Jump to content

challenges should be changed


Recommended Posts

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?

 

Challenge caches are traditional caches. I can't add them to my list of finds and use the geocaching tools as they were meant to be used.

Link to comment

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?

 

Thanks for posting those Jeremy quotes.

Link to comment

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.

 

Maybe we should ask Groundspeak to implement "half smileys" :D :D :D

 

On the other hand, if I'm in an area with my friend that I regularly cache with and there's a nearby challenge that only one of us qualifies for, it doesn't bother either of us one bit to pass on a smiley. We just save it for another time when we both qualify. It's just another smiley, after all.

 

I get your point though, for some cachers (not necessarily you) that's really tough to do. Some folks just need to find and log every cache they walk past.

Edited by Traditional Bill
Link to comment

Let's break this down...

 

Online Photo log requirements (counts towards "Finds"):

> Webcam - Photo posted following cache instructions

Online Attended log requirements (counts towards "Finds"):

> Event - ... you were there

> Mega - ... you were there

> CITO - ... you were there

> GPS Maze - I believe this one is verified with required signature in the logbook

> Groundspeak HQ - I believe this is also verified due to requested pre-scheduling

> Block party - not sure; presumably, ... you were there

Online Find log requirements (counts towards "Finds"):

> Earthcache - Location visited, information delivered to CO

> Traditional - Logsheet signed

> Letterbox - Logsheet signed

> Virtual - Location visited, information delivered to CO

> Multi - Logsheet signed

> Mystery - Logsheet signed

> Unknown/Challenge exception - Logsheet signed, statistically qualified

> Wherigo - Logsheet signed

 

See how complex the online "Find log" is, as well as what actually comprises the "Find" count in your profile?

Trying to reduce this count to "physical finds" is not going to be an easy task, let alone one that could convince enough people to have it changed, or restricted...

If you choose to play in such a way as to keep the online Find Count indicative of a limited subset of the logs that comprise that count - that's entirely up to you. Kudos if you can do it.

Link to comment
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?

 

Challenge caches are traditional caches. I can't add them to my list of finds and use the geocaching tools as they were meant to be used.

 

Challenge caches are listed as mystery caches. Not Traditional caches. Yes, in most cases they are at the posted coordinates, but not always. Trust me, I know. I own 12 challenge caches that aren't placed at the posted coordinates specifically so cachers don't have to lament over walking past them.

Edited by Traditional Bill
Link to comment

Challenge caches are traditional caches. I can't add them to my list of finds and use the geocaching tools as they were meant to be used.

Challenge caches aren't traditional caches (neither by type nor in concept; they merely share a common property - the physical container).

 

Thanks for posting those Jeremy quotes.

They're great. But they are merely Jeremy's opinion about challenge caches (as accurate as they may be), and clearly don't reflect what Groundspeak has decided, as an organization, to define them as.

 

On the other hand, if I'm in an area with my friend that I regularly cache with and there's a nearby challenge that only one of us qualifies for, it doesn't bother either of us one bit to pass on a smiley. We just save it for another time when we both qualify. It's just another smiley, after all.

Yep, I too have friends who could go either way. Some might wait and let you find it anyway, even if they don't qualify. Some will log it with you, knowing they don't qualify (yet, or even won't ever). And, sometimes the person who does qualify is willing to pass it up for now and return later.

All of that depends on the cacher, and what sort of friends they are :). Not the fault of challenge caches themselves.

 

I get your point though, for some cachers (not necessarily you) that's really tough to do. Some folks just need to find and log every cache they walk past.

...and there's nothing stopping them from finding them! :) They just need to do a bit more if they want to track it online as a Find Log towards their count. If they find the container, yet realize they need to sign the logsheet, they already know there's that requirement in order to post the Find Log online. They could have just found the container, maybe examined the contents, but then moved along - if they didn't really care about that smiley... :laughing:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
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?

 

Challenge caches are traditional caches. I can't add them to my list of finds and use the geocaching tools as they were meant to be used.

 

Challenge caches are listed as mystery caches. Not Traditional caches. Yes, in most cases they are at the posted coordinates, but not always. Trust me, I know. I own 12 challenge caches that aren't placed at the posted coordinates specifically so cachers don't have to lament over walking past them.

 

I did not realize that. I haven't seen a non-traditional style challenge cache. The CCs that I've looked at are all located at the posted coordinates and I had assumed that was a requirement for challenge caches, despite being in the Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown category.

Link to comment

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

That's what I'm suggesting - a change in the rules.

 

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.

on 1.) I'm not saying that, I'm saying that for those of us who want to keep our smiley count an accurate count of finds (by taking it upon ourseleves to not log Earthcaches and the like) we are unable to keep such a literal accurate count if we are prohibited from logging a non-qualifying cache that we could physically sign. I'm certainly not advocating that everyone be required to keep such an accurate count. I freely admit I am in the minority who don't log Earthcaches, virtuals and events for that reason.

 

2.) I have not said that only finding it is all that can ever be required of a find, I said that "a find is a find". It hadn't come up yet, but I feel that signing a log is part of the physical find. If I forget a pen, or can't open the rusted altoids tin, I don't consider that a find. Okay maybe you sort of "got me" here, but I submit that signing the log, to me, is an inhenrent part of "my interpretation of a literal find" Maybe this contradicts the 'purity' I had espoused about the literal dictionary definition of the word "find" as opposed to how Groundspeak defines it, then fine, I retract that, and submit that perhpas a more accurate description of how I feel about it would be: "A physical find with a signed log is a physical find with a signed log, regardless of any other encumberances."

 

3. and 4.) I am proposing merely a second kind of smiley log. Along with the 'Find It" log, I am proposing a 'Challenge Completed' log. Would not necessarily involve or require extra work. In short: If you found it, you can log it as a find. If you complete the challenge, you can log it as "Completed Challenge". Everything else addressed, the effect of a complementary log on Earthcaches and virtuals, the required new programming in the API and website, the period and inclination and time for adjustment and learning of implementation for the community, finder and COs, would be the downside of such a change. If that downside does outweigh the benefit, then I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented. I didn't say it would be easy -- just that it's a suggestion.

 

5.) I am not suggesting removing the physical component. As I said, "I would assume to keep the 'location requirement' that part of completing the challenge would have to [include both] meeting the requirements and finding the cache." But as with all aspects in the end it would be up to Groundspeak to implement my suggestion, if at all, either as I presented or with any changes or modifications or however else they would see fit.

Link to comment
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?

 

Challenge caches are traditional caches. I can't add them to my list of finds and use the geocaching tools as they were meant to be used.

 

Challenge caches are listed as mystery caches. Not Traditional caches. Yes, in most cases they are at the posted coordinates, but not always. Trust me, I know. I own 12 challenge caches that aren't placed at the posted coordinates specifically so cachers don't have to lament over walking past them.

 

I did not realize that. I haven't seen a non-traditional style challenge cache. The CCs that I've looked at are all located at the posted coordinates and I had assumed that was a requirement for challenge caches, despite being in the Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown category.

 

I didn't rrealize it at first either. There's something about placing a mystery cache at the posted coordinates (personal thing for me) that doesn't sit right with me. So I asked my reviewer if a simple puzzle could be added to a challenge so it doesn't have to be placed at the posted coordinates.

 

I was surprised when he responded with something to the effect of "Well, I don't see why that wouldn't be allowed."

