challenges should be changed

[+Roman!]

WOW, this thread has been busy since this morning. There is just too much here to read, but did skim. I think what is getting lost is that some like me see challenge caches as an entry point to an adventure. It really is that simple. Whatever means there exists out there to bring an adventure to my awareness is cool. Our Jasmer adventure started with hearing about it in this forum. The adventure I mentioned this morning involving finding the "original" Jasmer Challenge cache just popped into my head. I discovered a cache down in Brazil by being inquisitive about that monkey icon. I can't believe I got within 9 miles of that thing and couldn't find the unpaved road. Maybe I'll make it back there someday. I just do not see a reason to change something that isn't broke. I've learned a lot by coming here to the forums, but beyond that, I use the resources here to surf for caches of interest. I don't search bookmarks, profiles etc. so I wouldn't know much if cachers hid their experiences there. I don't know if I would have discovered the Jasmer if it was not a cache. We don't talk much about each other's bookmarks and the system here is built around caches. I don't know, this whole thread just seems odd to me. Maybe it's the first time I have read such vigor behind a discussion to eliminate something here I value.

 

It's not just challenges, people seem to think they know best how the game should be played everyone else because they feel they are entitled to find every and any cache they want.

 

Here's a little secret: life's not fair, if it was I'd be sitting in my hot tub wit my supermodel wife right now instead of replying to this thread. I got over it, so can you.

[+Roman!]

I actually took a trip from vancouver to maine and back so I could log a Maine cache so I could create a challenge since I had to qualify for it too.

 

It was a heck of a fun trip, one I would not have taken if people could log my cache without completing the challenge.

[+TopShelfRob]

Well I've been looking around at a lot of the challenge caches, and my opinion has somewhat changed. If you look at it like all aspects of the challenge cache itself is all part of the "challenge cache experience" then, yes, to remove anything from it is going to change it. I was looking at it more like they were merely about only rewarding the achievement, (or maybe my perception was that that's what they should be) i.e. being able to reward a smiley for completing your Jasmer grid, etc. That the container aspect of it was added only because in order to publish a challenge, they had to have a location aspect, even if they didn't seem to want one. As if they tacking on a not-well thought out tupperware just to reward those who had completed the challenge. If you look at them like that, then it's easy to see that they could be accused of taking up a spot that a traditional cache that would be open to all could be at.

 

But when you look at all these (as I called them) "manufactured challenges" -- find 15 caches with flowers in them, etc. then obviously it is about the whole challenge cache -- finding the qualifying caches, and finding the challenege cache itself. So I can withdraw my objection to them on those grounds -- appreciating the concept of challenge caches as a whole, as opposed to them just being a necessary location aspect of rewarding an accomplishment.

 

And I never said that it was one particular challenge cache that I was sore at not being able to log. It was more of just at the overall notion that there could very well perfectly good caches out there that, since I don't "cache for the numbers", I'll not be able to log, at least not anytime soon. And don't tell me that it's the same as a puzzle cache or a high difficulty cache. With either of those types, if you can hold the cache in your hands, you can log it. Even if you somehow cheat the CO's intended manner of solving or getting to, the CO can't do anything about it - if you signed it, your log can stand, unlike with these.

 

I still have concerns: 1.) That challenge caches do tend to be biased toward people who find a lot of caches. 2.) In theory "too many" challenge caches in one location very well could block newbies and others with low numbers from being able to find a cache to seek.

 

But I can live with those, I guess.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+lamoracke]

 

I still have concerns: 1.) That challenge caches do tend to be biased toward people who find a lot of caches. 2.) In theory "too many" challenge caches in one location very well could block newbies and others with low numbers from being able to find a cache to seek.

 

But I can live with those, I guess.

 

Yeah, it is partly a reality that if you have a lot of finds, you will qualify for a number of challenges, whether a calendar one, or finds per month or weird title ones...however, they still have to do the work to go through their finds and find 50 animals or verify the qualify, like 7 cache sizes in a single day. The likelihood is low they would qualify for tougher to qualify ones like Delorme or Jasmer by armchairing though unless they were working on them on their own. For a big state, I imagine its very rare to armchair a Delorme challenge and Jasmer, the caches you need are so spread over the place.

 

I am not that worried there are too many challenges at this moment at least in the 2 states I looked at today. There are 230 challenges in Washington, about 25 are archived so about 205. So, 200 out of over 30,000. less than 1%. Florida has a little less than 300 out of what, over 43,000. Less than 1%. In both states, about 0.7% of them. Obviously this number can go up or down depending how much the area or a few COs really like them.

Edited April 30, 2014 by lamoracke

[+Roman!]

 

I still have concerns: 1.) That challenge caches do tend to be biased toward people who find a lot of caches. 2.) In theory "too many" challenge caches in one location very well could block newbies and others with low numbers from being able to find a cache to seek.

 

But I can live with those, I guess.

 

Yeah, it is partly a reality that if you have a lot of finds, you will qualify for a number of challenges, whether a calendar one, or finds per month or weird title ones...however, they still have to do the work to go through their finds and find 50 animals or verify the qualify, like 7 cache sizes in a single day. The likelihood is low they would qualify for tougher to qualify ones like Delorme or Jasmer by armchairing though unless they were working on them on their own. For a big state, I imagine its very rare to armchair a Delorme challenge and Jasmer, the caches you need are so spread over the place.

 

I am not that worried there are too many challenges at this moment at least in the 2 states I looked at today. There are 230 challenges in Washington, about 25 are archived so about 205. So, 200 out of over 30,000. less than 1%. Florida has a little less than 300 out of what, over 43,000. Less than 1%. In both states, about 0.7% of them. Obviously this number can go up or down depending how much the area or a few COs really like them.

 

Also the people that have the numbers actually had to go out and find the caches to qualify at some point. It's not like they didn't earn it.

 

If fact they probably earned it more as getting the numbers is easier and easier as time goes on.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Roman!

[+dprovan]

But when you look at all these (as I called them) "manufactured challenges" -- find 15 caches with flowers in them, etc....

I think you're missing the fact that these super difficult challenges like Jasmer and Fizzies, are every bit as "manufactured" as your flower cache. I think you're thinking these achievements existed first, and then someone made a cache to celebrate them, but the truth is the exact opposite: the very idea of Jasmer and Fizzy was "manufactured" by someone creating a challenge cache.

 

1.) That challenge caches do tend to be biased toward people who find a lot of caches.

It's a cross people with lots of finds have to bear. A lot of challenge caches are boring to high count cachers, since they almost always qualify without any effort. For them, it devolves into that boring case of just going to sign the log. People with a low find count have an opportunity to actually follow the trail of the challenge and enjoy the experience as the CO laid it out.

 

2.) In theory "too many" challenge caches in one location very well could block newbies and others with low numbers from being able to find a cache to seek.

Newbies could also be blocked by too many difficult hides in one location. But instead of making rules for fear either of those cases might happen, why don't we wait for them to happen, then deal with the specific case when it comes up. Then after a few years and it's never come up, we can laugh about how worried we were about it.

 

And the most important thing is that if you see something that seems wrong in your area, don't run here and try to convince people here to create a global rule that you can hit people over the head with. Instead, just talk to the people creating the caches and spend your energy trying to convince them that what they're doing is a bad idea.

[+tozainamboku]

It's clear that any challenge, no matter how inane, sets a goal for cachers to meet, and the for many people achieving that goal can be an adventure. Even a silly goal can be bring a lot more enjoyment than a finding a single cache (particularly one that has not much else special about it).

