challenges should be changed

[+Roman!]

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.

 

There are challenges called failure to success which require you to have converted 50 DNFs to founds. Which means you must have posted a DNF before finding the cache.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

But all cache types encourage dishonest geocachers to log incorrectly in the quest for that smiley.

 

Events don't require you to sign a log. For EarthCaches and many Virtuals, you just need to obtain the appropriate answers from the Internet or from friends. With Webcams, a little Photoshopping does the trick. With Puzzles and Multis, Groundspeak says you can log a "Found It" without solving the puzzle or visiting the intermediate stages. For Traditionals, you can have a friend sign your name on the log while you're at home sitting in your armchair. Heck, most of the time, your name doesn't even need to be on the log; you can just log your online smiley and the cache owner won't bother checking the physical log.

 

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

[+lamoracke]

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.

 

There are challenges called failure to success which require you to have converted 50 DNFs to founds. Which means you must have posted a DNF before finding the cache.

 

Yes, at some point you have to assume the person is being honest, all you can do is reasonably make sure the person has completed the requirements of a challenge as an owner. Sure a person can DNF a cache falsely, but people can make false claims on found logs and in most cases, the CO will never know or not care to delete the finds...an earth cache or virtual you could never be there, one can cheat on a webcam, etc, so not sure why a DNF is fundamentally much different, folks are either going to be honest or dishonest with their finds and to some level, the CO can only control so much.

 

Either way, DNF challenges going forward are not allowed.

Edited May 1, 2014 by lamoracke

[+thebruce0]

In ALL cache types, the CO creates it with an intended manner of completing it in order to log a Find/WIGAS online. Whether that's answering questions, taking a photo, being somewhere at some time, physically finding a container, or statistically qualifying for a challenge.

 

Groundspeak has provided minimal requirements to log a find, on each of these cache types - effectively reducing the CO's right to make a subjective judgement call on whether a Find is "legitimate", primarily because none of those "intended" methods of completing the task can be proven objectively -- except for A) receiving answers in personal contact, or having a representative name recorded in the logsheet.

 

But wait, now we have challenge caches, where the intended requirements for allowing a Find Log can be checked objectively - statistics. And so, the CO has been given the right to police their challenge cache log history and validate every Find Log, as they please, against each users' statistics.

 

Can users 'cheat' the signature in the logbook? Sure. But at that point it's once again subjective, and Groundspeak will fall back on the simple rule: name-in-logsheet=find.

Can users 'cheat' statistics? Sure. But at the point it's once again subjective, so Groundspeak will fall back on the simple rule: profile statistics demonstrate success=qualification.

In either case, the user only cheats himself (and potentially the intended method the CO had created for people to experience the complete 'finding' of their cache.

 

Groundspeak wasn't creating rules to restrict geocaching experiences or favour one class of cacher over another -- they created rules to reduce conflict; to have a static fallback on which to rely when it's one person's word against another, and any remaining judgement calls and adjudications are placed on reviewers' shoulders.

 

If we were all to abide by the spirit of geocaching, there would be no conflicts, no cheating, no conflicts to resolve. The only needed rules would be definitions and classes of experiences, by which the owners of caches can design their intended experiences. Everyone would follow instructions as the CO intended; use the tools the CO intended; and have the experience the CO intended, from reading the listing to posting the Find Log online.

 

We have rules because many people (not all people) don't want to follow instructions (or think out of the box) and will find ways, or unexpected ways, to achieve the final goal - the Find Log online. Rather restrict how people play, they chiseled away at how the owner can objectively verify, with minimal conflict.

 

Challenge Caches exist because people have a way of playing and enjoying geocaching, and there is an objective manner by which the CO can verify that a person has had the intended experience the owner has presented. Other caches are the same: Earthcaches and Virtuals are objectively qualified when answers are sent. Webcams are objectively qualified when a photo is posted. Physical caches (regardless of means to locate the logsheet) are qualified if a representative signature is in the logsheet. That's it.

Virtuals and Webcams are even grandfathered now because there is still a level of subjectivity in the CO judging whether answers or photos are acceptable. Earthcaches are an exception Groundspeak has makes, while they've yet removed the requirement for photos, because of the subject matter and a clear purpose.

Events are a significant exception, as there is no objective way now to determine whether an Attended Log is valid; so a judgement call is still necessary, though disputes aren't as common or significant as they could be (maybe it's just because they're a very distinct kind of 'cache listing', and not really a cache itself)

 

Point:

For new cache listings as they stand now (minus Earthcaches and Events; Virtuals and Webcams are grandfathered with their own rulesets), the owner's intended task for people in order to log a "Find" is not itself an enforceable requirement. Only objective verification is allowed -- that is, name-in-logbook, or statistical analysis. Both of which can still be fudged if a cacher really desires that smiley. But as they say, they only cheat themselves.

Groundspeak grants the CO the right to use both logsheet checking and statistical verification as requirements for the Find Log because they are not subjective judgements or unverifiable tasks (such as puzzle solving, climbing a tree, or using a Chirp)

Edited May 1, 2014 by thebruce0

[+geodarts]

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

 

Abusive? I would not use those terms. Annoying, perhaps.

 

Most of these type of restrictions that I saw were accompanied with a note that it was being done so that everyone would be on equal footing. This was annoying, because if I found the qualifying caches in my area I would have to take a very long drive, perhaps a weekend trip, to even start this kind of challenge. I was not starting from the same place as newer cachers. So most of them went on my ignore it, at least until the start date was pushed out far enough so there were sufficient number of new qualifying caches within my range. Of course if the qualifying cache needed a particular virtual, I might have been out of luck for a very long time.

 

Caches of this type were not difficult in the same sense that climbing a mountain, paddling 12 miles, climbing a tall tree with rotting branches, or using SCUBA equipment are difficult. It is not even difficult in the same sense as Jasmer challenges. The latter types are difficult because of the intrinsic nature of the cache, a factor that applies to everyone. The date restrictions were difficult (although this is not a term I would use for them) because restrictions that I saw as being arbitrary.

 

I did not whine to Groundspeak about this because the ignore list worked fine. But I am glad that the guidelines were changed. It enables me to work on completing a challenge now that I otherwise would have ignored.

[+dprovan]

Most of these type of restrictions that I saw were accompanied with a note that it was being done so that everyone would be on equal footing. This was annoying, because if I found the qualifying caches in my area I would have to take a very long drive, perhaps a weekend trip, to even start this kind of challenge. I was not starting from the same place as newer cachers.

