challenges should be changed

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

If these are the types of caches you enjoy, then go ahead and create one...or a dozen. Nothing in the current guidelines prevent you from adding an optional challenge to a traditional cache (or even a puzzle cache). Meanwhile, those of us who prefer challenge caches will continue to create challenge caches. Win. Win.

 

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.

Did you notice all the people who completed the optional challenge had done so "accidentally?" None of them had gone out of their way to complete the requirement. That's the disadvantage of optional challenges; they don't provide a whole lot of incentive to complete the challenges, especially the more difficult ones.

 

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.

If someone had that kind of attitude, then you'd probably have a tough time seeing it, right?

 

But why wouldn't they bother to log the cache? Just because they met the non-requirements as well as the requirements doesn't mean they cannot log the smiley. On the other hand, if they had met the 200-day-no-find streak but failed to find the physical cache, then the cache owner would have every right to delete their smiley (if they logged one).

 

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.

It's not a win for people who would have enjoyed completing the challenge but needed a bit more of an incentive to go out there and do it. They got to log the smiley, but they didn't enjoy the challenge. Nor was it a win for the cache owner who wanted to give people that bit more of an incentive to get out and do the challenge.

 

[T]he 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.

That's a very tolerant way of looking at the situation. Kudos to you.

Edited May 4, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+TopShelfRob]

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).

 

That's my point, you wouldn't have to qualify for it, because not everyone has to find every cache. Or so I've been told.

 

From my viewpoint, as being someone who did not geocache from 2007-2010, and who would qualify for to log it cache, I enjoy being able to go for it. Now I can certainly understand that someone who doesn't have a negative streak of 200 days who would have to drastically not geocache in order to qualify, and normally a cacher wouldn't want to do that (would you want to give up 200+ days of caching in order to qualify for one challenge cache? I wouldn't think so) and therefore I logically could see that Groundspeak would NOT want to encourage such a type of challenge cache.

 

However, if you are going to tell people like me, who at the moment qualify for relatively few challenge caches, when we ask about a system like I proposed where a change in rules to challenge caches that could possibly allow them to be logged by non-qualifiers, instead of complaining we "should just ignore them" and "that not everybody has to be able to get every cache", I have a hard time saying that it's not okay that such people that would have a hard time qualifying for this cache couldn't just be told the same thing.

 

But it's okay, since such a challenge cache is not within the rules, I am glad to have the opportunity to log such a cache as a non-challenge challenge cache, and I don't even mind one bit that those of you who have nowhere near a "200 day no-caches found streak" are also able to log it. That doesn't ruin my fun one bit.

Edited May 4, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+TopShelfRob]

Did you notice all the people who completed the optional challenge had done so "accidentally?" None of them had gone out of their way to complete the requirement. That's the disadvantage of optional challenges; they don't provide a whole lot of incentive to complete the challenges, especially the more difficult ones.

I wouldn't expect that anyone who would complete a streak of 200+ days of not caching would do so intentionally. But then again, that's already been addressed - that's why it's not permitted as a "true" challenge. I didn't intentionally set out to not find any caches for 200+ days either, but since I have had such a streak in the past, I would qualify for this cache, were it a permissable challenge cache. But I am not arguing that it should be, I'm just saying if it were, I don't see why people who would not qualify couldn't be told that they should just ignore it and that not everyone has to find every cache - that's what I get told.

[+frinklabs]

I don't see why people who would not qualify couldn't be told that they should just ignore it and that not everyone has to find every cache - that's what I get told.

 

That is not the only thing that is being told.

 

Me, I'd suggest (and did already) to find the cache and then post a log as a note.

[+TopShelfRob]

I don't see why people who would not qualify couldn't be told that they should just ignore it and that not everyone has to find every cache - that's what I get told.

 

That is not the only thing that is being told.

 

Me, I'd suggest (and did already) to find the cache and then post a log as a note.

...okay.... that's what I get told by some people. (fixed)

[+CanadianRockies]

Did you notice all the people who completed the optional challenge had done so "accidentally?" None of them had gone out of their way to complete the requirement. That's the disadvantage of optional challenges; they don't provide a whole lot of incentive to complete the challenges, especially the more difficult ones.

