challenges should be changed

[+lamoracke]

 

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.

 

 

Um, when I finished the Washington Delorme Challenge, I logged a find on it happily as I completed the requirements and had fun finishing the challenge. My fun was not impacted by the fact that I know many cachers do not qualify. Do folks who log the Ape cache in Brazil say, hey, I am only logging this find and enjoying it because you can't? Same with a mountain climb, a scuba cache...sheesh.

 

And to be honest, when I want a debate about anything, its more useful to have folks to have done them speak on it. You have less than 100 finds, why are challenge caches your big bugaboo at the moment? Try doing a couple of challenge caches and see if you like them or not, potentially a real one like finishing out a state's delorme or doing the fizzy, or heck, even starting to do it and if you hate them then, well, then you have some experience to back that up.

Edited April 28, 2014 by lamoracke

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

I hate that, a challenge that's a parking lot micro! I don't do parking lot micros, so I don't do those challenges that end in one. And people have been doing that with puzzles for years. Some of those perpetrators have given their logic here before, they don't want to "take up a good spot with a difficult puzzle". I would imagine the challenge people who do this are thinking the same. Misguided as they are.

[team tisri]

I wonder if a challenge cache that required the finder to previously find 100 consecutive caches that were all Small or larger would be allowed.

 

Needless to say the cache itself would be a soggy film pot behind a sign

[+thebruce0]

I wonder if a challenge cache that required the finder to previously find 100 consecutive caches that were all Small or larger would be allowed.

 

Needless to say the cache itself would be a soggy film pot behind a sign

I'd confidently say no it wouldn't (unless a reviewer grants an exception), because consecutive finds with a limited property encourages people to not find caches that would have them start over. (not "affirmative"; you can 'unqualify' unless you limit your caching habits) (and yes, I've been on the other side of that argument, but I understand the reasoning behind that decision)

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+lamoracke]

I wonder if a challenge cache that required the finder to previously find 100 consecutive caches that were all Small or larger would be allowed.

 

Needless to say the cache itself would be a soggy film pot behind a sign

 

I believe we have a challenge cache guideline that would prohibit that as that would influence caching behavior. They would have been allowed before. Rule 6 from the additional rules on challenge caches...

 

Additional points to consider when creating a challenge geocache:

 

"One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge geocache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game."

[+J Grouchy]

I wonder if a challenge cache that required the finder to previously find 100 consecutive caches that were all Small or larger would be allowed.

 

Needless to say the cache itself would be a soggy film pot behind a sign

 

I'd bet not, since it would likely require folks to pass up other caches to meet the requirement.

If you took out the word "consecutive" it would be allowed.

Edited April 28, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+Traditional Bill]

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.

 

I like change. I welcome it for the most part. But for there to be a solution to a problem, doesn't there need to be a problem first? I don't see the issue with challenges.

 

In fact, I don't place challenge caches for the entire community to come and find. I place them for those that wish to complete a challenge before finding a cache. Those who need a little something more to work towards other than "go to the posted coordinates and look for the cache".

 

A lot of cachers have an obsession with "clearing their radius". I honestly don't take that into consideration when placing a challenge cache, a tree climb, a paddle to or a difficult puzzle. I've come to terms with the fact that I'll never find every cache in my area and it doesn't bother me, not even a little bit. You just can't find every one, that's the game.

 

That being said, I disagree. I wouldn't want cachers logging my challenge caches as found unless they qualify for the challenge. That's the whole point of the cache being there, in my opinion.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

You completely missed my point. Not every word is intended to be interpreted literally. Context matters. Groundspeak's definition of the word "find" in the context of challenge caches means "found the container, signed the physical log, and completed the requirements." It's spelled out in the guidelines, and most people understand this. Their definition is perfectly accurate in this context. It's not inaccurate simply because you disagree with it.

 

In the context of traditional caches, "find" means "found the container and signed the physical log." Even if you think simply finding the container is enough to meet your literal interpretation of the word "find," Groundspeak will back up cache owners who delete your traditional "finds" if you don't also sign the log books.

 

So when I hear someone say "I found my 3000th find", my reaction is "not necesarily, you got your 3,000th smiley."

Most geocachers also understand that 3,000 "finds" isn't necessarily 3,000 literal "finds." I guess the difference is that most of us are okay with the word "finds" also being used as a shorthand way of meaning "finds, finds and challenges completed, webcam photos taken, events attended, GPS Adventure Exhibits seen, EarthCache locations visited and appropriate answers sent, virtual locations visited and appropriate information sent, and locationless coordinates provided." Simply saying "finds" in this less literal fashion saves a lot of time.

[+TopShelfRob]

...and about the 1% line (or .01%.) Heck under my proposal that guideline wouldn't even be necessary.

 

This actually makes challenges more viable, they wouldn't have to appeal to as many people, because they would also be a traditional cache for everyone at the same time.