I'm in the same boat, so I know what you're talking about and sympathize. But at the same time, this is really just the same reaction I've been complaining about on the other side: you're focused on how hard it is for you compared to other caches. Who cares? The fact is a date restriction starts you at the same point you are for your next 100 caches of any type. Yeah, you have to travel more to get caches now that you've cleared out the local caches. Yeah, that makes the challenge harder for you than it would have been earlier in your career. That's not the challenge cache's fault. Instead of worrying about the fact that it's easier for someone without many finds, why not embrace that this makes it a real challenge for you rather than demand you get to claim it for free based on your history? (Edited to add: I should clarify that I was being poetic here: it seems clear that you'd demand no such thing if it weren't in place, even though you're defending it.)

 

Not that I really object to date limits being forbidden. You call date limits arbitrary, which is absolutely true. (Although allow me to point out that it being 100 caches and them all being multis are arbitrary in exactly the same way.) But that means I have no problem with the arbitrary decision to forbid them, either.

 

I did not whine to Groundspeak about this because the ignore list worked fine. But I am glad that the guidelines were changed. It enables me to work on completing a challenge now that I otherwise would have ignored.

Exactly. I actually don't use the ignore list, so I open the ones that are unobtainable from time to time to rediscover why I'm not paying any attention to them. Normally I'm amused -- or annoyed when I'm in a bad mode -- by seeing them again. One in particular gets me every time: 11/11/11 Challenge which sounds like something straightforward, so every few months I forget and open it again to discover that one of the 11's is the number of different cache types which makes it basically impossible even before I get to the other restrictions.

 

On the other hand, once or twice I've opened a challenge cache I wrote off long ago to discover that I've gotten very close to qualifying just through the course of time. I have to admit, that's a pretty cool feeling.

Edited May 1, 2014 by dprovan

[+CanadianRockies]

Most of these type of restrictions that I saw were accompanied with a note that it was being done so that everyone would be on equal footing. This was annoying, because if I found the qualifying caches in my area I would have to take a very long drive, perhaps a weekend trip, to even start this kind of challenge. I was not starting from the same place as newer cachers.

Few, if any, challenges put everyone on equal footing. A Jasmer challenge generally will be much easier for geocachers who frequently travel. "Find 25 Wherigo caches" generally will be much easier for geocachers with certain devices. "Attend 100 events" generally will be much easier for urban geocachers. That's just the nature of challenges.

 

As you noted, one good way to approach challenge caches is to take on the challenges that interest you the most and to ignore the ones that might annoy you.

 

If I find it annoying to collect lots of geological information to answer EarthCache questions, do you think Groundspeak would change their guidelines to limit such questions to one per EarthCache? Of course not. Groundspeak would simply suggest to me that I can ignore EarthCaches with multiple questions. As well they should. But that's not Groundspeak's reaction when it comes to certain types of challenge caches.

 

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

[+tozainamboku]

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.

One issue with guidelines, as fizzymagic will tell you, is that they are often using as ax instead of a scalpel. It would be very difficult to have a guideline that only effects the most abusive ALRs. Instead TPTB look at specific restrictions on challenges that were most likely to be on abusive caches.

 

Clearly setting a date in the past for finding caches excludes new cachers who weren't playing the game in the past. It even excludes veteran caches who weren't trying accomplish the challenge and so they hadn't completed it by that date.

 

Setting that challenges could only count finds after a certain date are problematic for another reason. These challenges are more like FTF competitions. The purpose of the restriction is to have everyone start with a blank slate and then whoever finishes first can be FTF on the challenge cache. If, in fact, challenges are supposed to for individual geocaching accomplishments then there isn't a good reason to tell someone who has already attained that goal, or has a good start toward attaining that goal, that must start over.

 

There may be other reasons to specify certain found dates, but in general, Groundspeak considers restrictions on found dates to be unduly burdesome (i.e. abusive).

 

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?

 

While challenges can be difficult, they should not require that cachers stop finding other caches or alter their geocaching habits. You can say that if a cacher doesn't want to give up finding their caches or alter their habits they can always ignore a challenge that requires this.

 

There may be a resonable number of geocachers who already avoid low terrain caches or who only find puzzle caches, but TPTB may have concluded that this restriction doesn't just make a difficult challenge but that it actually limits the appeal and attainability to a very specific group.

 

Since challenges are an exception to the ALR rule, TPTB have decided to try to limit challenges that are specifically targeted to certain groups (or that specifically exclude certain groups).

 

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.

You do understand the concept of an April Fools joke?

 

In any case there is a difference from encouraging people to log DNFs and from telling someone that if they log their DNFs they can find a cache. Again it may be using a ax.

 

Limiting challenges to something that is easily verifiable by looking at the found logs prevents all sorts of challenges where the cache owner is the one deciding what counts or not. You could simply count the number of DNFs that someone has logged, but there is no easy way to get the DNF logs of anyone but your own. And there will be all sorts of disputes over how much to you actually have to look before you can DNF something. Can you sit at home a couch potato log DNFs? How would anyone be able to verify that you didn't?

[+tozainamboku]

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

No. The have same flaw as all the other restrictions - that Groundspeak has done a terrible job of explaining the rationale for them.

 

Most of us can figure out the rationale for not having caches placed near elementary or secondary schools, or on highway bridges. We can even figure out why caches aren't buried. Most people think they understand why there is a saturation guideline (though most people have it wrong).

 

When it comes to restrictions on ALRs, virtuals, EarthCaches, challenge caches, puzzles, bonus caches, etc. we are left to speculate. If we don't agree with the guidelines we come up with rationale that someone else complained and Groundspeak caved to the pressure. If we agree with the guideline, then we believe the rationale is that someone was abusing the privelege of creating a certain type of cache and Groundspeak had no choice but to add restrictions.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

These challenges are more like FTF competitions. The purpose of the restriction is to have everyone start with a blank slate and then whoever finishes first can be FTF on the challenge cache....

 

There may be other reasons to specify certain found dates...

I seriously doubt a major reason why someone would go to the trouble of creating a challenge cache would be to set up some type of one-time FTF competition. If that were true, then most of these date restrictions would be removed as soon as the first find was logged.

 

Back before the guideline changes, I created an Alphanumeric Title challenge that restricted finds to those after April 17, 2010. That date restriction still remains. Why?

 

Because I enjoy challenges where I actually have to do more than search through my finds list and check off the caches that already fulfill the requirements. I had fun going out of my way to find some unusual letter/digit caches. And I hoped others might enjoy that same type of experience.

 

...in general, Groundspeak considers restrictions on found dates to be unduly burdesome (i.e. abusive).

bur·den·some - "difficult to carry out or fulfill; taxing."

 

a·bu·sive - "engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty."

 

Many non-SCUBA geocachers find it burdensome to find caches under 50 feet of water. But Groundspeak simply tells them to ignore these types of caches. But when it comes to challenge caches, Groundspeak appeases the veterans who whine about how burdensome it is to find caches after a certain date.