Link to comment

3. and 4.) I am proposing merely a second kind of smiley log. Along with the 'Find It" log, I am proposing a 'Challenge Completed' log. Would not necessarily involve or require extra work. In short: If you found it, you can log it as a find. If you complete the challenge, you can log it as "Completed Challenge". Everything else addressed, the effect of a complementary log on Earthcaches and virtuals, the required new programming in the API and website, the period and inclination and time for adjustment and learning of implementation for the community, finder and COs, would be the downside of such a change. If that downside does outweigh the benefit, then I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented. I didn't say it would be easy -- just that it's a suggestion.

 

Not really difficult. Event caches have "Will Attend" and "Attended" logs. The only difference would be tracking the additional log type. To my knowledge, GC doesn't track "Will Attend" logs toward a person's stats (only tracks them on the cache page itself), but implementing the "Qualified" log type would require they track those under a different line item in your stats. Right off the bat, Groundspeak could immediately convert all the existing "Found It" logs in challenge caches to "Qualified" logs. It would be up to the individual cachers to worry about converting their own "Note" logs to "Found It" logs, if tracking that stuff is important to them. Heck...they wouldn't even technically have to convert existing challenges to a new type...just stop new ones from being created as Unknowns and all those going forward would be the new type. It's not such a big deal that this stuff couldn't be managed.

 

It's true what they say, though...you can't please all of the people all of the time. I assume Groundspeak takes the path of least resistance...status quo until there are enough people complaining and they are forced to grease that squeaky wheel (wow...was that a mixed metaphor or what?)

Link to comment
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.

on 1.) I'm not saying that, I'm saying that for those of us who want to keep our smiley count an accurate count of finds (by taking it upon ourseleves to not log Earthcaches and the like) we are unable to keep such a literal accurate count if we are prohibited from logging a non-qualifying cache that we could physically sign. I'm certainly not advocating that everyone be required to keep such an accurate count. I freely admit I am in the minority who don't log Earthcaches, virtuals and events for that reason.

First, those points weren't all implying you were saying them. It was a generic you.

That said, based on your reply to #1, what's the suggestion then? I didn't see one. Or here are you just voicing your dislike of the definition of the online "Find Log"?

 

2.) I have not said that only finding it is all that can ever be required of a find, I said that "a find is a find". It hadn't come up yet, but I feel that signing a log is part of the physical find. If I forget a pen, or can't open the rusted altoids tin, I don't consider that a find. Okay maybe you sort of "got me" here, but I submit that signing the log, to me, is an inhenrent part of "my interpretation of a literal find" Maybe this contradicts the 'purity' I had espoused about the literal dictionary definition of the word "find" as opposed to how Groundspeak defines it, then fine, I retract that, and submit that perhpas a more accurate description of how I feel about it would be: "A physical find with a signed log is a physical find with a signed log, regardless of any other encumberances."

Well, this is certainly true: "A physical find with a signed log[sheet] is a physical find with a signed log[sheet], regardless of any other encumberances."

But: A Find Log online is not defined solely and explicitly as "a physical find with a signed log[sheet]"

 

If you can provide another definition for the online Find Log for Groundspeak's listing service that still permits shared logging of Earthcaches, Virtuals, Challenge Caches, and all other physical geocaches, then it would be good to hear. Even better if it's not overly complicated and is a feasible developmental suggestion for Groundspeak to implement if they so desire.

 

Perhaps the solution is to change all Find Logs on Earthcaches and Virtuals to another type, like Webcam Photo Taken and Attended (each still counting towards the profile Find count); then Challenge Caches can have their own log type, and the "Find" type can be reserved for plain old physical caches (that have no other requirements on logging except name-in-logsheet). Then if you only care about physical 'traditional-style' caches, you can simply view your "Find" log stats, and even then still log all the earthcaches and virtuals you want. Your profile count would show all your WIGAS logs (which includes Find logs along with all other types), but at least you'd easily be able to retrieve your physical find count.

(that said, good luck in getting even more log types implemented :P)

 

3. and 4.) I am proposing merely a second kind of smiley log. Along with the 'Find It" log, I am proposing a 'Challenge Completed' log. Would not necessarily involve or require extra work. In short: If you found it, you can log it as a find. If you complete the challenge, you can log it as "Completed Challenge". Everything else addressed, the effect of a complementary log on Earthcaches and virtuals, the required new programming in the API and website, the period and inclination and time for adjustment and learning of implementation for the community, finder and COs, would be the downside of such a change. If that downside does outweigh the benefit, then I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented. I didn't say it would be easy -- just that it's a suggestion.

Excellent, as long as you can recognize the issues with the suggestion. There are a number of proposed suggestions, so tossing them around and discussing their merits and drawbacks is what's important here, so I'm glad its reached that point.

To whit, in the other thread I did go into detail, thinking aloud (well typing virtually) how I though a change such as that might be implemented. And I have to disagree that it "would not necessarily involve or require extra work". It may seem like a "mere" addition, but I can assure it's not as "mere" as you think ;P Whether, as you say, "the downside does outweigh the benefit", is entirely subjective, depending on who you ask and how they feel about the current logging system.

 

5.) I am not suggesting removing the physical component. As I said, "I would assume to keep the 'location requirement' that part of completing the challenge would have to [include both] meeting the requirements and finding the cache." But as with all aspects in the end it would be up to Groundspeak to implement my suggestion, if at all, either as I presented or with any changes or modifications or however else they would see fit.

I didn't mean you specifically were; it was another proposed suggestion.

 

As I said before, your suggestion about somehow providing another method of logging (whether it be a new log type or implemented as an additional property of the log) was one that was tossed about in the previous thread, which at one point I supported above others for a short time. So take note: I'm not against you :P I was merely hoping you would realize that the idea does have problems (and that its criticism is not something to take personally), and that it's not necessarily the most optimal solution, simply because it does require a very subjective alteration to the cache logging process for many cachers. Each suggestion presented so far has potential for deep-seeded criticism, from what I've seen.

Link to comment

3. and 4.) I am proposing merely a second kind of smiley log. Along with the 'Find It" log, I am proposing a 'Challenge Completed' log. Would not necessarily involve or require extra work. In short: If you found it, you can log it as a find. If you complete the challenge, you can log it as "Completed Challenge". Everything else addressed, the effect of a complementary log on Earthcaches and virtuals, the required new programming in the API and website, the period and inclination and time for adjustment and learning of implementation for the community, finder and COs, would be the downside of such a change. If that downside does outweigh the benefit, then I'm sure it wouldn't be implemented. I didn't say it would be easy -- just that it's a suggestion.

 

Not really difficult. Event caches have "Will Attend" and "Attended" logs. The only difference would be tracking the additional log type. To my knowledge, GC doesn't track "Will Attend" logs toward a person's stats (only tracks them on the cache page itself), but implementing the "Qualified" log type would require they track those under a different line item in your stats. Right off the bat, Groundspeak could immediately convert all the existing "Found It" logs in challenge caches to "Qualified" logs. It would be up to the individual cachers to worry about converting their own "Note" logs to "Found It" logs, if tracking that stuff is important to them. Heck...they wouldn't even technically have to convert existing challenges to a new type...just stop new ones from being created as Unknowns and all those going forward would be the new type. It's not such a big deal that this stuff couldn't be managed.

 

It's true what they say, though...you can't please all of the people all of the time. I assume Groundspeak takes the path of least resistance...status quo until there are enough people complaining and they are forced to grease that squeaky wheel (wow...was that a mixed metaphor or what?)

