You can say I've got 52 Home Runs and 12 doubles, but if I've really got 56 Home Runs and 8 doubles, don't go around telling people that Cecil Fielder over there with 54 Home Runs is leading the league, because you chose to count four of my HRs as doubles, if literally I have hit 56 home runs.

 

Or something like that.

 

Events have double smileys and web cams have no smileys but both count towards your find count. When someone claims they have 4000 finds I understand it to mean they have a combination of finds, webcam photos taken, events attended, challenges met, info sent for virtuals and earth caches that totals 4000.

 

To me it's common sense that a webcam photo is a find, an event attended is a find and a find on a challenge cache is valid only if the challenge has been met.

[+TopShelfRob]

Events have double smileys and web cams have no smileys but both count towards your find count. When someone claims they have 4000 finds I understand it to mean they have a combination of finds, webcam photos taken, events attended, challenges met, info sent for virtuals and earth caches that totals 4000.

 

To me it's common sense that a webcam photo is a find, an event attended is a find and a find on a challenge cache is valid only if the challenge has been met.

 

Well then I guess we'll just have to (as they say) "agree to disagree." When I think of how many finds I have, if I have to calculate some other number based off of how many smileys I have, then it's an unwieldy system. And if I compare my finds to Joe Schmoe who says he has "300 finds" when he really means he has "300 smileys," it's a useless comparison.

 

We can count a find on a unqualified challenge as a note all we want. It doesn't change whether or not we found it.

 

If that makes me a wig-a**, then fine.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+Roman!]

Events have double smileys and web cams have no smileys but both count towards your find count. When someone claims they have 4000 finds I understand it to mean they have a combination of finds, webcam photos taken, events attended, challenges met, info sent for virtuals and earth caches that totals 4000.

 

To me it's common sense that a webcam photo is a find, an event attended is a find and a find on a challenge cache is valid only if the challenge has been met.

 

Well then I guess we'll just have to (as they say) "agree to disagree." When I think of how many finds I have, if I have to calculate some other number based off of how many smileys I have, then it's an unwieldy system. And if I compare my finds to Joe Schmoe who says he has "300 finds" when he really means he has "300 smileys," it's a useless comparison.

 

We can count a find on a unqualified challenge as a note all we want. It doesn't change whether or not we found it.

 

If that makes me a wig-a**, then fine.

 

I think you are taking the word find too literal, this is a game with very minimal rules but the rules there are do explicitly define what a find is for all the different cache types as far as geocaching is concerned.

[+fizzymagic]

I suppose I could make a suggestion on how fizzymagic can ignore forum posts from someone he has decided has an agenda to interfere with other people having fun based on some typo made ages ago.

 

I agree. The point of the discussion forum is to discuss things and if there's something you don't like, you don't have to read it. I've enjoyed reading all the different points of view in this thread. There are many aspects of challenges I had never even thought of and it is interesting to see what goes on in other parts of the world.

 

Well, the feeling is not mutual.

 

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?

 

I think it's OK to disagree without anybody getting upset or taking it personally. It's unlikely Groundspeak will suddenly change challenges because of 1 thread.

 

It's wonderful to disagree without getting upset. It happens frequently. 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. Then it becomes something more.

 

So if you'll just quit trying to make geocaching worse for me, I will be glad to disagree with you agreeably.

 

As I have politely requested of toz multiple times, please turn your rule-making compulsion elsewhere.

[+TopShelfRob]

I think you are taking the word find too literal, this is a game with very minimal rules but the rules there are do explicitly define what a find is for all the different cache types as far as geocaching is concerned.

 

It doesn't matter what I, you, other people in this thread or Groundspeak think the word "find" means. It means what it means.

[+Roman!]

I think you are taking the word find too literal, this is a game with very minimal rules but the rules there are do explicitly define what a find is for all the different cache types as far as geocaching is concerned.

 

It doesn't matter what I, you, other people in this thread or Groundspeak think the word "find" means. It means what it means.

 

It does matter what GS thinks it means because they defined it and made the rules.

 

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.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Roman!

[+The_Incredibles_]

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.