 

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

[+CanadianRockies]

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?

There may be a resonable number of geocachers who already avoid low terrain caches or who only find puzzle caches, but TPTB may have concluded that this restriction doesn't just make a difficult challenge but that it actually limits the appeal and attainability to a very specific group.

But outside of challenge caches, Groundspeak doesn't seem to have a problem with caches that limit their appeal and attainability to a very specific group. For example, those geocachers who have the technical climbing skills to repel down cliffs. Or those who have the SCUBA skills to find caches under 50 feet of water. Or those who can travel to the International Space Station. (In fact, Groundspeak actually celebrated this last group.)

 

Since challenges are an exception to the ALR rule, TPTB have decided to try to limit challenges that are specifically targeted to certain groups (or that specifically exclude certain groups).

In other words, "the guidelines that have been put in place for challenges are fundamentally different than the restrictions on other caches."

[+tozainamboku]

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.

These challenges are more like FTF competitions. The purpose of the restriction is to have everyone start with a blank slate and then whoever finishes first can be FTF on the challenge cache....

 

There may be other reasons to specify certain found dates...

I seriously doubt a major reason why someone would go to the trouble of creating a challenge cache would be to set up some type of one-time FTF competition. If that were true, then most of these date restrictions would be removed as soon as the first find was logged.

 

Back before the guideline changes, I created an Alphanumeric Title challenge that restricted finds to those after April 17, 2010. That date restriction still remains. Why?

 

Because I enjoy challenges where I actually have to do more than search through my finds list and check off the caches that already fulfill the requirements. I had fun going out of my way to find some unusual letter/digit caches. And I hoped others might enjoy that same type of experience.

I will accept that you were motivated to restrict your challenge to caches found after a certain date because you intended to have people have the experience of finding A,B,C caches from scratch. I can see that for some people, starting on a goal from scratch is a different experience than only having to document an accomplishment that you already have done.

 

As I said, guidelines are a ax. The reviewer can't tell if you are simply trying to make the challenge about finding caches from scratch or if you are placing a competition to see you will do this first. They can't always tell if the number of available caches is reasonable for someone who as already found many of the caches. They certainly don't know how you may propose to deal with people who change the dates on logs to claim your challenge. And there is the question of whether such a restriction even accomplishes your goals. What if I move to Calgary and see your challenge? I've probably qualified for it already. Are you going to change the requirements to caches found after April 17, 2010 or after you move to Calgary?

 

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

Ain't nuthin' I can say to change your mind if that's what you think. See my previous post.

[+CanadianRockies]

In any case there is a difference from encouraging people to log DNFs and from telling someone that if they log their DNFs they can find a cache. Again it may be using a ax.

It certainly seems to me that "telling someone that if they log their DNFs they can find a cache" is one way to encourage people to log DNFs. What am I missing here?

 

Limiting challenges to something that is easily verifiable by looking at the found logs prevents all sorts of challenges where the cache owner is the one deciding what counts or not. You could simply count the number of DNFs that someone has logged, but there is no easy way to get the DNF logs of anyone but your own.

But there is an easy way. All the grandfathered DNF challenges I've seen simply require the finder to post a list of the GCCodes for the caches they DNFed and the dates they DNFed those caches.

 

And there will be all sorts of disputes over how much to you actually have to look before you can DNF something. Can you sit at home a couch potato log DNFs? How would anyone be able to verify that you didn't?

As thebruce0 explained earlier in Post #354, most challenge cache owners simply trust finders to log honestly. But that's also true for owners of EarthCaches, Virtuals, events, and even traditionals. How do you know that my buddy didn't simply sign my name on your traditional cache's log while I sat at home and couch-potato logged my "Found It?" How does an EarthCache owner know I didn't sit on my sofa and have a friend email me the appropriate answers?

[+CanadianRockies]

As I said, guidelines are a ax. The reviewer can't tell if you are simply trying to make the challenge about finding caches from scratch or if you are placing a competition to see you will do this first.

Nor can the reviewer tell if I placed my traditional cache simply to create an FTF competition. And even if I omit the date restriction on my challenge cache, it still will cause an FTF competition.

 

FTF competitions will occur regardless of whether the cache is a traditional or a challenge. If Groundspeak wants to swing their ax, then all I ask is that they swing it at traditionals as well as challenges.

 

They certainly don't know how you may propose to deal with people who change the dates on logs to claim your challenge.

The same way I deal with people who have their buddies sign traditional cache logs while they sit at home logging their armchair smileys. I trust them to log accurately.

 

What if I move to Calgary and see your challenge? I've probably qualified for it already.

Unlikely. All the qualifying caches have to be found in Alberta. So far, you haven't logged any Alberta smileys. So, you get to enjoy the experience from scratch as well.

Edited May 1, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+Mudfrog]

 

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.

 

You're right that most tend to be biased towards people who have alot of finds under their belt. On the otherhand, there are a few out there where a new cacher may have an advantage. My Milestones of a Different Type challenge is usually much easier for new cachers.

[+The_Incredibles_]

An interesting thread. I have gone through and read most of it tonight. Too bad it went off-topic after about page 1.

 

I was hoping for the discussion to be focused on Challenges which indirectly encourage people to hide new caches (such as those based on cache names) and whether or not these meet the guidelines and/or should be allowed.

 

Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

 

I guess I'll have to try again in a month or so.

Edited May 2, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+lamoracke]

I still say every cache listed could be construed to help a challenge...you mention the more obvious ones.

 

Here is an obvious one.

 

A challenge, almost impossible to qualify for randomly unless you are in the area, I have almost no qualifiers for it.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4EHTE_kelownas-challenge-bear-72-ocf3?guid=dd886805-a1f9-42ad-a125-6aa578cadfc8

 

However, there is a group of 20 caches about 30 miles south almost picture perfect to use for it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC48XQ1_zinfandel?guid=a1db3457-0a68-45c3-b4b2-eb043452ce90

 

Well, actually in this case, it seems the challenge was created due to this block of puzzle caches, but either way, its the chicken or the egg argument...

 

Any cache could be construed as a challenge cache enabler. The example this thread mentioned about the 100 multis. Could folks be listing more multis to help with a challenge? Could folks be listing caches to help with Fizzy? Could caches be listed to help find 100 letterboxes by listing a letterbox in the area? I have seen folks list caches to help folks keep their streaks going. I know some folks working on a challenge where you need a puzzle a day for a month. Would a new puzzle be listed to help? Maybe? Maybe not.

 

I have seen many caches listed for challenge caches, I can probably show tons of examples. Yes, they do exist, some bleedingly obviously, some subtle. Some I think are well intended, like putting caches in a Delorme grid.