 

And that's the thing. Implementing a new log type isn't just a new log type. It'll necessarily require a new way to identify Challenge Caches. So it's not just a bit of programming for a new log type. It would be a significant overhaul. And IMO, to avoid more forum wars, would require an adjustment to Earthcaches and Virtuals as well, to have the "Find" log remain consistent by definition across the board.

 

If a "Find Log" is to represent finds on physical caches, with Challenge Caches having their own type for that specific reason, then ECs and Vs would need to change as well.

As we already have Attended and Webcam Photo Taken, it would follow that Earthcaches and Virtuals have their own type(s).

 

Which comes back to the WIGAS. The WIGAS is the general online log category that contains all log types that quantify the profile "Find Count" (which doesn't include things like notes and NM, etc), which could then be broken down to physical caches, events, webcams, non-physical (EC / V), and challenges.

 

This is not an insignificant programming update, let alone conceptual overhaul of the logging process for all users.

But it is, in my opinion, logical.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

true true -- I can certainly see that any such implementation would require a lot of work and the benefit would have to outweigh the problems it would cause.

 

based on your reply to #1, what's the suggestion then? I didn't see one. Or here are you just voicing your dislike of the definition of the online "Find Log"?

No, I was merely stating that implementation of my suggestion would allow me or other cachers (who choose to not log Earthcaches, etc. in order to keep an accurate find count) to count an actual find of an un-qualifed challenge cache that the present system prohibts us from logging as "found".

 

If you can provide another definition for the online Find Log for Groundspeak's listing service that still permits shared logging of Earthcaches, Virtuals, Challenge Caches, and all other physical geocaches, then it would be good to hear. Even better if it's not overly complicated and is a feasible developmental suggestion for Groundspeak to implement if they so desire.

The only change I am suggestion to the definition of "find" is that the ALR exception currently granted to qualify "Found It" logs on challenge caches be removed, and instead be applied to require the completion of the requirements of the challenge to be met in order to log the "Challenge Completed" log instead.

 

Perhaps the solution is to change all Find Logs on Earthcaches and Virtuals to another type, like Webcam Photo Taken and Attended (each still counting towards the profile Find count); then Challenge Caches can have their own log type, and the "Find" type can be reserved for plain old physical caches (that have no other requirements on logging except name-in-logsheet). Then if you only care about physical 'traditional-style' caches, you can simply view your "Find" log stats, and even then still log all the earthcaches and virtuals you want. Your profile count would show all your WIGAS logs (which includes Find logs along with all other types), but at least you'd easily be able to retrieve your physical find count.

(that said, good luck in getting even more log types implemented :P)

I wouldn't suggest any other changes to any other types of logs. I (and other similarly situated cachers) can choose to have a more accurate find count by simply not logging Earthcaches, etc. Again, I am not seeking to require everyone's find count to be accurate, just seeking to remove an obstacle that absolutely prevent it.

 

So take note: I'm not against you :P I was merely hoping you would realize that the idea does have problems (and that its criticism is not something to take personally), and that it's not necessarily the most optimal solution, simply because it does require a very subjective alteration to the cache logging process for many cachers. Each suggestion presented so far has potential for deep-seeded criticism, from what I've seen.

I can appreciate that, and I don't suspect any changes would be undertaken at all unless if could be demonstrated to be worth the effort and would, in fact, improve the game.

 

No system will be perfect. I realize that it (like other suggestions) would create new problems. All I suggest is that I humbly think the system I propose, or similar systems that are slightly different but the smae general idea, would be better than the current system.

Link to comment

The only change I am suggestion to the definition of "find" is that the ALR exception currently granted to qualify "Found It" logs on challenge caches be removed, and instead be applied to require the completion of the requirements of the challenge to be met in order to log the "Challenge Completed" log instead

...

I wouldn't suggest any other changes to any other types of logs. I (and other similarly situated cachers) can choose to have a more accurate find count by simply not logging Earthcaches, etc. Again, I am not seeking to require everyone's find count to be accurate, just seeking to remove an obstacle that absolutely prevent it.

But... first, the reasoning for the "Challenge Completed" log type, taken to its logical end, doesn't solve the problem. Challenge Caches would need to be technically distinguished on Groundspeak's end. One's find count will still be inaccurate if Earthcaches and Virtuals are logged. You'd be making the presumption that the Find Count will be accurate with this new log type, if people who care about physical finds like you don't care to log Earthcaches and Virtuals. Otherwise, the problem still exists - the Find count will not accurately represent finds on physical caches (even though they do for you), and the new log type hasn't solved anything (other than making it easier for you to keep what you consider an accurate 'find' count)

Second, the reasoning and requirements to create this log type logically imply that Earthcaches and Virtuals could/should receive the same treatment.

In short, I don't see this new "Challenge Completed" log type (and only that log type) as a sufficient or feasible solution... may as well go all the way, or nothing at all. It's like teetering on the edge of a cliff dive. It's worse to be teetering than to either jump or back away.

 

I actually really like the idea of better log classifications, following in the steps of Webcams and Events, but for other cache types. Taking that all-in step makes the Find Count composition have more sense (a collection of certain cache types - it already is this) while allowing for a Find to actually mean physically finding and signing a cache, allowing for ECs and Vs to be logged in similar manner to Events and Webcams (towards the find count), and Challenge Caches to be logged in the same way.

The only drawback I see there is that users who want to log challenge caches as physical caches still won't be able to - but at least it's not like they'll be confused by the "Find Log" meaning they actually found it, just didn't qualify. I predict any rants would come back still holding to this idea that it's still a physical cache, even though you don't log a "Found It" online, and they should be able to. In which case, they'll never be satisfied until challenge caches no longer have a physical container. Or they can get their entitlement and not ever have to qualify to log a challenge cache.

 

Anyway.

tl;dr.

Point. Just creating the Challenge Completed log type feels like a half-measure that leaves more unresolved. May as well go all the way and classify different log types that count towards the total 'WIGAS' count for a profile, so that the "Find" log is what it implies - physical cache found & signed - including a new type(s) for Earthcache, Virtual, and Challenge. Else implement some other solution.

Link to comment

on 1.) I'm not saying that, I'm saying that for those of us who want to keep our smiley count an accurate count of finds (by taking it upon ourseleves to not log Earthcaches and the like) we are unable to keep such a literal accurate count if we are prohibited from logging a non-qualifying cache that we could physically sign.

Please dismount your high horse and quit referring to your "find" count definition as "accurate" or as a "literal accurate count." It's not accurate; it's merely your preferred definition. It's not even a literal definition any more, because it would only include finds with signatures in the logs. Furthermore, it would limit it to a single find per cache, even if people literally find the same cache multiple times.

 

Instead of saying "accurate," please say what you really mean, which appears to be something along the lines of: "I want Groundspeak to jump through hoops to allow me to count my 'finds' as I individually define them, even if that prevents others from counting 'finds' according to their personal definitions."

 

2.) I have not said that only finding it is all that can ever be required of a find, I said that "a find is a find". It hadn't come up yet, but I feel that signing a log is part of the physical find. If I forget a pen, or can't open the rusted altoids tin, I don't consider that a find. Okay maybe you sort of "got me" here, but I submit that signing the log, to me, is an inhenrent part of "my interpretation of a literal find" Maybe this contradicts the 'purity' I had espoused about the literal dictionary definition of the word "find" as opposed to how Groundspeak defines it, then fine, I retract that, and submit that perhpas a more accurate description of how I feel about it would be: "A physical find with a signed log is a physical find with a signed log, regardless of any other encumberances."