 

Why not a challenge that only 1 person qualifies for? Say someone near Alamgordo (or however you spell his name) put out a "100,000 Caches Found Challenge" that only he would qualify for. Only he could log it as challenge completed, but everyone could find it and log it like a trad and offer congrats to him on the milestone. Sort of like a crowning achievement.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[team tisri]

Shame, my irony meter was working overtime again.

 

On a more serious note, I can't help thinking that challenge caches as they stand seem somewhat pointless but had Groundspeak done a better job of the Challenge concept they introduced some years back, that could have been used well. If a Challenge was to "find 8 different cache types in a day" and could be claimed by anyone who achieved it regardless of where they were in the world, it would make so much more sense than having different variations on it floating about that can only be claimed by people who happen to be in a particular location.

[+thebruce0]

I think you'll find that "find" means more than just 'find physically' in most contexts you can find. Thankfully, if found defining find incorrectly you won't get fined.

[+TopShelfRob]

Their definition is perfectly accurate in this context. It's not inaccurate simply because you disagree with it.

It's my contention that the way find counts are being tabulated now, in the context that Groundspeak counts them, and by how most Geocachers think of their smileys as being equal to their amount of "finds", is inaccurate. That is my contention. You are free to disagree with that.

 

I guess the difference is that most of us are okay with the word "finds" also being used as a shorthand way of meaning "finds, finds and challenges completed, webcam photos taken, events attended, GPS Adventure Exhibits seen, EarthCache locations visited and appropriate answers sent, virtual locations visited and appropriate information sent, and locationless coordinates provided." Simply saying "finds" in this less literal fashion saves a lot of time.

I agree - that is the difference. You can have your WIGAS finds. I prefer that my smiley count equals my actual find count.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+thebruce0]

Shame, my irony meter was working overtime again.

Why is there no :irony: smiley? (And I mean forum smiley... not a WIGAS)

 

On a more serious note, I can't help thinking that challenge caches as they stand seem somewhat pointless but had Groundspeak done a better job of the Challenge concept they introduced some years back, that could have been used well. If a Challenge was to "find 8 different cache types in a day" and could be claimed by anyone who achieved it regardless of where they were in the world, it would make so much more sense than having different variations on it floating about that can only be claimed by people who happen to be in a particular location.

I for one enjoyed the Geocaching Challenges, and was sad to see them go - despite advocating for more improvements since they were so unbelievably loose and undefined. But afaik there was so much controversy (including those who hated them purposefully making the experience worse for everyone with needless downvotes) that they scrapped the whole idea, like it never existed.

 

It would have been great to see a variant of them that were locationless and specifically oriented towards statistical achievements.

Only thing is it would have taken away from challenge caches, and how would they deter duplicate challenges? How many would people create around the world for say 8 icons in a day? Once you achieve that, you could immediately log perhaps hundreds of 'challenges completed'. At least with the location aspect it's not just a challenge - it's also a cache. I may do 8 icons in a day and qualify for the hundreds of challenge caches worldwide, but I can't log them all until I sign them all.

 

The only alternative is to have Groundspeak create those 'worldwide' stats challenges, but then once you've done it, you only get it once. Puts a huge damper on the fun of going to log a challenge cache.

 

It just keeps coming back to the fact that every element of the Challenge Cache is what makes the Challenge Cache what it is. The location, the physical container, the challenge itself. Remove any of that and it dramatically alters the 'challenge caching' experience.

[+thebruce0]

Their definition is perfectly accurate in this context. It's not inaccurate simply because you disagree with it.

It's my contention that the way find counts are being tabulated now, in the context that Groundspeak counts them, and by how most Geocachers think of their smileys as being equal to their amount of "finds", is inaccurate. That is my contention. You are free to disagree with that.

Good. I disagree.

[+TopShelfRob]

[+CanadianRockies]

Their definition is perfectly accurate in this context. It's not inaccurate simply because you disagree with it.

It's my contention that the way find counts are being tabulated now, in the context that Groundspeak counts them, and by how most Geocachers think of their smileys as being equal to their amount of "finds", is inaccurate. That is my contention. You are free to disagree with that.

Just because your literal definition of the word "finds" differs from the less literal definition that Groundspeak and most geocachers use doesn't make our definition inaccurate. It just makes it less literal. Literal isn't equivalent to accurate.

 

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.

Nor does a less literal number equate to "some arbitrary meaningless number." It's just a number that means something different from what you mean. Using words literally doesn't entitle you to climb on the (figurative) high horse.

[+Traditional Bill]

...and about the 1% line (or .01%.) Heck under my proposal that guideline wouldn't even be necessary.

 

This actually makes challenges more viable, they wouldn't have to appeal to as many people, because they would also be a traditional cache for everyone at the same time.

 

Why not a challenge that only 1 person qualifies for? Say someone near Alamgordo (or however you spell his name) put out a "100,000 Caches Found Challenge" that only he would qualify for. Only he could log it as challenge completed, but everyone could find it and log it like a trad and offer congrats to him on the milestone. Sort of like a crowning achievement.