 

Why do you think its a bad thing? Yes, if someone lists a challenge because they think its a clever idea to do 50 animals and then someone lists 45 "animal" caches in LPCs at every Walgreens in the area, that would seem to deflate the challenge, but unless you eliminate all challenge caches, not sure how you would stop this. Some folks really like the title challenges. Personally I like ones more where you have to explore like this one...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4P2YH_i-lighthouses-challenge?guid=47385d5b-5c58-4b41-8510-d54e4db149f6

 

But even this challenge could be modified by folks listing easier to access or find caches at these lighthouses. The vast majority of challenge caches are going to have listed caches affect them.

Edited May 2, 2014 by lamoracke

[+Crow-T-Robot]

An interesting thread. I have gone through and read most of it tonight. Too bad it went off-topic after about page 1.

 

I was hoping for the discussion to be focused on Challenges which indirectly encourage people to hide new caches (such as those based on cache names) and whether or not these meet the guidelines and/or should be allowed.

 

Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

 

I guess I'll have to try again in a month or so.

 

I think the appropriate wording to focus on is "strongly encourage". We know you cannot require new caches to be placed but what about "encouraging" them? Take a challenge that is based on cache names starting with letters of the alphabet. Let's say there is only one cache that starts with the letter Q within reasonable driving distance. So, someone sees the challenge cache and thinks to themselves "I should hide another cache that starts with the letter Q because the other might get archived or go missing, etc".

 

Now, the challenge cache itself doesn't say anything about hiding new caches but the existance of this cache has now influenced someone to create a new cache that starts with the letter Q. But, it did not "strongly encourage" it. Indirectly, sure. But, that's no different than when someone first created a tube cache that you have to pour water into to get the container to float to the top. Someone did that cache and thought "How cool! I'm going to create one of these as well". As long as the Challenge CO isn't asking or telling others to create caches, I don't see that any Challenge is encouraging the placement of new caches. At least not directly. And you can't really regulate "indirectly".

[+TopShelfRob]

An interesting thread. I have gone through and read most of it tonight. Too bad it went off-topic after about page 1.

 

I was hoping for the discussion to be focused on Challenges which indirectly encourage people to hide new caches (such as those based on cache names) and whether or not these meet the guidelines and/or should be allowed.

 

Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

 

I guess I'll have to try again in a month or so.

 

I apologize if my input initially in opposition of challenge caches in general is what hijacked the thread in the first place.

 

If you had focused the initial post on just #1 (that the named-themed challenges lead to encouragement of new cache placements) and left out #2 (% of caches in certain area), perhaps we wouldn't have so easily hijacked it into a general anti-challenge cache discussion. Again, for my part in that, I'm sorry.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

If you had focused the initial post on just #1 (that the named-themed challenges lead to encouragement of new cache placements) and left out #2 (% of caches in certain area), perhaps we wouldn't have so easily hijacked it into a general anti-challenge cache discussion. Again, for my part in that, I'm sorry.

 

No worries. I found the discussion quite interesting and I'm sure many others did too. And yes, I realize now I might have phrased things differently.

[+TopShelfRob]

No worries. I found the discussion quite interesting and I'm sure many others did too.

I found it interesting, too... up until the part where I realized I was mostly wrong.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I still say every cache listed could be construed to help a challenge...you mention the more obvious ones.

 

Here is an obvious one.

 

A challenge, almost impossible to qualify for randomly unless you are in the area, I have almost no qualifiers for it.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4EHTE_kelownas-challenge-bear-72-ocf3?guid=dd886805-a1f9-42ad-a125-6aa578cadfc8

 

However, there is a group of 20 caches about 30 miles south almost picture perfect to use for it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC48XQ1_zinfandel?guid=a1db3457-0a68-45c3-b4b2-eb043452ce90

 

Well, actually in this case, it seems the challenge was created due to this block of puzzle caches, but either way, its the chicken or the egg argument...

 

Any cache could be construed as a challenge cache enabler. The example this thread mentioned about the 100 multis. Could folks be listing more multis to help with a challenge? Could folks be listing caches to help with Fizzy? Could caches be listed to help find 100 letterboxes by listing a letterbox in the area? I have seen folks list caches to help folks keep their streaks going. I know some folks working on a challenge where you need a puzzle a day for a month. Would a new puzzle be listed to help? Maybe? Maybe not.

 

Canadians are the best. That grizzly bear challenge and the lighthouse one are fabulous. I would totally get into challenges if I had something like that in my area...The wine one looks cool, even though it is based on cache names.

I officially withdraw my objections. Plus I may be moving to a new city soon.

 

You made a very good point which is that it would be really hard to figure out which challenge cache owners are intending for new caches to be published as a result of their challenge. Unless they state it explicitly, how would you know for sure? I can see why reviewers might not want to go there.

[+The_Incredibles_]

No worries. I found the discussion quite interesting and I'm sure many others did too.

I found it interesting, too... up until the part where I realized I was mostly wrong.

 

It takes a big man to say that.

Edited May 2, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+TopShelfRob]

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.

...mostly wrong. LOL (oops, I see you changed it)

[+The_Incredibles_]

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.

...mostly wrong. LOL (oops, I see you changed it)

 

You caught me. I didn't want to say you were 'wrong', though, because I agreed with lots of what you had to say.

 

On a philosophical note, is anybody ever really 'wrong'? We all form opinions from the experiences we've had. Since we've all had different experiences, it is reasonable to expect different perspectives.

Edited May 2, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+Roman!]

It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.

...mostly wrong. LOL (oops, I see you changed it)

 

You caught me. I didn't want to say you were 'wrong', though, because I agreed with lots of what you had to say.

 

On a philosophical note, is anybody ever really 'wrong'? We all form opinions from the experiences we've had. Since we've all had different experiences, it is reasonable to expect different perspectives.

 

Just remember, those of you who think you know everything really annoy those of us that do.

[+frinklabs]

it would be really hard to figure out which challenge cache owners are intending for new caches to be published as a result of their challenge. Unless they state it explicitly, how would you know for sure?

 

Here's a challenge cache that was designed to specifically for-sure prevent new caches to be published to meet its requirements:

 

Tequila: 81 Proof

 

(the cache is PMO so don't click the link if you are flying under the audit log radar)

 

It is a temporal Fizzy -- only caches published on or before its publication date are eligible, and was thankfully grandfathered in when such restrictions were disallowed.

 

It is the first challenge for whose requirements I consciously started to target my finds, and (through attrition) becomes more challenging as time goes on.

 

Even if the search lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

An interesting thread. I have gone through and read most of it tonight. Too bad it went off-topic after about page 1.

 

I was hoping for the discussion to be focused on Challenges which indirectly encourage people to hide new caches (such as those based on cache names) and whether or not these meet the guidelines and/or should be allowed.

 

Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

 

I guess I'll have to try again in a month or so.