You're wrong to suggest that signing the log is an inherent part of literally "finding" a cache. You're right to suggest that it is your interpretation of a "find," but it now has nothing to do with a literal "find." Your interpretation of a "find" is simply that: your personal interpretation. I've modified your profile's "Caches Found" count to illustrate what you actually mean:

 

e0682a51-93b6-4996-a622-af2713094b01.gif

 

But I didn't do a very good job, since I'm sure you really mean that you must personally sign the log. My adding your name to a cache's physical log here in Alberta shouldn't be counted as a find for you. So, perhaps the "Caches Found" count should actually read something like: "Caches physically found with a log personally signed by the finder, regardless of any other encumberances."

 

But that's not right either, since you (allegedly) don't count caches as found if a geocaching companion actually spotted it first. So, let's change it to "Caches physically found without assistance with a log personally signed by the finder, regardless of any other encumberances."

 

But wait! There's more! Your definition of a "find" restricts them to one per cache. You cannot "find" the same cache multiple times. So, when you say "Caches Found," you really mean "Caches physically found only once without assistance with a log personally signed by the finder, regardless of any other encumberances."

 

I'll get to work on updating that profile "Caches Found" count for you. Meanwhile, do you now understand why Groundspeak might opt to use "Caches Found" as a shorthand way of meaning something other than literally "Caches Found?"

Link to comment

hm. Another way to look at the Challenge Cache - without changing anything (still putting the onus on the 'purist finders' though):

 

The Challenge Cache is like a Multi-stage, but with multiple "Final" caches.

* You can't log the Multi-stage as "Found" online until the single logsheet representative of the parent cache listing is signed.

* You can't log the Challenge Cache as "Found" online until every qualifying cache's listing representative of the challenge cache listing is logged found.

 

A challenge cache is really a multi-cache with multiple Final stages (valid online finds), instead of a single Final stage.

 

You may have found the Final at the posted coordinates (or maybe offset with a puzzle), but you may not have found all the caches required to log it found online. So you haven't "Found" the cache in its entirety, merely a single stage of it. There's no physical analog to compare because there's no physical type with multiple finals. :P At best, it would be like signing a sheet someone placed in a non-final stage of a multicache; that alone doesn't qualify you for the online Find.

 

*shrug* just a thought.

Link to comment
Instead of saying "accurate," please say what you really mean, which appears to be something along the lines of: "I want Groundspeak to jump through hoops to allow me to count my 'finds' as I individually define them, even if that prevents others from counting 'finds' according to their personal definitions."

 

Amen.

 

Apparently he finds using something like Excel too burdensome to keep track of his own finds, so he thinks the entire system should be reworked to accommodate his particular definition of "find."

Link to comment
Instead of saying "accurate," please say what you really mean, which appears to be something along the lines of: "I want Groundspeak to jump through hoops to allow me to count my 'finds' as I individually define them, even if that prevents others from counting 'finds' according to their personal definitions."

 

Amen.

 

Apparently he finds using something like Excel too burdensome to keep track of his own finds, so he thinks the entire system should be reworked to accommodate his particular definition of "find."

 

But his definition of find is wrong, it was GS that made the rule that you have to sign the log to get the find, a real purist of the definition of find would not need to sign the log.

Link to comment

I am confused. Why if you are concerned about the accuracy of your find count, would you go and find a challenge cache you don't qualify for? Challenge caches are identified as puzzles so that you will read the cache page and know that you need to meet certain requirements to log the find on line. If you can't or choose not to fulfill the requirements, don't find the cache and your find count will be accurate. There is no requirement that you find every cache. So don't find caches you can't log.

Link to comment

hm. Another way to look at the Challenge Cache - without changing anything (still putting the onus on the 'purist finders' though):

 

The Challenge Cache is like a Multi-stage, but with multiple "Final" caches.

* You can't log the Multi-stage as "Found" online until the single logsheet representative of the parent cache listing is signed.

* You can't log the Challenge Cache as "Found" online until every qualifying cache's listing representative of the challenge cache listing is logged found.

 

A challenge cache is really a multi-cache with multiple Final stages (valid online finds), instead of a single Final stage.

 

You may have found the Final at the posted coordinates (or maybe offset with a puzzle), but you may not have found all the caches required to log it found online. So you haven't "Found" the cache in its entirety, merely a single stage of it. There's no physical analog to compare because there's no physical type with multiple finals. :P At best, it would be like signing a sheet someone placed in a non-final stage of a multicache; that alone doesn't qualify you for the online Find.

 

*shrug* just a thought.

 

Perfecto!

Link to comment
Instead of saying "accurate," please say what you really mean, which appears to be something along the lines of: "I want Groundspeak to jump through hoops to allow me to count my 'finds' as I individually define them, even if that prevents others from counting 'finds' according to their personal definitions."

 

Amen.

 

Apparently he finds using something like Excel too burdensome to keep track of his own finds, so he thinks the entire system should be reworked to accommodate his particular definition of "find."

You know I agree with what you said about a solution that is so complicated that is causes more problems then it solve.

 

While I have in the past espoused not having a cache to find in order to claim a "challenge completed find", or perhaps having a separate log type for challenged complete and cache found, you actually provide a pretty good reason why this wouldn't work several threads ago.

 

With regards to not having a cache to find, I believe you pointed out that something similar was done with the now defunct challenges (as opposed to challenge caches). Here Groundspeak tried having something that would take you to a location where instead of finding a cache you would do some task. It was true that the challenge points you got didn't count toward your find count event though there were several lackeys who though it should. But I think, despite the popularity of virtuals, that even had challenges counted they would not have been as successful as either virtuals or challenge caches.

 

A certain part of the geocaching community wants to have to deal with only geocaches. The definition of geocache being something that is listed in the database with other geocaches and thus can be included in a pocket query, and that counts in the statistice like every other geocache. The experimental lab caches get a lot of flack for not meeting these criteris; and many refuse to consider them geocaches.

 

Now one could certainly not have a container to find in the case of challenge caches (maybe we could bring back virtuals by allowing people to list virtual caches with the logging requirement of posting your challeng qualifications :unsure:). You might even be able to treat challengs like locationless caches and not have to visit any locations to claim the find.

 

The challenge cache/location serves a couple of purposed, IMO. It localizes the challenge. Rather than searching a list of global challenges, a cacher can look for the challenge caches in his area that he would be able to go and find. Reviewers only need to look at local challenges to see if a new challenge is substantially the same as an existing one when deciding whether to publish it. It also serves to tie an online log to a particular challenge cache, rather that to simply the qualifications of the challenge. You must actually find a container (or if it's a virtual, at least visit the location), in order to post a Find/Challenge Complete/WIGAS log.

 

You may not believe me, but when it comes to creating new log types, or even getting rid of some kind of physical/virtual cache to find as part of a challenge cache, I agree with you.

Link to comment
geocaching challenges... integral location component... etc

Yes, those points have been raised a number of times even just recently.

Challenge Caches w/o location are essentially Worldwide Geocaching Challenges, based on profile stats. A page or two back I outlined various outcomes of challenge caches without locations, from duplicate repetitive challenges freely published worldwide for anyone to log anywhere, to far fewer Groundspeak-managed unique challenges... and thus why the physical location makes challenge caches what they are. Physical container + qualification ALR. Take either away and they are no longer even in concept what makes Challenge Caches popular right now.

 

The challenge cache/location serves a couple of purposed, IMO. It localizes the challenge. Rather than searching a list of global challenges, a cacher can look for the challenge caches in his area that he would be able to go and find. Reviewers only need to look at local challenges to see if a new challenge is substantially the same as an existing one when deciding whether to publish it. It also serves to tie an online log to a particular challenge cache, rather that to simply the qualifications of the challenge. You must actually find a container (or if it's a virtual, at least visit the location), in order to post a Find/Challenge Complete/WIGAS log.