 

I think one reason some people have problems with challenge caches, is that they don't see a need for others to set their goals. They set their own goals and have adventures achieving them. And since the reward in achieving a goal is the adventure of achieving it, it makes little sense to get a reward of having a another cache to find when you are done, and getting a smiley for it.

 

But I am pretty certain that some people enjoy having others suggest goals. They find it enjoyable to select a few of the goals and as they achieve them, finding a cache so they can have a place to share that adventure and thank whomever suggested the goal. They may also enjoy seeing who else has achieved the same goals. That gives people a sense of community that you wouldn't get if you quietly find goals you set for yourself and only share on your profile or your Facebook page.

 

There are some people who simply enjoy finding containers that someone has hidden, particularly if the container takes them on a nice hike or someplace interesting. They may look for the cache even if there is a requirement to complete a challenge before you can log it. If someone like this has no interest in meeting a specific goal, they may have an issue with how to log that they found the cache. I personally have have no problem with leaving notes. I find it just as strange that people think a WIGAS log is needed to make finding a container better as I do to hear that people think finding a challenge cache made achieving a goal better.

 

What really gets strange is that with 8000+ finds there are challenges I've already accomplished. For me there was no goal to meet, since I was just finding the caches anyhow. Sometimes I've already achieve something because years ago I set a met goal that included whatever the challenge is. I will log this cache as found WIGAS, since by the rules for challenge caches I can do so. Sometimes I'll even comment that the challenge goal was not very interesting or exciting and it added nothing the enjoyment I already got from finding those cachess in the past. I will have enjoyed finding the cache just as much as I would have searching for it had I not done the challenge.

[+TopShelfRob]

I think you're missing the fact that these super difficult challenges like Jasmer and Fizzies, are every bit as "manufactured" as your flower cache. I think you're thinking these achievements existed first, and then someone made a cache to celebrate them, but the truth is the exact opposite: the very idea of Jasmer and Fizzy was "manufactured" by someone creating a challenge cache.

Well maybe the names Jasmer and Fizzy were the result of a challenge, but the idea of "a cache planted every month since GC started" and "a cache for every D/T combo" seem like pretty obvious accomplishments to me.

 

Take DeLorme challenges vs. county challenges -- finding a cache in each county seems to me like an accomplishment, but finding one on every map page just seems arbitrary to me.

 

But I realize that's just my opinion.

 

It's a cross people with lots of finds have to bear. A lot of challenge caches are boring to high count cachers, since they almost always qualify without any effort. For them, it devolves into that boring case of just going to sign the log. People with a low find count have an opportunity to actually follow the trail of the challenge and enjoy the experience as the CO laid it out.

Couldn't they choose to not count previously found caches? I mean if they wanted to, they could choose re-qualify for a new challenge by finding different caches. In fact people that have so many finds that challenge caches would tend to be boring because they already qualify for them all or most all, couldn't they choose to only "use" a particular cache towards a challenge once?

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+CanadianRockies]

I think one reason some people have problems with challenge caches, is that they don't see a need for others to set their goals. They set their own goals and have adventures achieving them.

I'm not sure why the existence of challenge caches would be a problem for these people. Challenge caches don't prevent people from setting their own goals. I've set some of my own goals and enjoyed achieving them. The existence of challenge caches didn't bother me at all while doing so.

[+geodarts]

I think one reason some people have problems with challenge caches, is that they don't see a need for others to set their goals. They set their own goals and have adventures achieving them.

I'm not sure why the existence of challenge caches would be a problem for these people. Challenge caches don't prevent people from setting their own goals. I've set some of my own goals and enjoyed achieving them. The existence of challenge caches didn't bother me at all while doing so.

 

Not a problem for me. I have two goals that have nothing to do with challenges, which simply provide something to do in the meantime. It's hard to imagine finding a certain number of caches with the names of Batman characters as being a goal, but I might not have looked for the cache if it had not been for the challenge. And Aura Raines even made an appearance there.

Edited April 30, 2014 by geodarts

[+fizzymagic]

I think one reason some people have problems with challenge caches, is that they don't see a need for others to set their goals. They set their own goals and have adventures achieving them. And since the reward in achieving a goal is the adventure of achieving it, it makes little sense to get a reward of having a another cache to find when you are done, and getting a smiley for it.

 

Quite a revealing comment here. Some people don't need others to set their own goals, but instead of letting other people enjoy something different, they "have problems" with challenge caches.

 

In other words, my assertion that some people can't stand letting other people have fun their own way and need to control how other people play the game is vindicated.

 

===============================================================

 

Interestingly, the attitude that you describe here is almost precisely the same attitude that came up in discussions about Waymarking. To paraphrase an argument that should sound extremely familiar: "people should like Waymarking as much as virtual caches, and if they don't it's only because they are greedy for smilies."

 

Both of these attitudes have something in common: a sanctimonious tone that implies that other people don't do caching in the proper moral way, for the proper moral reasons.

 

Let's take another look at what I quoted from you above:

 

And since the reward in achieving a goal is the adventure of achieving it, it makes little sense to get a reward of having a another cache to find when you are done, and getting a smiley for it.

 

See the sanctimony? If not, maybe that's the problem.

 

It happens that I don't particularly care about my smiley count. But I do care about getting smileys with what I call "style." Difficult puzzles, difficult challenges, difficult terrain -- all of those have, in my book, "style." And I like collecting them. Do I brag about them? I don't think so -- you would have to ask other locals. But I treasure the memories that go with my stylish finds.

 

I find the constant implication that my caching is morally inferior somewhat irritating, but I can let that pass as a difference of opinion. But when somebody tries to claim that a cache type I enjoy a lot should be subject to a bunch of new rules that will eventually cause it to be eliminated: then I get pretty annoyed.

[+thebruce0]

Couldn't they choose to not count previously found caches? I mean if they wanted to, they could choose re-qualify for a new challenge by finding different caches. In fact people that have so many finds that challenge caches would tend to be boring because they already qualify for them all or most all, couldn't they choose to only "use" a particular cache towards a challenge once?

This, along with some previous comments, touch on the recent rule change that disallowed date restrictions.

 

As I mentioned a while back, I prefered to distinguish between two *ahem* 'breeds' of challenge caches - the challenge and the achievement. An achievement would be one without a date restriction - as long as you've done it at any point in your caching career, you qualify. The challenge is the one actively set out for people - every cacher - to accomplish from that point on. You may have qualified before, but now you have to qualify again. These entice more of a competitive style caching, but competition is still not fundamental to it.

The inherent problem with both types of 'challenge' is:

* without a date restriction, the challenge favours the veteran - they probably already qualify; the newbie has to do a lot more work

* with a date restriction, the challenge qualifies the newbie - MANY more potential qualifying caches nearby not already found; the veteran has to do a lot more work/traveling

 

Groundspeak opted to go with no date restriction, and essentially for the challenges to become career achievements. It puts everyone on the same ground, reduces quarrels and conflicts, dissuades competitive caching, and is generally more positive for everyone (unless people choose not to be positive about it =P). And, as you said, if someone wants to make challenge more interesting since they've already qualified, they have the option to set a personal goal and re-qualify, with caches they haven't yet found. So really having no date restriction keeps the geocaching pastime still primarily self-focused, goal-oriented, instead of outward, competitive, bragging. Each person can still cache their own way, lots of flexibility and choice, especially with challenge caches.