 

That would be a pretty contrived challenge, first off. Secondly, it would not adhere to the guidelines.

 

Here's a quote specifically from the challenge guidelines -

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

 

If I wanted to place a cache "everyone" could log, I'd place a traditional with an "optional" logging goal. I think that's pretty dumb, so instead I place a challenge cache that's only attainable by those who qualify. I like it that way. I hope that TPTB don't ever change that.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Traditional Bill

[+TopShelfRob]

 

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.

 

 

Um, when I finished the Washington Delorme Challenge, I logged a find on it happily as I completed the requirements and had fun finishing the challenge. My fun was not impacted by the fact that I know many cachers do not qualify. Do folks who log the Ape cache in Brazil say, hey, I am only logging this find and enjoying it because you can't? Same with a mountain climb, a scuba cache...sheesh.

 

And to be honest, when I want a debate about anything, its more useful to have folks to have done them speak on it. You have less than 100 finds, why are challenge caches your big bugaboo at the moment? Try doing a couple of challenge caches and see if you like them or not, potentially a real one like finishing out a state's delorme or doing the fizzy, or heck, even starting to do it and if you hate them then, well, then you have some experience to back that up.

 

Oh I have no doubt that if I qualifed for a challenge I'd love to complete one. But I'm offering the perspective of someone who caches casually, and therefore doesn't qualify for many, if any, challenges. Are you all better than me because you have 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 finds? I could spend all my spare time looking for caches I don't enjoy or doing power trails. Or I could go out a couple times a month, maybe find a cache or two here and there that interest me, or that I happen to be near, and choose to keep an accurate find count.

 

Maybe someday when (or if) I have 3000 finds, I'll be on the other side of the equation, and I'll favor the elitist mentality that only "us qualifiers" should be allowed to log finds and keep out the riff-raff. But from my side of the fence I see no reason that it wouldn't serve the game better by challenges being both traditionals that everyone could enjoy, as well as a reward for those who completed the challenge.

 

But you're right, what do I know? I only have 65 finds. All of us with less than 1000 finds should probably just let the grown-ups talk. I probably only see challenges as something that takes up a space on the map that could be a traditional that I should be able to log.

 

Certainly people that don't qualify for many challenges can have no valid opinion on whether they should be part of the game or not.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+DanOCan]

I am certainly enjoying the discussion. It always gets a great response in the forums from folks on all sides of the debate. This discussion has been going on for several years now.

 

I also agree that the "challenge cache" is an abused form of the former ALR, or "additional logging requirements." It makes very little sense to restrict a cache find in this way, especially since a geocacher can accomplish many of the tasks on the opposite side of the world but could never find this particular cache.

 

The problem is you can't claim a found it log, even though you found it. You may not have a problem with that, but I do. A found it log means you found it. That's why it is called a found it log.

 

I wonder if the lack of changes coming from Groundspeak indicates that Jeremy has changed his feeling about challenge caches?

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

If we use TopShelfRob's literal definition of a "find," then shouldn't we get multiple "Found Its" for those EarthCaches and virtuals that require multiple answers?

 

And if we return to "find" a cache a second time (perhaps to drop off a travel bug), then shouldn't we get a second "Found It" for doing so? After returning from the restroom and "finding" an event a second time, shouldn't we get to log two "Found Its" for that event?

[+TopShelfRob]

Secondly, it would not adhere to the guidelines.

 

That's my exact point... That would no longer need to be a guideline, if challenge caches could at the same time also be logged by everyone as a traditional.

 

But you're right, finding 100,000 caches isn't something worth celebrating.

[+TopShelfRob]

If we use TopShelfRob's literal definition of a "find," then shouldn't we get multiple "Found Its" for those EarthCaches and virtuals that require multiple answers?

 

And if we return to "find" a cache a second time (perhaps to drop off a travel bug), then shouldn't we get a second "Found It" for doing so? After returning from the restroom and "finding" an event a second time, shouldn't we get to log two "Found Its" for that event?

 

LOL Well, that's up to you. By my personal literal definition of a find, once it's found, it's found.

 

Yep, you guys are right. I'm just the wigass around here with 65 finds.

[+Traditional Bill]

 

I probably only see challenges as something that takes up a space on the map that could be a traditional that I should be able to log.

 

 

This is certainly the impression that I'm getting from your idea.

[+thebruce0]

Oh I have no doubt that if I qualifed for a challenge I'd love to complete one.

Then do it!

 

But I'm offering the perspective of someone who caches casually, and therefore doesn't qualify for many, if any, challenges.

Most people don't (qualify). And most people do (cache casually).

 

Are you all better than me because you have 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 finds?

Who said anything about anyone being better? Just as "cheating" in geocaching is only "cheating" yourself, you may only perceive that someone is somehow "better" if they've found more. That's on you, not anyone else. So no, having more finds doesn't make someone "better".