Exactly.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I believe additional log types would be popular. Solved, for puzzles, Completed, for Challenges, and Photolog for everything would fit in nicely. Each could appear on the profile, but not be tabulated in with finds. The Photolog could be for uploading any pictures at all and would spark more photos being uploaded. Many people could armchair puzzles without visiting the location, as well as find challenge locations without completing them. A find is a find, not an award anyhow. It's the right thing to do, especially for those with OCDs. :D

Link to comment

hm. Another way to look at the Challenge Cache - without changing anything (still putting the onus on the 'purist finders' though):

 

The Challenge Cache is like a Multi-stage, but with multiple "Final" caches.

* You can't log the Multi-stage as "Found" online until the single logsheet representative of the parent cache listing is signed.

* You can't log the Challenge Cache as "Found" online until every qualifying cache's listing representative of the challenge cache listing is logged found.

 

A challenge cache is really a multi-cache with multiple Final stages (valid online finds), instead of a single Final stage.

 

You may have found the Final at the posted coordinates (or maybe offset with a puzzle), but you may not have found all the caches required to log it found online. So you haven't "Found" the cache in its entirety, merely a single stage of it. There's no physical analog to compare because there's no physical type with multiple finals. :P At best, it would be like signing a sheet someone placed in a non-final stage of a multicache; that alone doesn't qualify you for the online Find.

 

*shrug* just a thought.

I have found and logged several multi-caches without finding every stage. Multi-caches and bonus caches often can be found with only partial knowledge. AFAIK, you can still log them as found.

 

I still think the only solution that works is to rename the online Found It log to the WIGAS log.

Link to comment

I have found and logged several multi-caches without finding every stage. Multi-caches and bonus caches often can be found with only partial knowledge. AFAIK, you can still log them as found.

 

I still think the only solution that works is to rename the online Found It log to the WIGAS log.

 

Yes. My point was you can't log the multi-cache found if you only find a single, non-final, stage. In the multi, you find the Final container, sign the logsheet, and then you "qualify" to log it found online. In a challenge, there are in a sense multiple Finals, and so each of those 'stages' must be logged found online in order to "qualify" to log it found. That's the analogy.

 

"WIGAS" will never happen. But the concept is sound - that is, to consider the "Find Count" as a "smiley" count, which is comprised of a selection of certain types of logs (tasks accomplished) posted to cache listings.

Right now, the count is comprised of: Webcam Photo Taken, Attended, Found It

The suggestion (regardless of feasibility): Webcam Photo Taken, Attended, Found It (physically signed logsheets), Earthcache/Virtual Completed, Challenge Qualified (stats valid and physical cache signed).

Whether that's viable, *shrug* But it seems intuitive and logical. I doubt that it will happen either.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

I still think the only solution that works is to rename the online Found It log to the WIGAS log.

 

Web cams do not give you a smiley and events give you two smaller ones.

 

11.png

10.png

 

I think the way it is now is the way it should be.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I still think the only solution that works is to rename the online Found It log to the WIGAS log.

Web cams do not give you a smiley and events give you two smaller ones.

11.png

10.png

I think the way it is now is the way it should be.

erm... depends if you're looking for strictly an image of the "smiley" with a find log, or what the smiley represents - the infamous "+1" to your find WIGAS count.

 

man, why things gotsta be so complicated? #soconfusing #notreally

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I still think the only solution that works is to rename the online Found It log to the WIGAS log.

Web cams do not give you a smiley and events give you two smaller ones.

11.png

10.png

I think the way it is now is the way it should be.

erm... depends if you're looking for strictly an image of the "smiley" with a find log, or what the smiley represents - the infamous "+1" to your find WIGAS count.

 

man, why things gotsta be so complicated? #soconfusing #notreally

 

It's easy, my find count = a sum of all the different cache types I have found according to the rules set by GS for each.

Link to comment
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.
Only if the person who found it first spoils it for everyone else. Some of us play huckle buckle beanstalk style so everyone in the group can have the opportunity to find the cache on their own.

 

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

 

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

I've heard the "kinder, gentler" version of KISS interpreted as Keep It Super Simple.

 

But speaking of keeping it simple, it seems to me that

 

"Physical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

 

is more simple than

 

"Physical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed. Except for Challenge Caches, which[...]"

 

Likewise, it seems to me that

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional."

 

is more simple than

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Except for Challenge Caches, which[...]"

Link to comment
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.
Only if the person who found it first spoils it for everyone else. Some of us play huckle buckle beanstalk style so everyone in the group can have the opportunity to find the cache on their own.

 

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

 

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

I've heard the "kinder, gentler" version of KISS interpreted as Keep It Super Simple.

 

But speaking of keeping it simple, it seems to me that

 

"Physical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed."

 

is more simple than

 

"Physical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed. Except for Challenge Caches, which[...]"

 

Likewise, it seems to me that

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional."

 

is more simple than

 

"For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Except for Challenge Caches, which[...]"

 

Based in that we should get rid of all cache types except traditionals.

 

Every cache type has its own simple rules to qualify as a found, why make it more difficult?

Link to comment
Based in that we should get rid of all cache types except traditionals.

 

Every cache type has its own simple rules to qualify as a found, why make it more difficult?

Does every cache type have its own rules? I was under the impression that the rules for what is or is not a Find are the same for all physical caches... except for Challenge Caches.

 

And for the record, I do not think we should get rid of Challenge Caches. (Actually, I think they deserve their own type/icon.) But I do think that the KISS rule is a weak argument for keeping Challenge Caches, because if anything, they complicate the rules.

Link to comment
Based in that we should get rid of all cache types except traditionals.

 

Every cache type has its own simple rules to qualify as a found, why make it more difficult?

Does every cache type have its own rules? I was under the impression that the rules for what is or is not a Find are the same for all physical caches... except for Challenge Caches.

 

And for the record, I do not think we should get rid of Challenge Caches. (Actually, I think they deserve their own type/icon.) But I do think that the KISS rule is a weak argument for keeping Challenge Caches, because if anything, they complicate the rules.

 

KISS was not an argument for keeping challenge caches, it was an argument about making the rules to log them more complicated. IE: having two different log types for them, found and completed.

Link to comment

Okay, I've have taken a deep breath and re-read this whole thread and tried to kind of understand the whole situation better. I apologize for getting a little riled up and I can admit I am (maybe not entirely) in the wrong in some of the statements I have made. I never meant to force a new definition of the word "find" upon the whole sport. I was merely looking for a way for smiley counts to be, in my sole opinion, what I thought should be a find.

 

Now we could certainly debate if a better definition of the word could exist, and GS is already sort of on that road by webcams not counting in smileys, etc. But for me to just come in and say I want to change how everyone counts finds is not where I was trying to go with the argument. So from that end I want to start over on the whole proposal. I do still feel that somehow adding a "Challenge Completed" log along with just merely "Found" logs would improve the overall concepts of challenge caches by making them part of the game both for people who qualify and people who don't. At the heart of my argument, that's all I really wanted to say.

 

All the rest about the smiley count - well, that just muddied up the issue. (And not in a good way)

 

So I got to thinking about what it was about challenge caches that I didn't like -- in theory I have no problem with the concept of rewarding someone for completing a challenge. So I was looking to see what would be a challenge that I might like to complete. I was looking through the forums at the various types of challenges: alphabet, DeLorme map, counties, Fuzzy and Jasmer.