I wouldn't expect that anyone who would complete a streak of 200+ days of not caching would do so intentionally.

Precisely. That's my point.

 

One of the advantages challenge caches have over traditional caches with optional challenges is that challenge caches provide an additional incentive for people to intentionally complete an unmet challenge so they can log the cache.

 

Suppose you set up a optional-challenge traditional cache that asked people to find a cache in every county of South Carolina. Then suppose you set up a challenge cache with the same goal. I'm guessing the challenge cache would be more effective at getting people to travel around the state and enjoy a different kind of geocaching adventure.

[+tozainamboku]

Did you notice all the people who completed the optional challenge had done so "accidentally?" None of them had gone out of their way to complete the requirement. That's the disadvantage of optional challenges; they don't provide a whole lot of incentive to complete the challenges, especially the more difficult ones.

I wouldn't expect that anyone who would complete a streak of 200+ days of not caching would do so intentionally.

Precisely. That's my point.

 

One of the advantages challenge caches have over traditional caches with optional challenges is that challenge caches provide an additional incentive for people to intentionally complete an unmet challenge so they can log the cache.

Since general ALRs were banned in April 2009, TPTB have said that cache owners could still suggest tasks to be done in order to log a find online, but that these tasks must be optional. Cache owner's could no longer delete logs based on these tasks.

 

At the time the argument was made that if the tasks were fun and added to experience of finding that cache people would do them. Aside from debating if this is true for any ALR, one can question of why TPTB decided it doesn't apply to geocaching challenges. It would seem that if any optional task was fun and add to the experience, it would be a task that required you to actually go and find some other caches (and a task that required you to avoid finding geocaches would not be enjoyable or add to the experience).

 

Had challenges not been exempted from the ban on ALRs, I suspect that people would place challenge caches and make completing the challenge optional. Those who found it enjoyable to post a list of the 36 alphanumeric cache names they found would do so, and the others would just post WIGAS. I would guess a certain percentage of the WIGAS logs will come back later when they complete the challenge and add a note with their qualifications.

 

I have little doubt that there are people who will jump through hoops if their WIGAS could be deleted by a challenge cache owner. It is understandable that some challenge cache owners don't want to lose the ability to delete logs of non-qualifier because it it the only power they have to force encourage people to actually do a challenge.

 

I know it will sound sanctimonious when I say that I don't understand the need of challenge cache finders to have the extra smiley as an incentive to do something they would find an enjoyable part of their geocaching anyhow. It seems to me that a souvenir or a badge is just as good as an incentive as a smiley. I recall seeing a cache where the cache owner had a wall of honor on their cache page with names of the finders of the cache who had also accomplished a particular challenge. Why isn't that enough incentive to do something you would enjoy doing anyhow?

[+TopShelfRob]

Suppose you set up a optional-challenge traditional cache that asked people to find a cache in every county of South Carolina. Then suppose you set up a challenge cache with the same goal. I'm guessing the challenge cache would be more effective at getting people to travel around the state and enjoy a different kind of geocaching adventure.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. I guess I was just pleasantly surprised that generally most of the found logs of this cache seem to either mention their longest days without a cache streak, or mention that they don't have anywhere near 200+ days without a cache. They still generally have attempted to remain related to the spirit of the CO's intention, even if they did not have the compulosry nature that a true challenge cache has.

 

I'm not saying (well, now I'm not) that getting rid of the requirement wouldn't drastically change the experience of challenge caches for many of you. I'm just saying that, in this case, it didn't completely ruin it, in fact most of the people logging still seemed to enjoy that aspect of it even though it wasn't required. It wasn't just a whole bunch of "Found It" logs that made no effort to even address the CO's attempt to tie the cache to "slump" streaks, even though nothing forced them to.

 

And for an added bonus, people who don't qualify aren't left out of the fun. That's all I was saying.

 

Of course this cache had to be published as a non-challenge cache. I agree, the only way to truly measure this would be to see an optional-challenge traditional cache and a true challenge cache with roughly the same goal set-up near each other and see what the outcome is.

[+tozainamboku]

Suppose you set up a optional-challenge traditional cache that asked people to find a cache in every county of South Carolina. Then suppose you set up a challenge cache with the same goal. I'm guessing the challenge cache would be more effective at getting people to travel around the state and enjoy a different kind of geocaching adventure.