 

I also see caches being placed with grossly incorrect Diff/Terr, likely to satisfy some challenge. It seems there is a new one locally where you need to find, over 5 days, caches whose Diff/Terr match the date. i.e. A 5/1 on May 1st - 5/5 on May 5th. An event was published for May 1st with a Difficulty of 5 (no, the event wasn't that hard to find).

 

Challanges aren't much of a challenge if this sort of thing goes on.

[team tisri]

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?"

 

A T5 cache is one you can either do or not do and no other caches are affected. If you have to maintain an average T rating of 2.5 or more it discourages the finder from finding easy caches.

 

It's similar to the reasoning that I think was further up this thread where I was pondering a challenge that required 100 consecutive finds of Small or larger caches. A single micro or nano would break the streak, and so apparently it wouldn't be allowed.

 

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?"

 

The trouble with so many challenges is that it's impossible to actually verify them. It's easy enough to say "100 finds with no DNFs" simply encourages people to stop logging DNF against anything even if it's obviously missing, but "100 finds in a day" is just as impossible to verify because anyone who found 100 caches within a fairly short time could log them all on the same day and the chances are nobody would know. Filling the calendar is easy to cheat as long as you've been caching a year or more, filling the D/T grid is easy to cheat if you armchair log a few caches and maybe host an event with a random rating to fill the tricky spots. It can't be that hard to find a nano listed somewhere and claim a find on it, figuring the owner is unlikely to ever check. Caches that require a certain number of countries to be visited are fairly easy to cheat as well. Have a look in the areas of interest, find a micro that has an NM log on it, then log it and comment the log sheet was damp. Chances are if it's got an old NM on it the owner isn't maintaining it so the cheat won't be discovered.

 

As with so much else, the value for people who play the game as it was intended doesn't really need a smiley at the end of it, and the people who cheat won't be stopped by a challenge that seems difficult.

[+ChileHead]

I was hoping for the discussion to be focused on Challenges which indirectly encourage people to hide new caches (such as those based on cache names) and whether or not these meet the guidelines and/or should be allowed.

 

Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

 

 

Most challenge caches have the potential of encouraging cachers to place new caches in order to meet the challenge guideline. Whether it be a cache name, a D/T rating, having a set of attributes, etc ...

 

If I were, for example, so vain to say "You must find 20 caches with a chile pepper name in their title" before you can log my challenge, there is nothing preventing somebody from littering a parking lot with caches named "Habanero", "Serrano", "Jalapeno", "Ghost", etc ... And as cache owner, if I don't like it, there is nothing I can do about it.

 

If I were to put out a challenge that required you to find a cache with all of the following attributes: night, scuba, climbing, park & grab, then there is nothing stopping somebody from putting a cache 0.10mi from mine with all those attributes just to spite the stupid challenge.

 

Does it happen? Probably. Is it a problem? Don't know, don't really care. Just a flaw with challenges that we have to live with.

[+CanadianRockies]

It is a temporal Fizzy -- only caches published on or before its publication date are eligible, and was thankfully grandfathered in when such restrictions were disallowed.

I know there's a restriction on "Date Found," but I've never noticed a restriction on "Date Published."

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

If I were, for example, so vain to say "You must find 20 caches with a chile pepper name in their title" before you can log my challenge, there is nothing preventing somebody from littering a parking lot with caches named "Habanero", "Serrano", "Jalapeno", "Ghost", etc ... And as cache owner, if I don't like it, there is nothing I can do about it.

 

You can archive the Challenge.

[+frinklabs]

If I were, for example, so vain to say "You must find 20 caches with a chile pepper name in their title" before you can log my challenge, there is nothing preventing somebody from littering a parking lot with caches named "Habanero", "Serrano", "Jalapeno", "Ghost", etc ... And as cache owner, if I don't like it, there is nothing I can do about it.

 

You can archive the Challenge.

 

It seems you could also temporally restrict the eligible caches -- no caches published after the challenge cache's publish date allowed.

 

I know there's a restriction on "Date Found," but I've never noticed a restriction on "Date Published."

[+CanadianRockies]

If I were, for example, so vain to say "You must find 20 caches with a chile pepper name in their title" before you can log my challenge, there is nothing preventing somebody from littering a parking lot with caches named "Habanero", "Serrano", "Jalapeno", "Ghost", etc ... And as cache owner, if I don't like it, there is nothing I can do about it.

You can archive the Challenge.

It seems you could also temporally restrict the eligible caches -- no caches published after the challenge cache's publish date allowed.

However, that wouldn't prevent people from changing the names of previously existing caches. On the plus side, though, those already existing caches wouldn't "inevitably" be lame caches.

[+frinklabs]

If I were, for example, so vain to say "You must find 20 caches with a chile pepper name in their title" before you can log my challenge, there is nothing preventing somebody from littering a parking lot with caches named "Habanero", "Serrano", "Jalapeno", "Ghost", etc ... And as cache owner, if I don't like it, there is nothing I can do about it.

You can archive the Challenge.

It seems you could also temporally restrict the eligible caches -- no caches published after the challenge cache's publish date allowed.

However, that wouldn't prevent people from changing the names of previously existing caches. On the plus side, though, those already existing caches wouldn't "inevitably" be lame caches.

 

Excellent point. It is an issue with the Tequila 81 challenge when eligible caches' D/T are changed. The CO is doing an excellent job of tracking what were the original D/Ts of the eligible caches for their challenge, and arbitrating when required.

[+lamoracke]

It is a temporal Fizzy -- only caches published on or before its publication date are eligible, and was thankfully grandfathered in when such restrictions were disallowed.

I know there's a restriction on "Date Found," but I've never noticed a restriction on "Date Published."

 

Is not that the reality of some Fizzy caches, especially the original ones? Isn't the original British Columbia fizzy only allowing cache publication dates like 2008 and below? The original California fizzy is like 2007? I could go look and get the exact details but I think that is correct or close enough.

 

Our Washington Fizzy has a publication date a little farther out but it was further out because it only allowed finds in Washington State and she (the then CO) went through all the available caches in the state and pushed up the publication date if there was not a cache or two to use available. CO's do this to try and prevent newer potentially false caches from being used. I certainly have seen entire trails with all the D/T combos in a row on a walking trail just to fill in the grids.

Edited May 2, 2014 by lamoracke

[+CanadianRockies]

It is a temporal Fizzy -- only caches published on or before its publication date are eligible, and was thankfully grandfathered in when such restrictions were disallowed.

I know there's a Groundspeak guideline restriction on "Date Found," but I've never noticed a Groundspeak guideline restriction on "Date Published."

Is not that the reality of some Fizzy caches, especially the original ones?

I added some words to clarify things.