 

I originally hoped they would reverse the decision about date restrictions, or provide an alternate means to allow actual 'challenges' as opposed to achievements, but I fully understand the decision they made. As a CO if I want to put out a new active challenge, I can still publish a cache that requires the same qualifications, I just can't deny finds for people who've already qualified; merely encourage people to set their own goals to achieve it again after the publish date.

 

Ultimately,

More choice = more freedom and variety for everyone.

Less choice = more frustration, conflicts, and arguments over 'entitlement'.

And Groundspeak can still decide if too much choice/freedom is hurting their game, and enact new guidelines to further shape it.

Edited April 30, 2014 by thebruce0

[+Roman!]

 

See the sanctimony? If not, maybe that's the problem.

 

 

Ha, topshelfrob, you've been challenged by fizzy.

 

Are you gonna man up and conquer this fizzy challenge or hang you head in shame?

Edited April 30, 2014 by Roman!

[+TopShelfRob]

Couldn't they choose to not count previously found caches? I mean if they wanted to, they could choose re-qualify for a new challenge by finding different caches. In fact people that have so many finds that challenge caches would tend to be boring because they already qualify for them all or most all, couldn't they choose to only "use" a particular cache towards a challenge once?

This, along with some previous comments, touch on the recent rule change that disallowed date restrictions.

 

As I mentioned a while back, I prefered to distinguish between two *ahem* 'breeds' of challenge caches - the challenge and the achievement. An achievement would be one without a date restriction - as long as you've done it at any point in your caching career, you qualify. The challenge is the one actively set out for people - every cacher - to accomplish from that point on. You may have qualified before, but now you have to qualify again. These entice more of a competitive style caching, but competition is still not fundamental to it.

The inherent problem with both types of 'challenge' is:

* without a date restriction, the challenge favours the veteran - they probably already qualify; the newbie has to do a lot more work

* with a date restriction, the challenge qualifies the newbie - MANY more potential qualifying caches nearby not already found; the veteran has to do a lot more work/traveling

 

Groundspeak opted to go with no date restriction, and essentially for the challenges to become career achievements. It puts everyone on the same ground, reduces quarrels and conflicts, dissuades competitive caching, and is generally more positive for everyone (unless people choose not to be positive about it =P). And, as you said, if someone wants to make challenge more interesting since they've already qualified, they have the option to set a personal goal and re-qualify, with caches they haven't yet found. So really having no date restriction keeps the geocaching pastime still primarily self-focused, goal-oriented, instead of outward, competitive, bragging. Each person can still cache their own way, lots of flexibility and choice, especially with challenge caches.

 

I originally hoped they would reverse the decision about date restrictions, or provide an alternate means to allow actual 'challenges' as opposed to achievements, but I fully understand the decision they made. As a CO if I want to put out a new active challenge, I can still publish a cache that requires the same qualifications, I just can't deny finds for people who've already qualified; merely encourage people to set their own goals to achieve it again after the publish date.

 

Ultimately,

More choice = more freedom and variety for everyone.

Less choice = more frustration, conflicts, and arguments over 'entitlement'.

And Groundspeak can still decide if too much choice/freedom is hurting their game, and enact new guidelines to further shape it.

 

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that the challenge CO could require you to only count new qualifying caches -- I meant that couldn't a particularly over-qualified cacher choose to do so of his own accord, if he already qualified for pratically every challenge to the point the challenge caches were boring to him. Sure he'd already qualify to log it, but he could choose to only count new finds.

 

But to what you are talking about, I saw a thread about a challenge cache in Texas I believe it was, where a challenge cache had become a tradition each year there was a new challenge that required finders to only count new caches, and after being approved every year, was disallowed because of the no date restrictions. There was allegedly great uproar in the community over this as that was a "great tradition" there, and they pointed out she could merely encourage them to only count new finds (and most people would probably play by those rules), however she'd not be able to enforce that they must. She chose to archive it.

 

The inherent problem with both types of 'challenge' is:

* without a date restriction, the challenge favours the veteran - they probably already qualify; the newbie has to do a lot more work

* with a date restriction, the challenge qualifies the newbie - MANY more potential qualifying caches nearby not already found; the veteran has to do a lot more work/traveling

Well, then it seems the only fair thing for Groundspeak to have done would have been to allow both types. If "without" favours the veterans, and "with" favors the newbies, then why not make them optional? Challenges that included them and challenges without them would then both exist, and then it wouldn't be as biased toward either side.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+TopShelfRob]

I think one reason some people have problems with challenge caches, is that they don't see a need for others to set their goals. They set their own goals and have adventures achieving them. And since the reward in achieving a goal is the adventure of achieving it, it makes little sense to get a reward of having a another cache to find when you are done, and getting a smiley for it.

See the sanctimony? If not, maybe that's the problem.

Ha, topshelfrob, you've been challenged by fizzy.

 

Are you gonna man up and conquer this fizzy challenge or hang you head in shame?

The sanctimony comment was not in reply to a quote of mine. (Or was it at my general sanctimony elsewhere in the thread?)

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+Isonzo Karst]

* without a date restriction, the challenge favours the veteran - they probably already qualify; the newbie has to do a lot more work

 

I see this quite differently. The newbie has to do the exact same work the veteran has done. It's not "more work", it's the same work.

 

Favours the vet in the sense that a vet is likely able to both find the cache and qualify to log the find - in the FTF race, vets have an advantage on many Challenges. That's also true of other cache types if they've got an element of hide or puzzle difficulty. The vets recognize the puzzle design, or the devious hide, the novices don't.

[+tozainamboku]

 

See the sanctimony? If not, maybe that's the problem.

 

 

Ha, topshelfrob, you've been challenged by fizzy.

 

Are you gonna man up and conquer this fizzy challenge or hang you head in shame?

He "challenged" me not TopShelfRob. And frankly my last post certainly opened me to that attack.

 

I think he selectively read my post, because I was essentially coming to the same conclusion - although I edited out a final like where I showed Signal eating ice cream and said that if findng a challenge cache is what motivates someone who am I so say otherwise.

 

I do have a gut reaction when you mess with the base idea of geocaching being about finding caches one by one. Yet I know that I have no problem with bonus cache series, multi-caches, or so far with power trails (though I avoid power trails). Maybe the problem is on my side, where among the personal goals I've set is to find most (though not necessarily all) of the cache that are local to me. When there are few challenges, they are easy to ignore. When there are many, in order to keep up with my goals I look at them and find a number that I already qualify for or that I could easily qualify for. Then I get upset that I have spend time preparing lists and the like which add nothing to my enjoyment. I only enjoy turning the local challenge to a smiley in keeping with personal goals. Now, fizzy may tell me to change my personal goals. But isn't that being just as sanctimonious? Challenge caches interfere with my enjoyment of my goals - I think I've a right to complain.

[+Roman!]

 

See the sanctimony? If not, maybe that's the problem.

 

 

Ha, topshelfrob, you've been challenged by fizzy.

 

Are you gonna man up and conquer this fizzy challenge or hang you head in shame?

He "challenged" me not TopShelfRob. And frankly my last post certainly opened me to that attack.

 

I think he selectively read my post, because I was essentially coming to the same conclusion - although I edited out a final like where I showed Signal eating ice cream and said that if findng a challenge cache is what motivates someone who am I so say otherwise.