It's kinda impossible to set up your hypothetical since anyone doing the official challenge will likely log the unofficial one (Hey it's one more smiley). While a few may skip the optional cache, since they are only interested in official challenges, I'd wager that will be made up by the people who log the optional cache who haven't done the challenge.

 

I don't know if there is a way to measure just how much the incentive of a smiley adds to the number of people who will do a challenge. From my sanctimonious perch, it seems as if a smiley isn't that much of an incentive. If the challenge is something someone is interested in doing, I would think that they would do it anyhow. If the lure of the smiley gets people to log the optional cache long before they ever qualify, I suspect that many people will come back and add a note when they eventually complete the challenge. (There is also the suggestion made in a previous thread, of having as second "challenge completed" log that can be entered when you complete the challenge that would increase your smiley count but otherwise count only as a separate statistic of challenges completed).

Edited May 4, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

From my sanctimonious perch, it seems as if a smiley isn't that much of an incentive. If the challenge is something someone is interested in doing, I would think that they would do it anyhow.

Even if they enjoyed the sport, there are some people who wouldn't pole vault unless there were track and field meets. Humans are a diverse species. Just because you don't understand the incentive, that doesn't mean the extra incentive doesn't exist.

 

There are people who are less likely to hike up mountains if there aren't any geocaches hidden along the way. Even if they would enjoy the scenery and the exercise. The smileys just serve as extra incentives to get these folks going. Humans are a diverse species.

 

Even if challenge caches don't provide any extra incentive to you, can you open your mind enough to realize they might serve as an extra incentive to others? Can you be tolerant enough to let people enjoy activities you might not enjoy?

Edited May 4, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+The Jester]

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.

The others that haven't met the criteria are NOT playing by the spirti the CO intended. Clearly a fail.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

The others that haven't met the criteria are NOT playing by the spirti the CO intended. Clearly a fail.

Really? Did you mean to say that the fact that many people are logging a find on that cache without meeting the challenge is in some way reducing the value for those who logged the cache that had actually not found a cache for 200 days straight?

 

I would think that people who are going post about their non-accomplishment are simply happy someone is making fun of cachers who need a challenge cache to have a streak of finding a cache everyday for the same length of time. As has been pointed out, no one in their right mind is going to intentionally avoid geocaching just to meet this challenge. It is simply something that you qualify for either because you're not that interested in geocaching, or because personal circumstances prevented you from caching for some period.

 

One could conceivably make the argument that someone logging a positive accomplishment of moderate difficulty may feel cheated if someone who didn't do the challenge gets to log the challenge cache. In this case, at least some of the people who qualify for the challenge may not have done it but for the cache and the smiley. If they put out the effort and later found that they didn't have to, they might feel cheated. However, from my sanctimonious perspective, I do not see the difference between this and someone logging a difficult puzzle that a friend solved or who logs a 5 start terrain in a tree, when their friend climbed the tree and brought down the cache. In my narrow minded world where I don't understand the big deal with challenge caches, I've always had the attitude that if someone enjoys something, be it solving puzzles, climbing trees, or meeting a specific geocaching goal, they are not cheated of any of that fun because someone logs a cache without doing those things.

Edited May 4, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+fizzymagic]

In my narrow minded world where I don't understand the big deal with challenge caches, I've always had the attitude that if someone enjoys something, be it solving puzzles, climbing trees, or meeting a specific geocaching goal, they are not cheated of any of that fun because someone logs a cache without doing those things.

 

I think we have already established your lack of understanding. Recall how you never understood why Waymarking was such a complete failure.

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it so.

 

Please leave challenge caches alone and take your compulsion for rules elsewhere.

 

I even have a suggestion: how about all the so-called "Wherigo," "multi" and "puzzle" caches used for geoart that are only used for the color of their icons? Isn't that a problem ripe for more rules?

[+TopShelfRob]

Suppose you set up a optional-challenge traditional cache that asked people to find a cache in every county of South Carolina. Then suppose you set up a challenge cache with the same goal. I'm guessing the challenge cache would be more effective at getting people to travel around the state and enjoy a different kind of geocaching adventure.