 

Now a Jasmer might be fun, but at the moment still quite out of my reach. What about sort of a mini-Jasmer? Could that exist? Instead of finding a cache placed every month from the game's inception, what about just having to find a cache from every year of placement? Find one cache from 2000, one cache from 2001, etc. Only fifteen caches to find, but still have to really look for some of the older ones, yet a goal that could easily be reasonably reachable for someone like me.

 

But how would I find such a challenge? Well assuming that there isn't that exact challenge already existing right near me on the map, and even if I could search for one like that, it very well may be just as likely on the other side of the country from me, the obvious solution is why don't I make that challenge myself and then place a cache to reward it?

 

And then it hit me, sort of an epiphany, if you will - that's what my "problem" with challenge caches is... if I did make up such a cache, why would I want to limit it by letting it only be found by people who have completed that challenge? That challenge is a great idea for a challenge, and I may undertake it, but that ammo can that I could place to honor that -- what would that cache inherently have to do with completing that challenge? It's as if that cache has be designated as a challenge cache only to fulfill the physical location requirement for that challenge. It basically is a traditional cache that is only allowed to serve as a reward for people that complete that challenge.

 

I certainly think I would love to complete a "mini-Jasmer" as I have defined it. I just have no desire to take what could be a traditional cache that could be found by everybody and limit it by making it only loggable by those who qualify. I could list on my profile page that I completed the mini-Jasmer -- what does finding the challenge cache have to do with completing the challenge?

 

As a non-qualifier for a particular challenge cache, all I can do is ignore them. It is a perfectly good cache out there that may have absolutely nothing to do with the requirements to log it. And that's a shame. Sure I can set out to qualify to be allowed to find that cache. But in the mean time, intentionally not being permitted to log a cache that I can physically get to doesn't feel like what Geocaching should be, at least not to me. I know many of you disagree, and that's fine.

 

It seems to me that a challenge cache is an unnecessary marriage of an achievement that you can mention on your profile page to an unrelated cache, just to be able to give a smiley for the achievement. Why not just mention the achievement on your profile page and leave the cache out of it? Or do you need the motivation or recognition of getting the smiley in order to enjoy the achievement?

 

I guess in a roundabout way, this is an argument for the 'locationless challenges' others have suggested.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

TSR,

You are making this way to difficult. Either ignore challenge caches for which you do not qualify or log them (probably 70% of your logs will stick). It's as simple as that. Completing the Jasmer was one of our most memorable caching experiences which took us to some pretty cool places which we wouldn't have visited without the challenge nudge that tied them all together. We found a local knock-off to commemorate the achievement, but still have our sights on the original on the west coast. I'm sure that will make another adventure which would not be available if it was not listed as a cache.

Link to comment

Or do you need the motivation or recognition of getting the smiley in order to enjoy the achievement?

.

 

I think the motivation is to get a smiley that others can't have. Creating a forced competition. The achievement is not enough, it's hollow compared to being recognized with something others can't have. If everyone gets to have a smiley trophy at the end of the game it makes the trophy less desirable. And even if you get the gold trophy and others get a silver trophy it still means others get a trophy too which deflates the competitive experience.

Link to comment
Shame, my irony meter was working overtime again.

Why is there no :irony: smiley? (And I mean forum smiley... not a WIGAS) :ph34r:

 

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.

 

I struggle to see the point of having localised challenge caches. If the cache itself is fun to find, go find it. If the qualification is fun to do, go do it. I found it quite a challenge meeting the "8 cache types in a day" challenge simply because without events there are onyl so many cache types available, and by then I'd already mopped up all the local virtuals and webcams. Luckily there was a single Wherigo cache close enough to attempt.

 

If "find 8 cache types in a day" is an achievement, why do we need a proliferation of caches in various places that can only be logged once it's been done? Why not have a centralised challenge to find the 8 different cache types and then anyone who achieves it can claim the challenge?

 

I guess I don't see how finding a box under a tree is any more or less fun because you're only eligible to log a find once you've found a succession of other things. It seems to me that a challenge cache as it stands could be replaced by a few centrally managed challenges and a traditional cache that anyone could find, so those who want to attempt challenges can do them, those who want to find caches can do that, and neither impacts the other.

 

I must admit it was only after Groundspeak accepted that the Challenge concept had been a monumental disaster that I saw some ideas that could have made it a good idea. It's a shame they started out with useless ideas like "kiss a frog" - perhaps if it had been thought through more before being unleashed it wouldn't have been such a failure.

Link to comment

TSR,

You are making this way to difficult. Either ignore challenge caches for which you do not qualify or log them (probably 70% of your logs will stick).

 

Yes we can ignore ones we don't qualify for. Why would I want to log it as long as that is considered by the rules to be cheating? I'm saying the exclusionary nature of challenge caches makes something against the rules that doesn't need to be. Yes as long as they are not loggable within the rules, I will ignore them, as I don't want to be an "outlaw". But that doesn't mean I can't participate in a thread like this if I think that should be different.

 

I'm sure that will make another adventure which would not be available if it was not listed as a cache.

 

Why would the adventure not be available if it wasn't listed as a challenge cache? What if it was listed as the Jasmer 'Achievement Cache'? (an achievement cache being a traditional cache that anyone could log, but that is to celebrate and recognize a particular achievement - if you complete the achievement, mention it in your log, and if you don't, you could feel free to mention in your log a congratulation to those that have.)

 

I guess if challenge caches didn't exist you wouldn't be able to complete the adventure. I think you still could celebrate it, though. You wouldn't be getting the smiley for completing the adventure, you'd be getting the smiley just for finding the cache. I guess that wouldn't be good enough.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

We found a local knock-off to commemorate the achievement, but still have our sights on the original on the west coast.

Wait a minute -- there are Jasmer Challenges, and then there is The Jasmer Challenge? So if you live in the East U.S. you can find a cache that was placed every month since Geocaching started, and log Jasmer Challenge (Virginia), but unless you travel across the country, you haven't really done the real deal until you get that original Jasmer Challenge?

 

And this by itself doesn't show the insanity of forcing the necessity of a location-based component to crown a non-location based achievement in order to make it a cache sub-type?

Link to comment

Saying "The" [original] Jasmer Challenge is like saying "The" oldest traditional, or "The" Groundspeak HQ. It's just an emphasis on something likely rare and desireable. There is no practical difference between a jamser on the east coast and a jasmer on the west coast, except that one of them was the first. Complaining about that is like complaining about people who put value on "mint" condition comics, never reading them. It's an arbitrary value that some people desire. So let people desire it.

Link to comment

Saying "The" [original] Jasmer Challenge is like saying "The" oldest traditional, or "The" Groundspeak HQ. It's just an emphasis on something likely rare and desireable. There is no practical difference between a jamser on the east coast and a jasmer on the west coast, except that one of them was the first. Complaining about that is like complaining about people who put value on "mint" condition comics, never reading them. It's an arbitrary value that some people desire. So let people desire it.

Ah, I see... I think I'm starting to understand the "challenge cache mentality".

 

Well, I am going to set out to find the one August 2000 placed cached in Georgia that is not too far from me, and a cache placed in 2001. So I will then have one cache from every year, and as I asked in Jasmer thread, any idea how one would search for such a mini-Jasmer challenge cache? (Or am I doing it backwards -- you do achievments to fit existing challenge caches you find, and people don't really look for challenge caches to fit your achievements?)