 

I do have a gut reaction when you mess with the base idea of geocaching being about finding caches one by one. Yet I know that I have no problem with bonus cache series, multi-caches, or so far with power trails (though I avoid power trails). Maybe the problem is on my side, where among the personal goals I've set is to find most (though not necessarily all) of the cache that are local to me. When there are few challenges, they are easy to ignore. When there are many, in order to keep up with my goals I look at them and find a number that I already qualify for or that I could easily qualify for. Then I get upset that I have spend time preparing lists and the like which add nothing to my enjoyment. I only enjoy turning the local challenge to a smiley in keeping with personal goals. Now, fizzy may tell me to change my personal goals. But isn't that being just as sanctimonious? Challenge caches interfere with my enjoyment of my goals - I think I've a right to complain.

 

I was just being funny, get it? Fizzy challenge?

 

But now that you mention it puzzle caches take the fun of geocaching away from me so while we are at it let's get rid of those too.

[+dprovan]

There are some people who simply enjoy finding containers that someone has hidden, particularly if the container takes them on a nice hike or someplace interesting.

You mean they enjoy meeting the goal that the CO has set for them of going somewhere specific and finding what the CO has hidden there?

[+dprovan]

It's a cross people with lots of finds have to bear. A lot of challenge caches are boring to high count cachers, since they almost always qualify without any effort. For them, it devolves into that boring case of just going to sign the log. People with a low find count have an opportunity to actually follow the trail of the challenge and enjoy the experience as the CO laid it out.

Couldn't they choose to not count previously found caches?

Yes, they could, but that's completely beside the point. The point is that someone with fewer finds doesn't have to resist that temptation.

[+TopShelfRob]

You mean they enjoy meeting the goal that the CO has set for them of going somewhere specific and finding what the CO has hidden there?

In fact, they enjoy meeting goals so much, that instead of just going "somewhere specific and finding what the CO has hidden there" they instead go a whole bunch of other places first to qualify! (Calm down, I'm just kidding!)

[+TopShelfRob]

It's a cross people with lots of finds have to bear. A lot of challenge caches are boring to high count cachers, since they almost always qualify without any effort. For them, it devolves into that boring case of just going to sign the log. People with a low find count have an opportunity to actually follow the trail of the challenge and enjoy the experience as the CO laid it out.

Couldn't they choose to not count previously found caches?

Yes, they could, but that's completely beside the point. The point is that someone with fewer finds doesn't have to resist that temptation.

That's not beside the point at all. If you're telling me it's not fun for them because they've already qualified for everything, they have the luxury of choosing to challenge themselves further. They can choose to make it less boring.

 

People who haven't qualified don't have the luxury of choosing not to meet the qualifications, not if they want to log it within the rules. They can't choose to make it less out of reach for them.

 

Or do you want to give challenge cache owners the option of disqualifying cachers who have met the requirements too well?

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+lamoracke]

Strangely enough there are some challenges that qualifying for folks with many finds are actually more difficult.

 

There is a challenge in Washington state where you need to find one of each cache size every weekend of the month. Sounds easy right? Well, for me, I have almost every virtual and webcam in all the states and provinces around me which defines the virtual cache size category. A newbie could easily find a virtual or webcam going forward than me. I would have to be on a continuous month of vacation or delete my old finds and log them again to do this challenge.

 

Thus once in a while, either due already having found all the caches in question, possibly combined with publication date issues, its occasionally tougher for veterans to find challenge caches.

[+TopShelfRob]

Strangely enough there are some challenges that qualifying for folks with many finds are actually more difficult.

 

There is a challenge in Washington state where you need to find one of each cache size every weekend of the month. Sounds easy right? Well, for me, I have almost every virtual and webcam in all the states and provinces around me which defines the virtual cache size category. A newbie could easily find a virtual or webcam going forward than me. I would have to be on a continuous month of vacation or delete my old finds and log them again to do this challenge.

 

Thus once in a while, either due already having found all the caches in question, possibly combined with publication date issues, its occasionally tougher for veterans to find challenge caches.

But I thought any cache like that -- requiring you not to count already found caches (by requiring you to find them in a weekend) - wouldn't be publishable? You could try to choose to find them all in a weekend, and yes it would be harder if you had already found all the closest ones of that type. But they couldn't require you to not count ones you had already found by requiring them to specifically be found in a weekend?

 

Or is it only that they can't require them to only be found in a specific weekend, but requiring an accomplishment within a length of time (e.g. for instance during "a weekend") is okay?

 

Gosh, this is confusing.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+lamoracke]

Strangely enough there are some challenges that qualifying for folks with many finds are actually more difficult.

 

There is a challenge in Washington state where you need to find one of each cache size every weekend of the month. Sounds easy right? Well, for me, I have almost every virtual and webcam in all the states and provinces around me which defines the virtual cache size category. A newbie could easily find a virtual or webcam going forward than me. I would have to be on a continuous month of vacation or delete my old finds and log them again to do this challenge.

 

Thus once in a while, either due already having found all the caches in question, possibly combined with publication date issues, its occasionally tougher for veterans to find challenge caches.

But I thought any cache like that -- requiring you not to count already found caches (by requiring you to find them in a weekend) - wouldn't be publishable? You could try to choose to find them all in a weekend, and yes it would be harder if you had already found all the closest ones of that type. But they couldn't require you to not count ones you had already found by requiring them to specifically be found in a weekend?

 

Or is it only that they can't require them to only be found in a specific weekend, but requiring an accomplishment within a length of time (e.g. for instance during "a weekend") is okay?

 

Gosh, this is confusing.

 

Its just a weird reality, not the norm, of this challenge. If you do not know, the "virtual" size category is only webcams and virtuals. I have found most already around here in my state and neighboring ones. The challenge means for 4 different weekends, I need to find at least one each weekend and they are all far away. There is not enough for me to find that is not more than say an airplane ride or more than a full day's drive away. So, how would I finish this challenge? I would need to be on a long trip each weekend for a month, that is pretty hard. I am not going to relog my old finds, just saying technically its a possibility, but not a reality for me.

 

If I was starting as a new cacher, there are 100 or so virtuals or webcams I could choose to do, but if I have most of them found already?

 

The challenge is fine, publication wise, its just the unintended reality of this, I could not armchair it as its a weird statistic, finding 4 cache sizes in every weekend for a month.

[+TopShelfRob]

Its just a weird reality, not the norm, of this challenge. If you do not know, the "virtual" size category is only webcams and virtuals. I have found most already around here in my state and neighboring ones. The challenge means for 4 different weekends, I need to find at least one each weekend and they are all far away. There is not enough for me to find that is not more than say an airplane ride or more than a full day's drive away. So, how would I finish this challenge? I would need to be on a long trip each weekend for a month, that is pretty hard. I am not going to relog my old finds, just saying technically its a possibility, but not a reality for me.

 

If I was starting as a new cacher, there are 100 or so virtuals or webcams I could choose to do, but if I have most of them found already?

 

The challenge is fine, publication wise, its just the unintended reality of this, I could not armchair it as its a weird statistic, finding 4 cache sizes in every weekend for a month.

Gotcha. OK I was under the impression that rules for a challenge cache could not require someone to find caches in particular weekends of a month - that they had to allow all past finds, regardless.

[+lamoracke]

Its just a weird reality, not the norm, of this challenge. If you do not know, the "virtual" size category is only webcams and virtuals. I have found most already around here in my state and neighboring ones. The challenge means for 4 different weekends, I need to find at least one each weekend and they are all far away. There is not enough for me to find that is not more than say an airplane ride or more than a full day's drive away. So, how would I finish this challenge? I would need to be on a long trip each weekend for a month, that is pretty hard. I am not going to relog my old finds, just saying technically its a possibility, but not a reality for me.