 

I could spend all my spare time looking for caches I don't enjoy or doing power trails. Or I could go out a couple times a month, maybe find a cache or two here and there that interest me, or that I happen to be near, and choose to keep an accurate find count.

Go for it.

Looks like you already play that way.

You could find caches you don't enjoy. But I presume you wouldn't. Why would anyone consciously spend time doing something they don't enjoy doing?

 

Maybe someday when (or if) I have 3000 finds, I'll be on the other side of the equation, and I'll favor the elitist mentality that only "us qualifiers" should be allowed to log finds and keep out the riff-raff.

WHO THINKS LIKE THAT? You seem to think everyone who enjoys challenges thinks like that. Could not be further from the truth!

 

But from my side of the fence I see no reason that it wouldn't serve the game better by challenges being both traditionals that everyone could enjoy, as well as a reward for those who completed the challenge.

Then present that as an idea and accept criticism if it's valid.

 

But you're right, what do I know? I only have 65 finds.

If you enjoy caching, then keep caching! Happy caching, there are millions out there to find!

 

All of us with less than 1000 finds should probably just let the grown-ups talk.

I want to say "stop. just stop." but that would just support the statement

 

I probably only see challenges as something that takes up a space on the map that could be a traditional that I should ba able to find.

Then so should Earthcaches and Virtuals.

You could just look at Challenge Caches like one of those cache types you can't "find" by your definition.

 

Certainly people that don't qualify for many challenges can have no valid opinion on whether they should be part of the game or not.

They certainly do. But opinions are like ... well, suffice to say we all have them. Discussions are more relevant than just having opinions.

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

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

Not common, and I hope it stays that way.

[+L0ne.R]

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

 

Is .08% of the global caching population a reasonable number?

[+thebruce0]

...I hope that TFTC don't ever change that.

The Founders That Care?

The Flippant Twits of Canada?

Ten Fish Thrashing Chaotically?

 

sorry =P

[+thebruce0]

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

 

Is .08% of the global caching population a reasonable number?

 

Depends whether that .08% is congregated in one region near the challenge or separated and spread individually worldwide...

That's up the reviewer to judge.

[+Traditional Bill]

Secondly, it would not adhere to the guidelines.

 

That's my exact point... That would no longer need to be a guideline, if challenge caches could at the same time also be logged by everyone as a traditional.

 

But you're right, finding 100,000 caches isn't something worth celebrating.

 

I prefer the guidelines that are in place, actually. I'd rather not see a contrived challenge of this nature, whether it be optionally loggable as a traditional or not.

[+Traditional Bill]

...I hope that TFTC don't ever change that.

The Founders That Care?

The Flippant Twits of Canada?

Ten Fish Thrashing Chaotically?

 

sorry =P

 

I particularly like "Ten Fish Thrashing Chaotically".

 

Fixed it, btw.

[+TopShelfRob]

 

 

(replying to all of above)

 

But that's the impression you all are giving me. That my opinion isn't worth a crap now that you all know I've only found 65 caches. Since many people are causal cachers, shouldn't their perspective (my perspective) be valid? You all - the ones who feel strongly about defending the "only qualifiers should be able to log challenges" stance, are a self-selected segment of the geocaching population: Those who both visit the forum and who have strong feelings about challenge caches, and are therefore going to have a different perspective than the rank and file geocachers who don't qualify for most challenges.

 

To me (and this is just my opinion) the challenge cache system would indeed be better if it was a reward for those who qualified, while also being a cache for all. As is it now, it is a reward only for those who qualify, and something to be ignored for everyone else. Just that basic argument right there - why is that better for the game and not an exclusionary idea that is bad for the game?

 

And again, I'm not saying get rid of challenge caches - look back at my proposal, it seemed like a decent idea until you looked at my stats. I'm just trying to make them better.

 

My proposal again:

 

 

Now that you know I'm just some newbie (who's been caching seven years) with only 65 logged finds, it's obviously a stupider idea than it was before anyone knew my stats. But forget about me, just the suggestion itself on its' merit, maybe it's not the "simplest" idea, but it would give people that don't qualify for many challenges something that they wouldn't have to ignore, while preserving and possibly enhancing the experience for those that do qualify for them.

 

How would this not make the game better for a lot more people than it would make the game worse for?

 

Why would anyone consciously spend time doing something they don't enjoy doing?

Uh, I don't know. So they can qualify to log a challenge cache?

 

You could just look at Challenge Caches like one of those cache types you can't "find" by your definition.

But by my definition I can find them, I just can't count them. So I choose not to seek them. And to me, that (choosing not to seek a cache that I could "find") is not geocaching.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+J Grouchy]

I think the biggest problem is counting a challenge as a "cache". I don't really know what they "used to be", but I gather they weren't a cache that one had to find and sign the log, correct?