 

Next maybe I'll work toward filling in some of the other Jasmer months. But I can't say that an achievement like filling in a Jasmer grid would be any less meaningful if I didn't find a challenge cache near me to validate it. And, yes, once I qualify, if I do happen to find myself near such a challenge cache one day, I suppose that I would be proud to log it. But even if so qualified, I can't see me making a special trip to Virginia (or especially California) just to log a challenge cache. And I can't see how not having a specific challenge cache to shoot for would put a damper on the achievement of filling the grid. (or of any other achievement that I would be proud of)

 

I guess I'll just have to admit I don't "get" the appeal of it, other than if you can qualify you can do it. I don't think it's worth tying those caches up to exclusion of everyone else, though. But I understand it better I guess.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

Let me demonstrate again what happens when core elements of the Challenge Cache are changed:

 

1. Remove the physical location/container

Challenges are now achievable worldwide, no physical work to finalize the find is needed - Complete the challenge and you're good.

* Unrestricted creation? Duplicate challenges the globe over, loggable by anyone anywhere who has completed it. I could log 100 Jasmer challenges the instant I find the last empty month. The challenge (the act of logging them, the statistical completion) becomes meaningless.

* Limited creation? It's either first-come first served for each unique challenge, or Groundspeak does it themselves. Either way, the sea of possible challenge [cache]s dwindles to a stagnant pond because there's only one of each idea. Complete the achievement once, log it, then no more thought about it. The enjoyment of them will dwindle because of lack of fresh content the longer you play.

Significance:

- With the physical container, there is reason to go somewhere. Once you complete a Jasmer, you can now log any challenge cache when you visit a location. Like buying a chirp, now you can go and do all those chirp caches you couldn't before (yes, of course, unless you went with someone with a chirp; but the intent remains). You can't just log all the Jasmers worldwide. New challenge caches may be also published for challenges you've already completed - more to find. Newcomers can still feel they can put out a (common) challenge cache in commemoration of themselves completing the challenge. And I'm sure there are many other benefits to having a physical cache location component of the Challenge Cache.

- In short, remove the location requirement, and Challenge Caches are dramatically altered from what they are now. At best, revisiting the concept of the Worldwide Geocaching Challenge.

 

2. Allow logging the Challenge Cache found online without doing the challenge

* Challenge Caches become Traditional Caches. Traditional Caches become Challenge Caches. They would be one and the same. If you create a "Challenge Cache" that can be logged without completing the challenge, that is 100% identical to a Traditional Cache with a bit in the description saying "Hey, do this too if you want! And say if you did!" All physical Found It logs would have the "Challenge Completed" option if the CO attached a 'challeng' to their Traditional cache. There would be on practical difference between a Traditional and a Challenge cache.

That alone makes the "optional" challenge completion a No Vote for me now that I've thought about it. There really is no point. And it actually makes me feel that addressing other issues with the suggestion is unnecessary :P (like having more than than one 'WIGAS' log type for a cache type, or a flag on the WIGAS log for 'ALR also qualificatied', or 'logsheet also signed')

 

So.

1. Challenge caches must by definition require qualification of the ALR before gaining the +1. Otherwise the concept is killed entirely.

2. Challenge caches are best with the localized physical component, otherwise they either saturate the world and have essentially no meaning, or they trickle to a stand-still as single unique achievements with no fresh content over time.

3. Making challenges entirely arbitrary (track your own achievements) is already done - custom badges you can place in your public profile. Numerous sites provide these self-adornment collections. So having statistical qualification as an ALR for a physical cache is also a key component to the Challenge Cache.

 

Every aspect of the Challenge Cache as they're constructed is significant and necessary to the concept of the Challenge Cache itself.

 

I can't see any conceptual alteration to the challenge logging process as being in any way beneficial to that aspect of the geocaching experience.

 

---

The only alteration to the system I could see being an improvement is, vaguely speaking, a better distinguishing of the Challenge Cache from Cache Types so that people who don't like them can more easily avoid them, and those who do like them can more easily find them.

That's about it.

Link to comment

Ah, I see... I think I'm starting to understand the "challenge cache mentality".

 

Well, I am going to set out to find the one August 2000 placed cached in Georgia that is not too far from me, and a cache placed in 2001. So I will then have one cache from every year, and then maybe work toward filling in some of the other Jasmer months. But I can't say that an achievement like filling in a Jasmer grid would be any less meaningful if I can't find a challenge cache near me to validate it. And, yes, once I qualify, if I do happen to find myself near such a challenge cache one day, I suppose that I would be proud to log it. But even if so qualified, I can't see me making a special trip to Virginia (or especially California) just to log a challenge cache. And I can't see how not having a specific challenge cache to shoot for would put a damper on the achievement of filling the grid. (or of any other achievement that I would be proud of)

 

I guess I'll just have to admit I don't "get" it. But I understand it better I guess.

That's good to hear...

Yes, what you describe is much like the challenge cache mentality. Sure, you can only 'achieve' a certain challenge once (like completing a single Jasmer), but in a sense that now opens up the qualification so you can log any of them anywhere you may be. Now whether you put value in making the effort to travel and log any one in particular, well that argument can be applied any geocacher with any desirable cache at any point in their career. So there's no point in ranting about people who like to do that. Some do, some don't. Heck, if there's no challenges nearby and you've just been caching regularly and casually for years, then suddenly you go somewhere new or someone decides to place a challenge - and you already qualify, it's a bonus :P. Happens all the time.

Now the only difference is that comment "proud to log it". I'd say that implies a competitive mindset. Not everyone thinks like that. "Happy" to log it, I'd say is more common (at least around here). When pride kicks, that's when things start getting competitive. It implies I "did better" than you, than other people. Some people may think like that, but it's not an inherent attribute challenge caching.

 

It's personal achievement, and the 'right' to now log caches that challenge you to achieve it. Especially now that there can be no date restriction.

 

A while back, I wanted to distinguish "challenges" from "achievements", where challenges were date-restricted - a new, active goal to get people out and doing something (which could incite more competitive behaviour) - and achievements were what challenge caches essentially are now, personal 'affirmative' goals that once you achieve them you can no longer 'unqualify'; milestones, in a sense, in your caching career. Once you've achieved some goal, then you'll be able to log'em all, whenever and wherever they appear.

 

Challenge Caches are not inherently competitive. But competitive-minded people will find ways to compete with anything. (as we also say, "cheaters will cheat"). Just as we can make it harder for cheaters to cheat while realizing it can't be stopped entirely, we can provide guidelines and stringent ideals for what can constitute an acceptable challenge cache to dissuade competition and frustration while realizing there will always be 'numbers-oriented' cachers. (read: Challenge Caches are not just for 'numbers-oriented' cachers, a term often used in dirision)

Link to comment

There wouldn't need to be 1,000 locationless Jasmer Challenges. There'd only need to be one. They are locationless. What are they going to say "Mark's Jasmer Challenge" "Sally's Jasmer Challenge" "David's Jasmer Challenge" Why wouldn't one be enough? They wouldn't need to approve any others unless they were substantially different achievements.

 

But why would you even need to log anything? You completed the grid. That's the achievement! Hooray! Put it on your profile. Unless you need the smiley for it to be a goal. For me, filling the grid would be the achievement.

 

You could put out 1,000 traditionals that honor such an achievement, that everyone could find. Why should completing the Jasmer grid qualify you for a possibly endless amount of challenge caches that non-qualifiers can't log. How many smileys should completing the Jasmer grid be worth?