 

If I was starting as a new cacher, there are 100 or so virtuals or webcams I could choose to do, but if I have most of them found already?

 

The challenge is fine, publication wise, its just the unintended reality of this, I could not armchair it as its a weird statistic, finding 4 cache sizes in every weekend for a month.

Gotcha. OK I was under the impression that rules for a challenge cache could not require someone to find caches in particular weekends of a month - that they had to allow all past finds, regardless.

 

Oh yes, past finds are okay, but do you see, sometimes a challenge is so weird in its reality, that its just hard to randomly already have qualified for it. I have done all 7 cache sizes in a weekend before, but have I ever done that for every weekend of a past month? One of my friends did, but I never did. So, given I never randomly already qualified with my past finds, its very hard to qualify going forward when all of my local caches of the kind I need are gone.

 

Thus, sometimes there is a crazy enough defined challenge out there that veterans can't qualify for it without working harder than a newbie.

[+TopShelfRob]

Oh yes, past finds are okay, but do you see, sometimes a challenge is so weird in its reality, that its just hard to randomly already have qualified for it. I have done all 7 cache sizes in a weekend before, but have I ever done that for every weekend of a past month? One of my friends did, but I never did. So, given I never randomly already qualified with my past finds, its very hard to qualify going forward when all of my local caches of the kind I need are gone.

 

Thus, sometimes there is a crazy enough defined challenge out there that veterans can't qualify for it without working harder than a newbie.

Oh, duh, I see what you mean now. Basically a previous find couldn't qualilfy because it wasn't found in a weekend with finds of other types.

[+CanadianRockies]

Gosh, this is confusing.

Yes, it is.

 

Veterans complain it's too hard for them to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

 

Expert finders (or, more likely, those who don't like to log DNFs) complain it's too hard for them to "log 100 DNFs." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

 

People whine about some challenges being too hard in general. Rather then suggest they ignore hard challenges, Groundspeak adds yet another guideline that requires challenges to be attainable by a reasonable number of people.

 

Toz complains that "a reasonable number" is too subjective and that challenges are too popular. The OP complains that there are too many hard challenges in some areas and that certain challenges "inevitably" lead to lame cache hides. You complain about not being able to get a smiley for finding the physical cache portion of a challenge. Perhaps Groundspeak will throw up its hands and stop publishing any future challenge caches. That way, Toz can have an easier time achieving his goal of finding most of the caches that are near him. (After all, we don't want challenges to be hard.)

Edited April 30, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+TopShelfRob]

Veterans complain it's too hard for them to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

See, again there's a bias against newbies and/or people with low finds!

 

Veterans don't like something, there is a guideline change to rectify it. Newbies don't like something - they are told to ignore them or find more caches to qualify.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+CanadianRockies]

Veterans complain it's too hard for them to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

See, again there's a bias against newbies and/or people with low finds!

 

Veterans don't like something, there is a guideline change to rectify it. Newbies don't like something - they are told to ignore them or find more caches to qualify.

Newbies complain that it would be impossible for them to "find 100 multis during 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

[+TopShelfRob]

Veterans complain it's too hard for them to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

See, again there's a bias against newbies and/or people with low finds!

 

Veterans don't like something, there is a guideline change to rectify it. Newbies don't like something - they are told to ignore them or find more caches to qualify.

Newbies complain that it would be impossible for them to "find 100 multis during 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

While it may be difficult for a veteran cacher to find a particular amount of caches after a date (when they've already found so many before), it is impossible for a newbie any cacher to find more caches before a date that has already passed.

 

Not that I would be necessarily be in favor of forbidding this, but just "finding 100 multis in a year" (not even mentioning date guidelines, because obviously 2011 is over and one cannot find more caches in a past year) would require me "to alter (my) caching style or habit" and be technically against the cutrrent guidelines.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+CanadianRockies]

Newbies complain that it would be impossible for them to "find 100 multis during 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

Well, not that I would be necessary in favor of forbidding this, but just "finding 100 multis in a year" (removing challenge date guidelines, because obviously 2011 is over and one cannot find more caches in a past year) would require me "to alter (my) caching style or habit".

Yep. People complained about that, too. And, as you noticed, Groundspeak added a new guideline forbidding challenges that require geocachers "to alter their caching style or habits" (although Volunteer Reviewers mercifully have adopted a fairly narrow interpretation of that particular guideline).

Edited April 30, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+dprovan]

That's not beside the point at all. If you're telling me it's not fun for them...

I'm not telling you it's not fun for them. I'm pointing out that it's more fun for you. I'm trying to help you focus on what's important, which is how you could enjoy challenge caches if you choose to do so. I'm hoping you'll get away from being so focused on whether other people enjoy them more that you do, which is important only in so far as it gives you ideas on how you could enjoy them more yourself.

[+TopShelfRob]

I'm not telling you it's not fun for them. I'm pointing out that it's more fun for you. I'm trying to help you focus on what's important, which is how you could enjoy challenge caches if you choose to do so. I'm hoping you'll get away from being so focused on whether other people enjoy them more that you do, which is important only in so far as it gives you ideas on how you could enjoy them more yourself.

I don't follow - I'm not asking for them to just be more fun for me. I'm trying to understand what is the best way they could be most fun for everybody. Not just those who do or do not happen to qualify at the moment. Right now they only appear to be fun for those who qualify now or plan to set out to qualify at some point in the future. You're telling me there is a scenario where others who have found a lot of caches could potentially have less fun than those who still have challenges they have yet to meet. I'm saying those people can choose to requalify if they want, so it's not really a valid comparison.

 

Anyway it's not really as issue, I said I "get it" about challenge caches and withdrew my objection. I still think it's maybe not fair, though.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+dprovan]

Veterans don't like something, there is a guideline change to rectify it. Newbies don't like something - they are told to ignore them or find more caches to qualify.

When these changes were made a couple years ago, I wondered whether it wasn't giving too much weight to how veterans felt about it. At the same time, there are good reasons to give veterans a lot of weight, both for the good of the game and for the good of geocaching.com and Groundspeak. So I while I wonder about the motives, but I don't object to the action.

 

But in the end, I recognize that these limits aren't bad: at worst, they're just arbitrary. As I've been trying to explain to you, not allowing a start date gives some advantages to newbies even as it makes it easier for veterans to qualify right away. Whether the limit makes it easier for someone else should be of no interest to you. It's basically none of your business. The only thing that you should be thinking about is how the limit affects you, and not allowing a start date has no effect whatsoever on someone with few finds, since they'd be in the same position whether there was a start date or not.

 

And if they can give veterans a leg up without affecting my experience, I think that's great. Those old farts need every break they can get. Why consider this a question of fairness?

 

I don't follow - I'm not asking for them to just be more fun for me. I'm trying to understand what is the best way they could be most fun for everybody. Not just those who do or do not happen to qualify at the moment. Right now they only appear to be fun for those who qualify now or plan to set out to qualify at some point in the future. You're telling me there is a scenario where others who have found a lot of caches could potentially have less fun than those who still have challenges they have yet to meet. I'm saying those people can choose to requalify if they want, so it's not really a valid comparison.

This is the bottom line. You keep thinking there's some good and valid reason to compare your experience to someone else's. Knock it off. The only valid question is whether it's good or bad for you. I'm not interested in arguments based on the premise that being good for someone else automatically makes it worse for you.

 

Anyway it's not really as issue, I said I "get it" about challenge caches and withdrew my objection. I still think it's maybe not fair, though.