[+lamoracke]

It is a temporal Fizzy -- only caches published on or before its publication date are eligible, and was thankfully grandfathered in when such restrictions were disallowed.

I know there's a Groundspeak guideline restriction on "Date Found," but I've never noticed a Groundspeak guideline restriction on "Date Published."

Is not that the reality of some Fizzy caches, especially the original ones?

I added some words to clarify things.

 

Then no, I do not see that language anywhere in there to block that. Course, one would have to prove the challenge is possible I imagine, but I see no limitations on geocache publication date in itself.

[+dprovan]

Now, the challenge cache itself doesn't say anything about hiding new caches but the existance of this cache has now influenced someone to create a new cache that starts with the letter Q. But, it did not "strongly encourage" it. Indirectly, sure.

No, sorry, I don't think it's reasonable to say that they even indirectly encourage new caches. In general, hides that help qualify for a challenge are a subversion of the challenge that the CO wouldn't appreciate and, in fact, would want to discourage. After all, the CO laid out a challenge based on the existing caches, so when these new caches are planted making it easier to satisfy the requirement, they undermine that original intent.

 

Besides, as I said before, new caches that would never have been planted are a local problem. Around here, the decision to place a cache rarely has anything to do with a challenge, only the decision to name the cache in a particular way. About the worst that happens is that challenge caches inspire placing caches that tend to be at or above average quality. In my area, at least, challenge caches don't often encourage junk caches.

 

(I actually thought this connection in the OP was remarkably weak and said so in my first response, which is why I didn't think it warranted further discussion. And that's even before we get to the fact that it's an argument based flat out on the invalid justification of "I don't like it, so it should be forbidden".)

[team tisri]

Now, the challenge cache itself doesn't say anything about hiding new caches but the existance of this cache has now influenced someone to create a new cache that starts with the letter Q. But, it did not "strongly encourage" it. Indirectly, sure.

No, sorry, I don't think it's reasonable to say that they even indirectly encourage new caches. In general, hides that help qualify for a challenge are a subversion of the challenge that the CO wouldn't appreciate and, in fact, would want to discourage. After all, the CO laid out a challenge based on the existing caches, so when these new caches are planted making it easier to satisfy the requirement, they undermine that original intent.

 

This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. If someone places a challenge cache that requires finding caches with certain parameters it creates an incentive to place new caches with those parameters to make qualifying for the challenge cache easier. Whether that was the challenge owner's intention or not (and I agree entirely that it's probably safe to assume it was not), the incentive is created.

 

Besides, as I said before, new caches that would never have been planted are a local problem. Around here, the decision to place a cache rarely has anything to do with a challenge, only the decision to name the cache in a particular way. About the worst that happens is that challenge caches inspire placing caches that tend to be at or above average quality. In my area, at least, challenge caches don't often encourage junk caches.

 

I guess it would depend on the local caching population. If you need to find a cache beginning with each letter of the alphabet I'd be surprised if you didn't have a sudden influx of lame micros called Quickly, Xylophone, Jambalaya, Kundalini etc, to fill in local gaps.

 

(I actually thought this connection in the OP was remarkably weak and said so in my first response, which is why I didn't think it warranted further discussion. And that's even before we get to the fact that it's an argument based flat out on the invalid justification of "I don't like it, so it should be forbidden".)

 

I don't look to forbid things I dislike, but when things distort the game I will question whether they are worth getting rid of. Personally I think challenge caches do distort the game and serve no useful purpose. If I wanted to ban the things I dislike I'd turn my sights onto caches up trees and other hard-to-access locations because I'm too fat gravitationally challenged to stand much chance of ever reaching them.

[+CanadianRockies]

Besides, as I said before, new caches that would never have been planted are a local problem. Around here, the decision to place a cache rarely has anything to do with a challenge, only the decision to name the cache in a particular way. About the worst that happens is that challenge caches inspire placing caches that tend to be at or above average quality. In my area, at least, challenge caches don't often encourage junk caches.

But the OP said cache-name challenges "inevitably" lead to lame cache placements. Putting that word in bold automatically makes the statement true, doesn't it?

[+dprovan]

This is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences.

I suppose you could say that, in the same way you could say theft is the unintended consequence of capitalism. Not much of an argument against capitalism.

 

If someone places a challenge cache that requires finding caches with certain parameters it creates an incentive to place new caches with those parameters to make qualifying for the challenge cache easier.

The better word would be "temptation", not incentive.

 

I guess it would depend on the local caching population.

Exactly. So since my population doesn't have this problem, I object to banning a type of challenge cache my population likes in order to avoid triggering this problem in populations that don't know how to control themselves.

 

If you need to find a cache beginning with each letter of the alphabet I'd be surprised if you didn't have a sudden influx of lame micros called Quickly, Xylophone, Jambalaya, Kundalini etc, to fill in local gaps.

As I already said, we do have caches like this, and no such influx of trash caches has happened. I think that's because the COs that would be tempted to hide a trash cache don't generally pay any attention to challenge caches. But it doesn't hurt that the standards around here are pretty high, so not many people hide trash caches for any reason, and people finding trash caches complain about them.

 

Personally I think challenge caches do distort the game and serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry your area doesn't handle it well. In my area, challenge caches enhance the game by increasing the ways cachers and caches relate to one another. And their purpose is that they are one more layer to geocaching enjoyed by many.

 

But the OP said cache-name challenges "inevitably" lead to lame cache placements. Putting that word in bold automatically makes the statement true, doesn't it?

It might make it true, but it also makes it a vacuous argument, so I read the statement as saying that they lead to lame caches regularly and without fail, since that's the logical statement of the problem that would support the suggested solution.

[+tozainamboku]

Besides, as I said before, new caches that would never have been planted are a local problem. Around here, the decision to place a cache rarely has anything to do with a challenge, only the decision to name the cache in a particular way. About the worst that happens is that challenge caches inspire placing caches that tend to be at or above average quality. In my area, at least, challenge caches don't often encourage junk caches.

But the OP said cache-name challenges "inevitably" lead to lame cache placements. Putting that word in bold automatically makes the statement true, doesn't it?

So the OP is guilty of hyperbole. Neither that, nor the fact dprovan hasn't seen any lame caches placed to make a challenge easier doesn't remove the fact that it isnt hard, in most areas, to find examples of caches placed to help people meet challenges. It's somewhat harder to decide if these caches are lame or if the hiders wouldn't have placed the cache anyway, and the challenge really only affected what name they gave it.

 

As I've said, I actually prefer challenges like alphanumeric cache names, or caches with a "red", "white", or "blue" in the name, (or for the Canadians caches with "maple" or "leaf" in the name), to some of the traditional challenges. But the traditional sort of challenges of filling areas on a map or rectangles in a grid, might certainly appeal to "a resonable number", and may encorage people to cache outside of their normal comfort zone.