 

I like challenges, I think they are a great idea...but I think it is doing them a disservice to try to fit them into some category of cache. Virtuals and earthcaches involve finding the correct data at a physical site to send to the owner...not really the same thing as collecting statistics from the geocaching internet site. Tacking on a physical cache container to find and sign is a little silly. There is validity to creating a challenge that involves going out and finding caches, then using the data on the website, using various tools like GSAK, and assembling that data as evidence of qualification...so I don't really understand why it needs to be counted as a cache? It's making it less important to just assign it another "smilie" once completed. Why not make it a different kind of statistic altogether? Give it another symbol like a "star" or a "golden hoop" for each one completed. Then those folks who care about racking up challenges can have another bragging right visible to all and the rest of us who only occasionally pursue them or don't care about them at all aren't affected in any way. Those who "find" them get their 'WIGAS' credit and those who just want to log the physical caches as found and have their numbers mean something can get THEIR 'WIGAS' credit. Win-win.

[+thebruce0]

But that's the impression you all are giving me. That my opinion isn't worth a crap now that you all know I've only found 65 caches.

...

Now that you know I'm just some newbie (who's been caching seven years) with only 65 logged finds, it's obviously a stupider idea than it was before anyone knew my stats.

It has absolutely nothing to do with your stats, and your suggestion is not the only one that isn't "simple". Every suggestion presented attempts to solve at least one problem, but ignoring the fact that it may raise other issues isn't helpful. And it has nothing to do with how many caches you've found (online). Also, nothing to do with how many caches you've found (physically).

 

Since many people are causal cachers, shouldn't their perspective (my perspective) be valid? You all - the ones who feel strongly about defending the "only qualifiers should be able to log challenges" stance, are a self-selected segment of the geocaching population: Those who both visit the forum and who have strong feelings about challenge caches.

No, this is Groundspeak's stance. THAT is what a Find Log represents. Not just a physical find. You're trying to impose a definition of the "Find Log" that is not the definition outlined by Groundspeak, but rather one of the dictionary definitions of "find" (specifically, physically locating; which doesn't, btw, include signing a logsheet - that's a Groundspeak "Find"). (should I reiterate?)

 

And again, I'm not saying get rid of challenge caches - look back at my proposal, it seemed like a decent idea...

For my part, I said as much here; I even supported the idea in the other thread. But I also recognized its drawbacks.

 

And until you looked at my stats.

Nope.

 

My proposal again...

You didn't address the point I made about the issue with the image (multiple logs for a user), and the potential criticisms with that structure of logging.

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

That would certainly make it a really tough challenge, but "it's fine to have really tough challenge caches," isn't it? It certainly isn't the way I'd like to spend my vacation days, but I can see how others might get a kick out of this kind of challenge.

[+Traditional Bill]

 

 

(replying to all of above)

 

But that's the impression you all are giving me. That my opinion isn't worth a crap now that you all know I've only found 65 caches. Since many people are causal cachers, shouldn't their perspective (my perspective) be valid? You all - the ones who feel strongly about defending the "only qualifiers should be able to log challenges" stance, are a self-selected segment of the geocaching population: Those who both visit the forum and who have strong feelings about challenge caches, are therby going to have a different perspective than the rank and file geocachers who don't qualify for most challenges.

 

To me (and this is just my opinion) the challenge cache system would indeed be better if it was a reward for those who qualified, while also being a cache for all. As is it now, it is a reward only for those who qualify, and something to be ignored for everyone else. Just that basic argument right there - why is that better for the game and not an exclusionary idea that is bad for the game?

 

And again, I'm not saying get rid of challenge caches - look back at my proposal, it seemed like a decent idea until you looked at my stats. I'm just trying to make them better.

 

My proposal again:

 

 

Now that you know I'm just some newbie (who's been caching seven years) with only 65 logged finds, it's obviously a stupider idea than it was before anyone knew my stats.

 

So do you feel the same about "equipment" only caches? For every tree climb that I put out, should I put a cache at the base of the tree for those who don't want to climb?

 

What about multis? Should the first stage of every multi include a log sheet for those who don't feel like finding 4 containers for 1 smiley?

 

And puzzles? Should there be a container at the posted coordinates for those that don't feel like solving the puzzle?

 

Do you see my point?

 

All I'm saying is that challenges aren't for everybody. If you'd rather not put the work into qualifying, than simply use the "ignore" feature. It's not hard. If I wanted to hide a traditional cache, I'll list it as a traditional. The same should go for you. If you don't want to be bothered with other aspects of the game, than you should stick to what you like about the game instead of proposing that everybody should be able to log challenges as traditionals.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

 

Um, when I finished the Washington Delorme Challenge, I logged a find on it happily as I completed the requirements and had fun finishing the challenge. My fun was not impacted by the fact that I know many cachers do not qualify. Do folks who log the Ape cache in Brazil say, hey, I am only logging this find and enjoying it because you can't? Same with a mountain climb, a scuba cache...sheesh.