I've noticed that you're softening your position, but I'm making my points because there are lots of other situations in the geocaching world where you can upset yourself by mistakenly thinking it's important to you that someone else has an advantage you don't. So I'm trying to help you avoid being upset in those other cases. As it happens, this isn't entirely altruistic because the more often you get upset because someone else has an advantage, the more likely you'll feel justified in doing something you shouldn't that negatively affects someone else.

[+TopShelfRob]

That's just part of living in the real world. (Geocaching or otherwise)

[+lamoracke]

My point is about challenges, is that there are a lot of them and no person is probably going to like all of them. Find ones you like and do those. Some challenges will be harder for your reality, whether you are a new cacher or a long time cacher, some will be easier, many will be neutral. Maybe a challenge will be easier given the type of caching you like.

 

I gave up long ago trying to get every challenge.

[+dprovan]

My point is about challenges, is that there are a lot of them and no person is probably going to like all of them. Find ones you like and do those. Some challenges will be harder for your reality, whether you are a new cacher or a long time cacher, some will be easier, many will be neutral. Maybe a challenge will be easier given the type of caching you like.

 

I gave up long ago trying to get every challenge.

My only objection to this post is that it singles out challenge caches as if they are unique. The advice given applies to all caches.

[+dprovan]

That's just part of living in the real world. (Geocaching or otherwise)

You are correct that it is an unfortunate fact that many people spend a lot of time comparing themselves to others at the expense of working to improve their own lot. Compare if you must. If the comparison helps you see that you can do better, that's great. If it inspires you to drag other people down to your level, that's bad.

 

And save declaring something unfair for cases where someone is taking something away from you in order to give it to someone else. There's no zero sum here, so making it easier for veterans comes at no cost at all to you.

[+tozainamboku]

Gosh, this is confusing.

Yes, it is.

 

Veterans complain it's too hard for them to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

 

Expert finders (or, more likely, those who don't like to log DNFs) complain it's too hard for them to "log 100 DNFs." Rather than suggest they ignore these types of challenges, Groundspeak adds a new guideline forbidding such challenges.

 

People whine about some challenges being too hard in general. Rather then suggest they ignore hard challenges, Groundspeak adds yet another guideline that requires challenges to be attainable by a reasonable number of people.

 

Toz complains that "a reasonable number" is too subjective and that challenges are too popular. The OP complains that there are too many hard challenges in some areas and that certain challenges "inevitably" lead to lame cache hides. You complain about not being able to get a smiley for finding the physical cache portion of a challenge. Perhaps Groundspeak will throw up its hands and stop publishing any future challenge caches. That way, Toz can have an easier time achieving his goal of finding most of the caches that are near him. (After all, we don't want challenges to be hard.)

The argument you are making is that they should bring back arbitrary ALRs, virtual caches with no "wow" requirements, and assorted other caches that are not allowed by guidelines, since any one who doesn't like those caches could just ignore them.

 

It isn't as simple as that.

 

For one thing TPTB have decided that geocaching should be, at its core, about finding physical containers. They are willing to have exceptions to this and list them on the website, but they want to have some limits in place so that the core concept of geocaching is not overwhelmed by these variations.

 

Another is that ignore is not something simple to do. I learned a long time ago that you can't find every cache and I am certainly able to say that there are some caches I will never find. But I would venture a guess that the personal goal of finding most of the caches that are local is fairly common. People are willing to ignore what they don't like up to a certain degree; when these caches become very popular they naturally complain.

 

Each case is separate. Groundspeak must weigh the popularity of some cache genre against people who are being turned off by them. Mostly they try to take a midddle road by adopting guidelines that restrict or limit the genre without outright eliminating it. They attempt control the number of caches and to restrict ones that fall outside some core concepts of geocaching.

 

Ror example, over the history of geocaching there have been restrictions placed on puzzle caches that eliminated some of the most fun and challenging puzzle that I remember from the early days. Restrictions on downloading of software, use of other websites, or emailing the cache owner, were put in place because TPTB decided that these caches couldn't simply be ignored.

[+CanadianRockies]

The argument you are making is that they should bring back arbitrary ALRs, virtual caches with no "wow" requirements, and assorted other caches that are not allowed by guidelines, since any one who doesn't like those caches could just ignore them.

 

It isn't as simple as that.

 

For one thing TPTB have decided that geocaching should be, at its core, about finding physical containers. They are willing to have exceptions to this and list them on the website, but they want to have some limits in place so that the core concept of geocaching is not overwhelmed by these variations.

No, I'm not making that argument. Here are the first two sentences of Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines: "A challenge geocache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking, Benchmarking, and Wherigo-related tasks also qualify."

 

Challenge caches are very much about geocaching (at least in the broader sense that includes Waymarking and benchmarking). The excluded ALRs generally had very little to do with geocaching. Big difference. And although some people complain about this, challenge caches even have physical containers.

 

When some people complain it's too hard to solve difficult puzzles, Groundspeak simply suggests they ignore these types of caches. But when some people complain it's too hard to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011," Groundspeak adds a new guideline that forbids these kinds of challenge caches.

 

When some people complain it's too hard to repel down a cliff to find a traditional cache, Groundspeak simply suggests they ignore these types of caches. But when some people complain it's too hard to "log 100 DNFs," Groundspeak adds a new guideline that forbids these kinds of challenge caches.

 

When some people complain they can't find Wherigos, Groundspeak simply suggests they ignore these types of caches. But when some people complain they can't "find 100 multis during 2011," Groundspeak adds a new guideline that forbids these kinds of challenge caches.

 

Some people complain that challenge caches are too popular, get too many favorite points, and somehow prevent them from setting their own goals. Hopefully, Groundspeak ignores these complaints.

 

Another is that ignore is not something simple to do. I learned a long time ago that you can't find every cache and I am certainly able to say that there are some caches I will never find. But I would venture a guess that the personal goal of finding most of the caches that are local is fairly common. People are willing to ignore what they don't like up to a certain degree; when these caches become very popular they naturally complain.

Not everybody will find most caches within 5 miles of their homes. Not everybody can fully accomplish all the goals they set for themselves, especially the harder ones. That's life.

 

They can complain about this if that makes them feel better. But Groundspeak doesn't have to appease every whiner.

[+DanOCan]

When some people complain it's too hard to solve difficult puzzles, Groundspeak simply suggests they ignore these types of caches. But when some people complain it's too hard to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011," Groundspeak adds a new guideline that forbids these kinds of challenge caches.

 

When some people complain it's too hard to repel down a cliff to find a traditional cache, Groundspeak simply suggests they ignore these types of caches. But when some people complain it's too hard to "log 100 DNFs," Groundspeak adds a new guideline that forbids these kinds of challenge caches.

 

When some people complain they can't find Wherigos, Groundspeak simply suggests they ignore these types of caches. But when some people complain they can't "find 100 multis during 2011," Groundspeak adds a new guideline that forbids these kinds of challenge caches.

 

Some people complain that challenge caches are too popular, get too many favorite points, and somehow prevent them from setting their own goals. Hopefully, Groundspeak ignores these complaints.

The way I see it, challenge caches are undergoing the same evolution as many other cache types.

 

Think about Traditional caches. When the game started, it was pretty simple. Someone hid a container, you went out to find it, you traded items if you wanted, you signed the logbook in the cache, and then talked about it online.

 

If caching had stayed a small niche activity amongst a group of Usenet geeks , that's probably all you would have ever needed. As caching grew in popularity, so did the guidelines around it. No caches near schools, no caches near terrorist targets, you can't be too close to another cache, etc. While it certainly didn't bring about the end of Trads, they are certainly much more restricted now than when they were first created.