 

I still believe that you should not be asking people to do tasks that are unduly burdensome or that would require people not just to cache outside their comfort zone but to stop finding the kinds of caches they like to find just to be able to complete a challenge. While we can accept some caches that "not everyone is able to do", when you create a genre of caches where for some people the point sees to be to make the cache as exclusive as possible, I believe that restrictions are reasonable.

 

There is only one cache in space. It is obviously a "joke" cache and not an example to follow. TPTB probably don't have to worry about someone copying the ISS cache and then soon having to deal with hundreds of them.

 

But there have been challenges that were probably meant as jokes. The original hider makes such silly far-fetched requirements that they know there will be only a few people who might ever attain that goal. The reviewer may say "That cache isn't attainable by a reasonable number of cachers". The jokester appeals and shows a list of a few cachers who happened to have attained the goal. So the cache is publish. After all you can ignore this challenge. Now, unlike a cache is space, that actually takes a great deal of money and effor to place, anyone can create a silly challenge. We soon have reviewers spending time publishing caches that few people will find. So TPTB have created guidelines to restrict or limit certain challenges. CanadianRockies likes to say that this is fundamentally different than guideline for other caches.

 

Of course, you can hide a cache that is a difficult puzzle or one that is hard to get to, so few people find these. But so far we don't see a lot of people trying to out do one another by making their caches more difficult and exculsive.

 

Placing a high-terrain is like placing a cache in space. The hider actually has to place it there. But in this case a reviewer may also question whether the hider has a maintenace plan. Requiring a challenge owner to have completed their challenge isn't really much different.

 

Placing a puzzle that is so hard no one can solve it, is easier. But here the guidelines have been changed. Reviewers can now ask the hider how the puzzle is solved. I don't know if the reviewer can then say that the puzzle is too hard. I suspect that reviewer may require that the cache owner include some hint if they think it would be impossible to find the solution otherwise. It isn't much different than asking a challenge owner to remove some unduly burdensome restriction.

 

I've also seen puzzles get archived if they haven't been solved and the cache owner is no longer active, or the same for any difficult cache not found in a long time without an active owner. I would suspect that no matter how difficult or easy a challenge is, if the owner is no longer monitoring their cache and verifying that people actual met challenge that it would be archived; though I suspect that someone will say that if a traditional with an inactive owner is allowed to stay, that a challenge with an inactive owner can stay since the finders will still post their qualification and although no one will delete logs, at least the community can see if the WIGAS is legitimate or not. The issue with a challenge with limited appeal, is whether anyone is actually paying attention.

Edited May 2, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+TopShelfRob]

This is just my 2 cents for what's it's worth, but I don't think it should matter if a challenge cache merely encourages lame cache placements. Groundspeak outlawed caches that require people to place caches on the grounds that, anything that leads to people to hiding caches (that they might not ordinarily hide) could tend to lead to lame (or likely to be unmaintained) caches. Even if some of those caches might not be lame or unmaintained, on the whole requiring people to hide caches to meet a requirement could lead to careless or unmaintained caches. Even if a particular cache hidden for that reason may indeed be the best cache hidden ever, that doesn't make a challenge cache that requires someone to hide a particular number caches a good idea.

 

However if you say that because a challenge cache requires a person to find caches beginning with letters A-Z, additional unintended caches that begin with rare letters like Q, X, and Z may get made. Is that the same problem as a cache that absolutely requires caches to get placed?

 

I think it is only a bad thing from the standpoint that if it drastically changes the level of difficulty that the challenge cache owner intended when they made the challenge, and for that concern the challenge cache owner has the option of archiving the challenge cache. But does that make those new Q, X, and Z caches necessarily bad caches? Caches spawned from a cache placement requirment challenge are considered a bad idea because it might lead to people placing more caches than they intend on maintaining. But I don't think there is any reason that such a Q, X, or Z cache might be any less likely to be maintained than any other cache.

 

To say it's a bad idea just because it merely may lead to lame caches being placed, well those will be placed anyway.

 

The only thing those two type of cache restrictions (already not allowing cache-placing challenges, and proposing to not allow A-Z challenge caches because they might lead to such caches being placed) have in common is that neither one guarantees that all caches placed in response will be "lame", just whether or not it is more likely.

 

A cache-placement challenge cache guarantees that more possibly unmaintained caches will be placed, therefore it is considered a bad idea, however no matter how much more likely an A-Z challenge may encourage Q,X and Z caches to be placed, since they don't require it, I think getting rid of them would be unneccessary and do more harm to the people who like A-Z challenge caches, than it would do good for the lame caches it would prevent.

 

Again, if they ruin the CO's challenge, he can always archive the challenge.

 

Also that problem shouldn't need a blanket restriction -- I suspect that when a cache like this one is being reviewed:

 

4 These Images Will Make You Crazy

 

which has:

...why the number 4 in the title? There aren't enough caches that start with numbers around here and some folks need number caches for challenge purposes. :-)

...in the description, perhaps a reviewer guideline about whether publishing caches that blantanly admit they are only being placed for challenge fulfillments should not be published or should at least be questioned if it's a good idea. Or even choose to not publish them entirely at the reviewers discretion if they think that's why it is being placed. Or it can be debated whether or not that is even a desirable guideline. But unless the description blatantly admits like this one that that is why it is being placed, there is no way to know for sure. And this CO may have been going to place this cache anyway and only named it that for the challenge cache purpose. Does that make it a bad or lame cache? Or just a badly-named cached?

This might be a great cache that would never have been placed if not for the challenge cache that lead to the person placing it. Or it might be a lame cache and you could still say the same thing. On the whole is that a good or bad thing?

 

But no matter how good or bad such a cache might be, it still may alter the difficulty of the original challenge cache. And then that's up to the challenge cache owner if it makes him want to archive it.

 

I don't think this is a good reason, though, to outlaw all A-Z caches because they may lead to caches like these. It's the resultant caches like these that may or may not be the problem, those are the ones that should be scrutinized, and if there is a problem, those are the ones that should be reined in.

Edited May 2, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+niraD]

On a philosophical note, is anybody ever really 'wrong'? We all form opinions from the experiences we've had. Since we've all had different experiences, it is reasonable to expect different perspectives.

 

Stuart: Ooh, Sheldon, I’m afraid you couldn’t be more wrong.

 

Sheldon: More wrong? Wrong is an absolute state and not subject to gradation.

 

Stuart: Of course it is. It’s a little wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it’s very wrong to say it’s a suspension bridge.

 

(The Big Bang Theory, "The Hofstadter Isotope", s2e20)

 

I now return you to the on-topic discussion of challenge caches...