 

And to be honest, when I want a debate about anything, its more useful to have folks to have done them speak on it. You have less than 100 finds, why are challenge caches your big bugaboo at the moment? Try doing a couple of challenge caches and see if you like them or not, potentially a real one like finishing out a state's delorme or doing the fizzy, or heck, even starting to do it and if you hate them then, well, then you have some experience to back that up.

 

Oh I have no doubt that if I qualifed for a challenge I'd love to complete one. But I'm offering the perspective of someone who caches casually, and therefore doesn't qualify for many, if any, challenges. Are you all better than me because you have 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 finds? I could spend all my spare time looking for caches I don't enjoy or doing power trails. Or I could go out a couple times a month, maybe find a cache or two here and there that interest me, or that I happen to be near, and choose to keep an accurate find count.

 

Maybe someday when (or if) I have 3000 finds, I'll be on the other side of the equation, and I'll favor the elitist mentality that only "us qualifiers" should be allowed to log finds and keep out the riff-raff. But from my side of the fence I see no reason that it wouldn't serve the game better by challenges being both traditionals that everyone could enjoy, as well as a reward for those who completed the challenge.

 

But you're right, what do I know? I only have 65 finds. All of us with less than 1000 finds should probably just let the grown-ups talk. I probably only see challenges as something that takes up a space on the map that could be a traditional that I should be able to log.

 

Certainly people that don't qualify for many challenges can have no valid opinion on whether they should be part of the game or not.

 

I'm in agreement with everything you've added to this discussion TopShelfRob. I consider myself a casual geocacher and qualify for very few challenges after 13 years of geocaching and 1860 finds. Geocaching has become a gluttonous sport. It used to be an activity, a leisurely pastime. Now more and more it's turning into a sport. Forcing people who can't compete to the sidelines. Forcing cache owners who don't want their caches in the competition to either archive or participate.

It seems that there's no fun in challenge caches unless most of the population can be deprived of something that is also necessary to fully and accurately enjoy the pastime - an accurate find count.

Edited April 29, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+thebruce0]

I'm in agreement to everything you've added to this discussion TopShelfRob. I'm consider myself a casual geocacher and qualify for very few challenges after 13 years of geocaching and 1860 finds. Geocaching has become a gluttonous sport. It used to be an activity, a leisurely pastime. Now more and more it's turning into a sport. Forcing people who can't compete to the sidelines. Forcing cache owners who don't want their caches in the competition to either archive or participate.

It seems that there's no fun in challenge caches unless most of the population can be deprived of something that is also necessary to fully and accurately enjoy the pastime - an accurate find count.

 

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

Oh I have no doubt that if I qualifed for a challenge I'd love to complete one. But I'm offering the perspective of someone who caches casually, and therefore doesn't qualify for many, if any, challenges.

I really miss the days when I had so few finds that every challenge cache, no matter how simple, was really a challenge for me to go out and do something I hadn't done before. (They used to allow challenge cache creators to force everyone to do what was required after the challenge was posted, but now they don't. I miss that, too, although it's always hard to resist a chance to sit on ones laurels.) I found those challenges by far enough fun to make it worth having challenge caches even though some challenge caches require high numbers of finds that I'll never reach.

 

Are you all better than me because you have 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 finds?

Are you better than me because you kayak or because you found a cache that fooled me or because you solved a puzzle I couldn't? Those are caches you found that I didn't.

[+Traditional Bill]

Forcing people who can't compete to the sidelines. Forcing cache owners who don't want their caches in the competition to either archive or participate.

 

Just curious..... How have challenge caches fforced you to the sidelines? Are you unable to go out and find and log Traditional caches just like you used to?

 

Also, I'm wondering how challenge caches have forced anybody to archive a cache. I've never seen an example of that.

 

Could you elaborate a bit?

[+thebruce0]

Oh I can vouch for that, that there are cache owners who felt that their caches had suddenly become the target of some form of prey hunt due to a challenge requiring some rare property that their cache had. They'd opt to archive it instead of have it found more often. (though as a devil's advocate, there can be instances where a cache might have been placed not expecting to be found by 'ravaging hordes', as it were, and so could be ruined per the owner's opinion; same argument has been applied to group cache hunts)

I can't recall specific caches, but I know that was a concern, and imo a valid one. Though rare at best.

 

ETA: Some owners in my area occasionally temporarily disable and remove caches if they know a local organized group cache hunt will be in the area and aiming to log theirs.

Edited April 28, 2014 by thebruce0

[+lamoracke]

 

Maybe someday when (or if) I have 3000 finds, I'll be on the other side of the equation, and I'll favor the elitist mentality that only "us qualifiers" should be allowed to log finds and keep out the riff-raff. But from my side of the fence I see no reason that it wouldn't serve the game better by challenges being both traditionals that everyone could enjoy, as well as a reward for those who completed the challenge.

 

But you're right, what do I know? I only have 65 finds. All of us with less than 1000 finds should probably just let the grown-ups talk. I probably only see challenges as something that takes up a space on the map that could be a traditional that I should be able to log.