 

Now the only difference is that comment "proud to log it". I'd say that implies a competitive mindset. Not everyone thinks like that. "Happy" to log it, I'd say is more common (at least around here). When pride kicks, that's when things start getting competitive. It implies I "did better" than you, than other people. Some people may think like that, but it's not an inherent attribute challenge caching.

 

Well I don't see much difference between "proud to log it" and "happy to log it".

 

But, then I don't see 'competitive' as a necessarily a bad thing. Heck, I like a little bit of competition now and then. I get the impression some people want to stamp every little bit of 'competition' out of Geocaching. FTFs aren't official. Everybody in a group logs a cache, when only one person found it.

 

If I go out with 2 other people, and we seek to find caches, we compete to see who finds the most caches. Only the finder logs a find, others a note. Most people, I gather, would rather be non-competitive, and everybody in the group logs it. To me that's like little league baseball without keeping score because we don't want the kids on the losing team to feel bad.

 

Making challenges entirely arbitrary (track your own achievements) is already done - custom badges you can place in your public profile.

 

That statement right there should make challenge caches unnecessary. That's all I need to celebrate an achievement. I don't need to go out and find a cache to celebrate an achievement I'm already proud of.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It seems to all come down to the smiley. If you can put a badge on your profile for completing the Jasmer grid, the smiley for the cache seems entirely superfluous to me, other than it is something separate to do that you can only do after you complete the requirements. And why that should require that non-qualifiers cannot log such is beyond me.

 

You could celebrate an achievement with an "achievement cache" that would be a traditional that everyone could log and do the same thing. Only if you have completed the achievement can you say you've completed the achievement.

 

You're still "just" getting the smiley for finding the cache, not for completing the achievement.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment
There wouldn't need to be 1,000 locationless Jasmer Challenges. There'd only need to be one. They are locationless. What are they going to say "Mark's Jasmer Challenge" "Sally's Jasmer Challenge" "David's Jasmer Challenge" Why wouldn't one be enough. They wouldn't need to approve any others unless they were substantially different achievements.

 

But why would you even need to log anything? You completed the grid. That's the achievement! Put it on your profile.

 

Oh, you need the smiley!

 

No, I get it.

Ah, you just lost it again.

 

No, there wouldn't need to be 1000 locationless Jasmer Challenges. But the Challenge Cache becomes meaningless.

"Mark's Jasmer Challenge" cache would be identical to "Sally's Jasmer Challenge" cache.

But with a physical container, "Mark's Jasmer Challenge" cache could be an entirely different experience than "Sally's Jasmer Challenge" cache, whether you've already completed your jasmer or not.

 

Unless you need the smiley for it to be a goal. For me, filling the gird would be the achievement.

Then fill the grid. Put it on your profile. You're free to do that!

But hey, you know, now you can also go and find all those Jasmer challenge caches that could all be in different locations with different difficulties and terrains...

You couldn't before, but now you can. Bonus!

Well, technically you could, you just couldn't log it online for that oh-so-coveted smiley you don't really seem to value all that much; except when it's a physical cache you "found". But aren't entitled to log online.

 

But, then I don't see 'competitive' as a necessarily a bad thing. Heck, I like a little bit of competition now and then. I get the impression some people want to stamp every little bit of 'competition' out of Geocaching. FTFs aren't official.

I don't disagree. But competition is an open door for negativity and conflict. Challenge Caches are not inherently about competition - even though it can be a good thing and is a natural outcome of social caching for many people.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I think the motivation is to get a smiley that others can't have. Creating a forced competition. The achievement is not enough, it's hollow compared to being recognized with something others can't have. If everyone gets to have a smiley trophy at the end of the game it makes the trophy less desirable. And even if you get the gold trophy and others get a silver trophy it still means others get a trophy too which deflates the competitive experience.

No. None of this is fundamental to challenge caches.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Making challenges entirely arbitrary (track your own achievements) is already done - custom badges you can place in your public profile.

 

That statement right there should make challenge caches unnecessary. That's all I need to celebrate an achievement. I don't need to go out and find a cache to celebrate an achievement I'm already proud of.

Then don't.

Use the profile badges.

We get you don't "get" the concept of caches that commemorate certain achievements, encouraging cachers to accomplish the achievement before qualifying to log it found online. As repeatedly stated, you can find any physical cache and enjoy the experience. If you really want that smiley, then you need to do what is required. Once you've done it, you never have to do it again. But you reap the perpetual benefit - you can log any challenge cache requiring that achievement.

Or you can ignore it and commemorate your achievement(s) just in your public profile (which, by the way, is a more overt and conscious 'bragging' than simply being able to find and log a challenge cache).

 

It seems to all come down to the smiley.

Apparently. Because if it wasn't, you wouldn't care about logging your physical finds online.

There are people who do not log anything online.

That can present some of its own problems, but if you really didn't care, you'd have no problem with that.

 

If you can put a badge on your profile for completing the Jasmer grid, the smiley for the cache seems entirely superfluous to me

Then what does it matter? Why do you insist on logging challenge caches found online so your smiley count reflects your physical find count? Why this obsession you have with the smiley? Just track your finds separately and post it in your public profile.

 

other than it is something separate to do that you can only do after you complete the requirements. And why that should require that non-qualifiers cannot log such is beyond me.

Cannot log online? Or cannot physically find? Which do you care more about?

 

You could celebrate an achievement with an "achievement cache" that would be a traditional that everyone could log and do the same thing. Only if you have completed the achievement can you say you've completed the achievement.

ie, a Traditional with a few extra words in the description.

Yep, kills the challenge cache concept entirely.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

ie, a Traditional with a few extra words in the description.

Yep, kills the challenge cache concept entirely.

The only thing it kills is the exclusivity the qualifers have over non-qualifiers. Everything else about the experience would be exactly the same. Seriously, the only thing different a challenge cache would have over this is that "some other people aren't allowed to log it". How is that factually not correct?

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

As a non-qualifier for a particular challenge cache, all I can do is ignore them. It is a perfectly good cache out there that may have absolutely nothing to do with the requirements to log it. And that's a shame. Sure I can set out to qualify to be allowed to find that cache. But in the mean time, intentionally not being permitted to log a cache that I can physically get to doesn't feel like what Geocaching should be, at least not to me. I know many of you disagree, and that's fine.

I'm not sure why you're working so hard to convince yourself to hate this concept. This is no different than a cache that's a 5 mile hike into a park. That might be a typical day for you, or it might be something you can do next weekend with some planning, or it might be something you aspire to someday. Or it might be something you will never be physical capable of. What you say about challenge caches is like saying that the 5 mile hike cache is bad because you aren't in the first two classes. When you say it's not fair not to be able to claim a find on a challenge cache once you've signed the log even if you don't qualify is like saying any cache at the end of a 5 mile hike must have a second container with a log to sign at the parking lot because otherwise "some other people aren't allowed to log it".

 

One thing that might help is to recognize that Jasmars, Fizzies, Delormes, and the other challenges you hear about a lot aren't the ones to consider. A casual geocacher will never reach those goals. They require a concentrated effort and a lot of traveling. Considering those as if they were your typical challenges is like considering major league baseball as your standard when you decide whether to go play in a pick-up softball game. I gather you don't have many challenges in your area, so you'll have to believe me that there are many challenges that can be met by anyone. One of my favorites was a challenge to find one cache a day for a month. Sure, some cachers accomplish that without trying just because they cache all the time, but when I achieved it, I felt like I'd really accomplished something, but at the same time, I hadn't really done anything more than my normal casual geocaching. Maybe you should try it before you dismiss it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...