[+TopShelfRob]

Okay, not wanting to dig up this whole debate again, but this is exactly the type of suggestion that I was trying to make back in the beginning, and I think this cache illustrates a lot better what I was trying to say. (And by the way, ironicaly, I happen to qualify for this "non-challenge challenge cache" with a streak of 894 consecutive days without a find from 08/08/2007 to 01/18/2010.)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4E4AN_200-slump

 

In this cache, the CO wanted to list it as a challenge that in order to log it you had to have a "slump" of at least 200 days. Of course that is not within the guidelines of being a "positive" Geocaching-related goal, so it couldn't be approved as an official "challenge" cache. (Even though there is some wording in there still saying "...to log the cache, you must meet the qualification listed below" it is acknowledged that it is not enforcable since it isn't allowed as a challenge.) The CO made it into a puzzle cache, I guess in order to still be able to list it as a "?" type.

 

But my point being, cachers who have had a slump of that length are logging it, and mentioning so in the logs, while cachers who haven't are also able to log it as a traditional (well, in this case, a traditional puzzle cache) And everybody seems to enjoy it. The qualifiers world didn't come to an end because they didn't enjoy the exclusivity of being able to log something that others couldn't. It seems this is even better than a challenge cache, it's the "non-challenge challenge cache". Since I have "enjoyed" such a slump, I can log it as found, but if I didn't, I would not be excluded from the fun, either.

 

I don't see anyone with a "well I qualified, but since I didn't really have to qualify, what was the point in bothering to log it" type attitude. People that met the CO's (unenforceable) criteria are none-the-less still playing by the spirit the CO intended, while others that haven't met the criteria can still get their smiley. It's a win-win.

 

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, and I look forward to trying to qualify for some real challenge caches in the future. But the existence of this cache proves that my suggestion that a challenge cache that could be logged by non-qualifiers wouldn't necessarily "ruin the entire concept of challenge caches". In fact, seeing this cache now I have absolutely no desire to change or eliminate challenge caches at all, as I see that non-challenge challenge caches can (and do) co-exist side-by-side peacefully with challenge caches, it's just up to the cache owner to choose whether or not to publish their cache that way or not.

Edited May 4, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+Roman!]

Okay, not wanting to dig up this whole debate again, but this is exactly the type of suggestion that I was trying to make back in the beginning, and I think this cache illustrates a lot better what I was trying to say. (And by the way, ironicaly, I happen to qualify for this "non-challenge challenge cache" with a streak of 894 consecutive days without a find from 08/08/2007 to 01/18/2010.)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4E4AN_200-slump

 

In this cache, the CO wanted to list it as a challenge that in order to log it you had to have a "slump" of at least 200 days. Of course that is not within the guidelines of being a "positive" Geocaching-related goal, so it couldn't be approved as an official "challenge" cache. (Even though there is some wording in there still saying "...to log the cache, you must meet the qualification listed below" it is acknowledged that it is not enforcable since it isn't allowed as a challenge.) The CO made it into a puzzle cache, I guess in order to still be able to list it as a "?" type.

 

But my point being, cachers who have had a slump of that length are logging it, and mentioning so in the logs, while cachers who haven't are also able to log it as a traditional (well, in this case, a traditional puzzle cache) And everybody seems to enjoy it. The qualifiers world didn't come to an end because they didn't enjoy the exclusivity of being able to log something that others couldn't. It seems this is even better than a challenge cache, it's the "non-challenge challenge cache". Since I have "enjoyed" such a slump, I can log it as found, but if I didn't, I would not be excluded from the fun, either.

 

I don't see anyone with a "well I qualified, but since I didn't really have to qualify, what was the point in bothering to log it" type attitude. People that met the CO's (unenforceable) criteria are none-the-less still playing by the spirit the CO intended, while others that haven't met the criteria can still get their smiley. It's a win-win.

 

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, and I look forward to trying to qualify for some real challenge caches in the future. But the existence of this cache proves that my suggestion that a challenge cache that could be logged by non-qualifiers wouldn't necessarily "ruin the entire concept of challenge caches". In fact, seeing this cache now I have absolutely no desire to change or eliminate challenge caches at all, as I see that non-challenge challenge caches can (and do) co-exist side-by-side peacefully with challenge caches, it's just up to the cache owner to choose whether or not to publish their cache that way or not.

 

This just proves the challenge cache process works as it was never allowed as a challenge cache, what needs to be done is to stop publishing stupid caches, that should be your soapbox.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

I don't see anyone with a "well I qualified, but since I didn't really have to qualify, what was the point in bothering to log it" type attitude. People that met the CO's (unenforceable) criteria are none-the-less still playing by the spirit the CO intended, while others that haven't met the criteria can still get their smiley. It's a win-win.

 

This is a good example. I think if it's an enjoyable challenge, people will participate.

 

You can look at puzzle caches for many more examples. According to the rules, there is no requirement to solve the puzzle to log it as found, yet most people will because they enjoy solving puzzles. I think challenges could work the same way.

[+TopShelfRob]

This just proves the challenge cache process works as it was never allowed as a challenge cache, what needs to be done is to stop publishing stupid caches, that should be your soapbox.

Well I can't quantify what is meant as a stupid or non-stupid cache, as that is an opinion. But the fact that this particular cache was "un-publishable" as a true challenge cache turns out good for this argument, however, because it shows that a (would-be) challenge cache works just as well with the logging requirement as non-compulsory.

 

I don't happen to find this cache stupid, but then again I took time off from geocaching from 2007-2010 so I happened to qualify. I guess if you've been caching all along and have never had a "slump" streak of that long, to encourage you to go 200 days without finding a cache would be anti-thetical to the game. So you could argue that it is bad for the game and not permitted.

 

Or you could just ignore it. (Kinda also illustrates the double-standard ... a typical challenge cache that is both challenging and interesting to those with a lot of finds, but is at the moment unattainable for me with relatively few finds - those are fine, I'm told to just ignore them. But this challenge that I happen to find fun and interesting, but happens to be unattainable for someone with a lot of finds, that must be outlawed! LOL) I know, I know, it is outlawed as a true challenge because it would require someone to go 200+ days without logging a cache and that would be bad.

 

Yes, what this shows is that permissible mandatory logging requirements should be narrowly-allowed because you can't exclude too great of a percentage of the people from being able to participate or it is not open to a reasonable amount of people. But if you were to make such logging requirements enforcement optional (as they are for puzzle caches, etc.) then it opens them up to everybody because you aren't excluding those who can't or won't choose to take part.

Edited May 4, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+lamoracke]

Well, I think most of us would understand why Groundspeak would NOT want a challenge cache where you do not geocache for over 6 months. Should not be allowed. Challenges where you have to have a longer positive streak than your worst negative streak have been ok'ed, but not this one. How would I qualify for this one? Not cache for over 6 months. Sounds fun (not).