 

Certainly people that don't qualify for many challenges can have no valid opinion on whether they should be part of the game or not.

 

You don't need 3000 finds to do a challenge, who says you have to do one that requires a lot of finds. There are many challenges that are small scale, like finding 5 boat caches. Personally I would not giving negative feedback on a movie I have never seen and if I did, it would just be based on what I think based on the promos or reviews, I am only suggesting you actually try to find a challenge that appeals to you (or least repulses you) and see what its like before you really make an opinion on them.

[+TopShelfRob]

Are you better than me because you kayak or because you found a cache that fooled me or because you solved a puzzle I couldn't? Those are caches you found that I didn't.

 

No, but then I have never found a kayak cache - although I did DNF on a land attempt at a purported kayak-required cache. I've never even been in a kayak. (is that a hypothetical? or do my stats indicate I logged such a cache?) Anyway I'm not saying anybody is better than anybody.

 

So do you feel the same about "equipment" only caches? For every tree climb that I put out, should I put a cache at the base of the tree for those who don't want to climb?

What about multis? Should the first stage of every multi include a log sheet for those who don't feel like finding 4 containers for 1 smiley?

And puzzles? Should there be a container at the posted coordinates for those that don't feel like solving the puzzle?

Do you see my point?

All I'm saying is that challenges aren't for everybody. If you'd rather not put the work into qualifying, than simply use the "ignore" feature. It's not hard. If I wanted to hide a traditional cache, I'll list it as a traditional. The same should go for you. If you don't want to be bothered with other aspects of the game, than you should stick to what you like about the game instead of proposing that everybody should be able to log challenges as traditionals.

 

I see exactly your point. And I disagree with it.

 

Using equipment and solving a puzzle are things you, by intended design, have to do in order to be able to get to the cache. With a challenge cache it's right there, it could be in my hand, and I can't log it. With the puzzles and the scuba gear, etc., if I get the cache in my hand, I can log it, regardless if I held my breath or cheated on the puzzle. That's an inherent difference between that and a challenge cache. With a challenge cache the game is telling me, even if you get to it, you still don't qualify. With scuba & puzzles requirement, if I can bypass them it's fair game, with challenges, if I bypass the requirements, I'm not eligible.

 

You didn't address the point I made about the issue with the image (multiple logs for a user), and the potential criticisms with that structure of logging.

 

I think I sorta did, but I can further respond if necessary:

 

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.

 

...and:

 

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.

 

and to JGrouchy and L0ne.R and any others that may have agreed or supported anything I may have said during this thread, thank you!

Edited April 28, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+Traditional Bill]

Oh I can vouch for that, that there are cache owners who felt that their caches had suddenly become the target of some form of prey hunt due to a challenge requiring some rare property that their cache had. They'd opt to archive it instead of have it found more often. (though as a devil's advocate, there can be instances where a cache might have been placed not expecting to be found by 'ravaging hordes', as it were, and so could be ruined per the owner's opinion; same argument has been applied to group cache hunts)

I can't recall specific caches, but I know that was a concern, and imo a valid one. Though rare at best.

 

ETA: Some owners in my area occasionally temporarily disable and remove caches if they know a local organized group cache hunt will be in the area and aiming to log theirs.

 

I thought about that before I posted, but still..... Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. Although you're right, valid point.

 

I can remember one situation where I removed the final of one of my 10 stage multis before an organized group outing. They were with a local Cacher who had previously completed the multi and he brought them all to GZ. Funny thing is that I still got found logs on that cache that day.

 

Deleted every one of them.

[+CanadianRockies]

On a more serious note, I can't help thinking that challenge caches as they stand seem somewhat pointless but had Groundspeak done a better job of the Challenge concept they introduced some years back, that could have been used well. If a Challenge was to "find 8 different cache types in a day" and could be claimed by anyone who achieved it regardless of where they were in the world, it would make so much more sense than having different variations on it floating about that can only be claimed by people who happen to be in a particular location.

If you thought snapping a picture of yourself kissing a frog while sitting on your couch had something to do with "geocaching," then I can see how you might enjoy the idea of cacheless challenges.

 

For those of us who think "geocaching" should have something to do with going to a specific location, not so wonderful.

Edited April 28, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+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

 

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.

 

 

Huh? I don't understand. You are using an example of *ONE* challenge whose total number of potential qualifiers are 7,000 to extrapolate that therefore the rest of the challenge caches also appeal to an equally small minority????

[+J Grouchy]

On a more serious note, I can't help thinking that challenge caches as they stand seem somewhat pointless but had Groundspeak done a better job of the Challenge concept they introduced some years back, that could have been used well. If a Challenge was to "find 8 different cache types in a day" and could be claimed by anyone who achieved it regardless of where they were in the world, it would make so much more sense than having different variations on it floating about that can only be claimed by people who happen to be in a particular location.