 

Virtual caches. They grew in popularity as more and more people got on the "me too" bandwagon. Soon people were trying to list every telephone pole or rotting animal carcass as a Virtual. Groundspeak tried to address the problem through the infamous "wow factor" but soon found applying the guidelines too difficult to apply consistently so they simply killed them completely, other than allowing the Virts which existed at the time to remain.

 

Are challenge caches going the same way?

 

We started with ALRs in general. "Finding the container isn't good enough, you need to jump through these hoops to log your find." Groundspeak decided to require that the ALRs be focused on geocaching-related achievements.

 

I don't think anyone will deny challenge caches have grown in popularity. Where we started with a few, they have grown to many. They also have grown in complexity. Instead of "simple" fill in the grids or find a cache in every state challenges, people tried to one up each other and make their tasks more and more complex. "Find one traditional and one virtual cache on every day starting with the letter T for six months, except July in which you need to find a cache on Wednesdays." Whatever, make up your own challenge here.

 

Groundspeak has seen fit to introduce more and more guidelines, as you outlined. No date restrictions, no negative-based requirements, must be achievable by a reasonable number of cachers, etc. I guess only time will tell if challenge caches:

 

- Continue to exist under more and more restrictive guidelines (like Traditional caches)

- Have a moratorium on the creation of new ones while grandfathering existing ones (like Virtuals/Webcams)

- Evolve into something else entirely (like Locationless -> Waymarks)

 

I still remain a fan of simplifying wherever possible. We can remove a whole whack of these new guidelines by simply saying "If you sign the logbook you can log the cache as Found, same as all physical caches." No need to have all the guidelines for what challenges are acceptable or not. People can make up whatever crazy challenges they want for their caches. People who find challenges fun can continue to use them as motivation, people who find them annoying can simply treat them as a traditional cache with an optional ALR. In my simple world, that's a win for everyone.

[+TopShelfRob]

I still remain a fan of simplifying wherever possible. We can remove a whole whack of these new guidelines by simply saying "If you sign the logbook you can log the cache as Found, same as all physical caches." No need to have all the guidelines for what challenges are acceptable or not. People can make up whatever crazy challenges they want for their caches. People who find challenges fun can continue to use them as motivation, people who find them annoying can simply treat them as a traditional cache with an optional ALR. In my simple world, that's a win for everyone.

 

That's pretty much what was suggested earlier in this thread, to which it was replied that removing the compulsory nature of the requirement would "kill the challenge cache concept entirely."

[+tozainamboku]

The way I see it, challenge caches are undergoing the same evolution as many other cache types.

To a certain degree. But you have to look at the evolution of challenge caches themselves.

 

The first challenges were simply ALRs back in the day when there was no official recognition of ALRs but when reviewers (approvers back then) would publish caches that said something like "In order to log this cache you must take one of the containers and create a new cache".

 

Eventually reviewers were told not to publish a cache that required hiding a cache, but there were plenty of other ALRs, both geocaching related and non-geocaching related.

 

Then someone got the idea to have a cache requiring you to find a cache on each page in the Delorme Atlas (or maybe it was for each county in a state). They didn't want to make it an ALR, becuase these were unofficial and people would complain if they got their log deleted, so instead they posted phony coordinates and asked that you emailed your list of qualifying caches in order to get the real coordinates.

 

The reviewers refused to publish a cache that required emailing the owner for coordinates. An appeal found a friend inside of GC.com who thought challenging other cachers was a great way to promote geocaching and to get people to go out and find caches further afield. But this was an exception to a standing rule, so challenges like this had to be approved by HQ and limited to perhaps one or two per state or province.

 

Then Groundspeak changed the guideline for ALRs. What had never been officially mentioned in the guidelines became: you can require someone to do a task in order to log a find but you had to list this as a mystery cache. Now when someone proposed a challenge, instead of HQ having to approve it, the reviewers simple told the cache owner to put the correct coordinates and make the challenge an ALR. This resulted in a flood of both geocaching and non-geocaching related ALRs. Some ALRs were fun and enjoyable additions to the game, others were just annoying cache owners trying to make things complicated and silly. IMO, the good and the bad applied equally to geocaching and non-geocaching related ALRs.

 

Groundspeak tried to stem the tide of silly or complicated ALRs, but found that it was nor more possible to define what was reasonable any more than it was possible to define what was a "wow" virtual cache. Of course, if you didn't like an ALR you could simply ignore that cache .

 

Eventually TPTB decided that ALRs were out of hand and that the only way to control them was to ban them outright. But once again, someone at GC.com felt that geocaching related ALRs were a great way to promote geocaching and to get people to go out and find caches. The ban on ALRs exempted geocaching related challenges.

 

Perhaps someone who wanted to interfere with CanadianRockies' fun complained and instead of telling them to ignore the silly overly complicated challenges, Groundspeak decided to have new guidelines . TPTB decided that there were enough jerks would would abuse the exception that was left to ALRs that they added some requirements to better define what was an appropriate geocaching related challenge.

 

Some may believe that challenges always exisited in the present form. What has actually happened is that challenges have evolved to be consistent with whatever guidelines were in place at the time. For most of their history challenge have also relied on someone in HQ feeling that they are a great way to promote geocaching and to get people to go out and find caches.

 

The supporters of challenges seem to want discussions like this to go away because they fear the ultimate response will be to ban challenge caches. I don't see the support for challenges inside GC.com going away. Sure guidelines may change, certain challenge may be deemed unduely burdensome or not having adequate appeal. Perhaps challenges will be a separate cache type. Perhaps logging requirements will change. You can be sure there will some way for geocachers to challenge others and to recognize accomplishments. I would venture that it will always involve finding some sort of cache beyond meeting the challenge requirements - but I don't know what the rules for logging your WIGAS will be.

[+fizzymagic]

In my simple world, that's a win for everyone.

 

Nope. Not a win from this perspective.

 

Your world is clearly over-simplified. In my world, that would pretty much kill challenge caches. Because if getting the smiley can be done with zero effort, everyone will do it that way. Human nature.

 

I'm just as lazy as the next guy. I see a challenge, and I want to log it, I will do the challenge if it is interesting to me and seems (in my mind) "stylish." If anybody can log the cache as found with zero effort, it loses all its appeal to me. Not because I want to lord something over other people, but because it is presented as a challenge. I need that motivation, as I suspect other people do as well. It's the motivation of finding something special that keeps me caching.

 

If you are going to make challenge caches the same as ordinary caches except with an optional ALR, then challenge caches will be identical to ordinary caches, and you will have ruined this aspect of caching for me.

 

If you say that I shouldn't need the motivation to take on the challenge, then I refer you to my post about sanctimony above.

[+CanadianRockies]

The way I see it, challenge caches are undergoing the same evolution as many other cache types.

I know you don't mean "evolution" in the literal sense, but it's an apt analogy. Evolution in nature is fueled by mindless, random changes (i.e., mutations). Evolution isn't a series of well considered, rational changes, which is what Groundspeak should be striving to achieve.

 

I think Groundspeak generally has made fairly reasonable modifications to its guidelines over the years. But some of its more recent changes to challenge cache guidelines don't seem so rational.

 

As caching grew in popularity, so did the guidelines around it. No caches near schools, no caches near terrorist targets, you can't be too close to another cache, etc. While it certainly didn't bring about the end of Trads, they are certainly much more restricted now than when they were first created.