If you thought snapping a picture of yourself kissing a frog while sitting on your couch had something to do with "geocaching," then I can see how you might enjoy the idea of cacheless challenges.

 

For those of us who think "geocaching" should have something to do with going to a specific location, not so wonderful.

 

Instead of getting rid of them...perhaps reigning them in would've been advisable? Why not have the challenge rules we have now under the system they had before? Like I said, I'm not clear on exactly how it worked before (they dumped them shortly after I started caching)...but I gather they were not actual "caches". I'm not sure why they felt inclined to make them caches. They already have non-caches (benchmarks and souvenirs) for users...can you imagine if they decided they were going to institute "Souvenir Caches"? Just think of all the innocent light posts that would be defiled!

[+Traditional Bill]

TopShelfRob, if you can easily bypass an equipment only, puzzle or multi cache, is it not just as easy to bypass a challenge?

 

Most challenges have the word "challenge" right in the title. Just like you're not going to bother going to GZ for that scuba cache, why would you bother going to GZ for a challenge cache?

 

If you're not qualified, it's just as "out of reach" in my opinion.

 

On the other hand, why not look for a challenge in your area that isn't too difficult to qualify for, go out and fulfill the requirements and then find the cache? How do you know that you wouldn't enjoy it if you haven't tried it? Perhaps there's even challenges out there that you already qualify for. I've seen plenty of easier challenges that also appeal to cachers with less finds.

[+thebruce0]

Anyway I'm not saying anybody is better than anybody.

That's good.

 

using equipment and solving a puzzle are things you have to do to be able to get to the cache. With a challenge cache it's right there, it could be in my hand, and I can't log it. With the puzzles and the scuba gear, etc., if I get the cache in my hand, I can log it, regardless if I held my breath or cheated on the puzzle. That's an inherent difference between that and a challenge cache. With a challenge cache the game is game is telling me, even if you get it don't don't qualify. With scuba & puzzles requirement, if I can bypass them it's fair game, with challenges, if I bypass the requirements, I'm not eligible.

And them's the rules. That's precisely what Groundspeak has outlined as requirements for Challenge Caches. So...

1) If you use the argument that the "Find Log" online should be an accurate representation of your physical caches found, then you force a change in the definition of the "Find Log" that also cannot include Earthcaches and Virtuals.

2) If you use the argument that you should be able to log a physical cache "Found" online if you've simply found the cache, then you cannot include the requirement that a representative signature be legible on the physical logsheet - otherwise the "Find Log" still represents more than simply finding a physical container (which then follows for Earthcaches and Virtuals and Challenge caches)

3) If you present the suggestion of providing a complementary log type for challenge caches, then the "Find Log" for Earthcaches and Virtuals will also need to be changed (otherwise the new variant is extraneous)

4) If you present the suggestion of allowing an additional property to the "Find Log" specific to challenge caches, then more programming is needed for the website (and API) to determine when that option shows (via a new distinguishing property like a new cache Type, or an Attribute, etc), and you need to deal with extra work on the part of the logger, depending on the order of finding and qualifying, plus flack from challenge COs who may only want people to log their challenge cache if they find it and qualify.

5) If you remove the physical component, then see my previous comment looking at possible issues with locationless challenges.

 

Gotta think things through to their logical ends, where differences of opinions are roadblocks you can't simply hand-wave away.

 

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.

See my points above.

[+thebruce0]

I thought about that before I posted, but still..... Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything. Although you're right, valid point.

 

I can remember one situation where I removed the final of one of my 10 stage multis before an organized group outing. They were with a local Cacher who had previously completed the multi and he brought them all to GZ. Funny thing is that I still got found logs on that cache that day.

 

Deleted every one of them.

 

Good job.

I too have no sympathy for users who will break rules/guidelines for a smiley. When it comes to the basic log requirements: signature in logbook (and statistics verify qualification for challenges), then invalid Find logs should be deleted. Respectably of course - either deleted with a note sent immediately afterwards explaining why, or a request that they delete their own log first. (and that's especially true if you know your cache is not even findable nor signable)

As cache owners, that's part of the responsibility and right (of course a CO can choose not to do any of that and be highly lenient, but then you might incur the wrath of cachers who want to 'clean up' (apparently) inactive COs )

There's no way to win; as a CO you just have to accept the responsibility and likelihood that not everyone will like you, haha

[+L0ne.R]

Are you better than me because you kayak or because you found a cache that fooled me or because you solved a puzzle I couldn't? Those are caches you found that I didn't.

 

Those high D/T caches can be logged. Your friend solves a puzzle, then takes you over to the island on his boat and climbs the tree while you wait below for him to throw you the cache, you both get to log a find. But if it's a challenge cache and your friend doesn't qualify and you do, only you get to log it even though your friend did all the work.

 

It seems rather taunting to tell someone that they can find it but not add it to their find list, and forever have it on the map as a cache they haven't found when they have found it.