Restrictions on hiding caches near schools and terrorist targets were added to avoid giving geocaches bad publicity when police are called in, which might cause local jurisdictions to consider banning geocaching. That makes sense to me.

 

When people complain about how hard it is to find caches placed on top of a mountain, in the middle of a cliff, or under 50 feet of water, Groundspeak tells them to simply ignore these kinds of caches. They didn't add a new guideline forbidding these difficult hides. In fact, they added a new guideline that allowed for the placement of an extremely difficult cache on the International Space Station. That makes sense to me.

 

But when veteran geocachers complained about how hard it is to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011," did Groundspeak tell them to simply ignore those types of caches? No. Instead, Groundspeak appeased the whiners by adding a guideline that forbids these types of challenge caches. That doesn't make sense to me.

Edited May 1, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

As caching grew in popularity, so did the guidelines around it. No caches near schools, no caches near terrorist targets, you can't be too close to another cache, etc. While it certainly didn't bring about the end of Trads, they are certainly much more restricted now than when they were first created.

Restrictions on hiding caches near schools and terrorist targets were added to avoid giving geocaches bad publicity when police are called in, which might cause local jurisdictions to consider banning geocaching. That makes sense to me.

A better example are Virtual caches. When TPTB felt that virtuals were getting out of control they instituted a "wow" requirement. When reviewers got tired of dealing with people complaining that their virtual was denied for not having enough "wow", TPTB got rid of virtuals. Certainly, on both occasion there were people who said "If you don't like virtuals just ignore them".

 

When ALRs were unofficial people complained about their logs being deleted because they didn't meet that ALR or that after going to find a traditional cache with only the coordinates, and signing the log, they found out there was an ALR they couldn't meet (sounds familiar). So TPTB said that ALRs had to be listed as Unknown caches so people would read the page before looking and could ignore the caches with ALRs they didn't like. Yet when reviewers saw ALRs that were so far-out as to be questionable that they had any benefit for geocaching, TPTB attempted to have some guidelines to limit ALRs. And when the best they could come up with was another "wow" requirement, they didn't just grandfather new ALRs but they nullified all existing ALRs with the exception of geocaching challenges.

 

When people complained about puzzles that required you to download software or to register on another website, Groundspeak didn't tell people to ignore these puzzles. Instead they put in guidelines to restrict them. And when people said some geocachers were hiding puzzle that couldn't be solved, they put in guidelines allowing the reviewers to ask how a puzzle is solved.

 

When people complain about how hard it is to find caches placed on top of a mountain, in the middle of a cliff, or under 50 feet of water, Groundspeak tells them to simply ignore these kinds of caches. They didn't add a new guideline forbidding these difficult hides. In fact, they added a new guideline that allowed for the placement of an extremely difficult cache on the International Space Station. That makes sense to me.

 

But when veteran geocachers complained about how hard it is to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011," did Groundspeak tell them to simply ignore those types of caches? No. Instead, Groundspeak appeased the whiners by adding a guideline that forbids these types of challenge caches. That doesn't make sense to me.

You seem to feel that the guidelines that have been put in place for challenges are fundamentally different than the restrictions on other caches. You also give examples that imply that Groundspeak is just responding to experienced high number geocachers who are complaining that a challenge has taken a park and grab an turned it into something that may be challenging and not the quick smiley they would prefer.

 

I think the guidelines were developed for a very different reason. With the change to no longer allow ALRs, challenges provided a last bastion for the few cache owners who abused ALRs. While TPTB may have thought at the time that just by being geocaching related these abusive ALRs would be avoided that proved not to be the case.

 

We don't see the challenges that reviewers have rejected. It isn't hard to imagine though what some of them may have been. Find as many caches as Alamogul, Find 100 caches on a specific date (I saw that in a challenge hidden by someone holding a Cache Machine on that date - essentially the people who participated in his cache machine would get to log the challenge), or Find two Project A.P.E. caches. Even challenges like At least 20% of your finds are non-Traditional or Have an average terrain rating > 2.5, exclude a certain segment of geocachers (not just difficult but exclusionary)

 

The guidelines were put in place to ensure what was being asked was reasonable, that it appealed to, and was attainable, by a reasonable number of geocachers. Of course, I believe that if you leave it at the phase reasonable and reasonble number of geocachers you essentially have another "wow" requirement. You may think the reviewers are all reasonable people and they can be trusted to make the decision. But my guess is that the reviewers weren't going accept being put in that situation again.

 

So the guidelines provide some specific sections to help decide what is reasonable and what appeals to a reasonable number of geocachers. Unduly burdensome restrictions should not be read as challenges that are too hard, but as ones that unfairly exclude significant numbers of cachers from being able to achieve it, or that set up challenges that might appeal to few cachers (less than a reasonable number). Limiting challenge to positive individual accomplishments prevents competitive situations and doesn't require cachers to enter any logs other than "Found" that they might not have otherwise entered (such as DNFs or Need Maintenance), both things TPTB probably don't feel need to be encouraged by challenges.

Edited May 1, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

But when veteran geocachers complained about how hard it is to "find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011," did Groundspeak tell them to simply ignore those types of caches? No. Instead, Groundspeak appeased the whiners by adding a guideline that forbids these types of challenge caches. That doesn't make sense to me.

You seem to feel that the guidelines that have been put in place for challenges are fundamentally different than the restrictions on other caches. You also give examples that imply that Groundspeak is just responding to experienced high number geocachers who are complaining that a challenge has taken a park and grab an turned it into something that may be challenging and not the quick smiley they would prefer.

 

I think the guidelines were developed for a very different reason. With the change to no longer allow ALRs, challenges provided a last bastion for the few cache owners who abused ALRs.

Please explain how a challenge "to find 100 multis after Dec. 31, 2011" is abusive.

 

I think the only reason why Groundspeak adopted this guideline was to appease some veteran geocachers who found such a challenge to be too difficult. Yet Groundspeak doesn't appease non-SCUBA geocachers who find it too difficult to grab a cache hidden under 50 feet of water.

 

Could it be that "the guidelines that have been put in place for challenges are fundamentally different than the restrictions on other caches?"

 

Even challenges like At least 20% of your finds are non-Traditional or Have an average terrain rating > 2.5, exclude a certain segment of geocachers (not just difficult but exclusionary)

But Groundspeak doesn't have a problem with exclusionary traditional caches or exclusionary puzzle caches or exclusionary Wherigo caches. Why is a T5 cache that involves repelling down a cliff considered non-exclusionary but a challenge that requires an average terrain rating of at least 2.5 considered exclusionary?

 

Could it be that "the guidelines that have been put in place for challenges are fundamentally different than the restrictions on other caches?"

 

Limiting challenge to positive individual accomplishments prevents competitive situations and doesn't require cachers to enter any logs other than "Found" that they might not have otherwise entered (such as DNFs or Need Maintenance), both things TPTB probably don't feel need to be encouraged by challenges.

Really? TPTB recently launched a DNF Pride Campaign. Why would they forbid challenges that encourage DNFs...unless it's to appease the non-DNFers who whine about such challenges being too difficult? Yet TPTB don't appease the many geocachers who find it too difficult to climb a mountain to grab a traditional cache.

 

Could it be that "the guidelines that have been put in place for challenges are fundamentally different than the restrictions on other caches?"

Edited May 1, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+TopShelfRob]

There's obviously a difference between encouraging people to have pride in their DNFs and to encourage them to correctly log them, and with using them as a requirement for a challenge cache which would simply encourage people to accumulate DNFs, correctly logged or not.