It's kinda impossible to set up your hypothetical since anyone doing the official challenge will likely log the unofficial one (Hey it's one more smiley). While a few may skip the optional cache, since they are only interested in official challenges, I'd wager that will be made up by the people who log the optional cache who haven't done the challenge.

 

I don't know if there is a way to measure just how much the incentive of a smiley adds to the number of people who will do a challenge. From my sanctimonious perch, it seems as if a smiley isn't that much of an incentive. If the challenge is something someone is interested in doing, I would think that they would do it anyhow. If the lure of the smiley gets people to log the optional cache long before they ever qualify, I suspect that many people will come back and add a note when they eventually complete the challenge. (There is also the suggestion made in a previous thread, of having as second "challenge completed" log that can be entered when you complete the challenge that would increase your smiley count but otherwise count only as a separate statistic of challenges completed).

Well, two options...

 

1.) they wouldn't have to be just over 528' away from each other, you could compare them even if they were far enough apart so that people coming to log the challenge cache wouldn't automatically log the optional-challenge just because they were in the area.

 

Or 2.) They wouldn't have to be the exact same challenge, but perhaps two comparable challenges that would have an equally-challenging, yet separate goal.

[+thebruce0]

My response addresse both following comments:

 

At the time the argument was made that if the tasks were fun and added to experience of finding that cache people would do them. Aside from debating if this is true for any ALR, one can question of why TPTB decided it doesn't apply to geocaching challenges. It would seem that if any optional task was fun and add to the experience, it would be a task that required you to actually go and find some other caches (and a task that required you to avoid finding geocaches would not be enjoyable or add to the experience).

 

Had challenges not been exempted from the ban on ALRs, I suspect that people would place challenge caches and make completing the challenge optional. Those who found it enjoyable to post a list of the 36 alphanumeric cache names they found would do so, and the others would just post WIGAS. I would guess a certain percentage of the WIGAS logs will come back later when they complete the challenge and add a note with their qualifications.

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.

 

I quoted a while back a cache that if I recall was originally published as an ALR, but now is entirely optional. But it's fun. And people still do. Even though they don't have to. Some like it hot.

 

The fact that these optional-qualification/requirement caches do and still exist means that this "suggestion" to allow optional-qualification challenge caches is moot.

 

Anyone can already create them.

 

The corollary of this suggestion is that qualification-required challenge caches should then be banned.

Otherwise, what's the point of suggesting this optional-logging feature? It can already be done, as long as the CO allows it. The only alternative is denying the current ALR-style Challenge Cache.

 

I suggest you go out to the public and raise awareness for the benefit and desire of optional-qualification challenge caches, and convince more cache placers to make the qualification optional. It can be done. I think you'll find out quickly how many are willing to place such style caches.

 

It can already be done.

Do want to deny a caching style that many consider fun and enticing, because you want to be able to log challenge caches of COs who require qualifying, without qualifying?

[+TopShelfRob]

thebruce0,

 

Yes, you kinda got me here. I realize I did say that I was no longer advocating for changing challenge caches, but that I was merely pleased that an optional-requirement cache such as the one I pointed out seemed to be working just fine. And as it relates to my original point, continuing to point that out must either serve to continue to undermine challenge caches, or otherwise what is the point because optional-challenges as this one do exist so what exactly would I be arguing for? You're right, to that extent the point is moot. I'm now not trying to get them changed, nor do I need to advocate that optionals should be allowed because they already are.

 

All I guess I was trying to point out was that as far as I could see, having the challenge be optional didn't entirely ruin the entire concept, although I'm sure you still would disagree with that.

[+thebruce0]

All I guess I was trying to point out was that as far as I could see, having the challenge be optional didn't entirely ruin the entire concept, although I'm sure you still would disagree with that.

 

I agree.

For some people.

Not everyone

[+L0ne.R]

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.geocachin...4E4AN_200-slump

 

 

Here's another example: http://coord.info/GC4YNY6

A library cache. Loved it. A win-win for everyone. Plus the CO created a handy library bookmark list that I used for a personal PQ of must-finds in southern Ontario.

[+thebruce0]

Yep, she really (and I mean really) wanted it to be an ALR challenge cache, but with no statistical way to verify "library" caches, she was not allowed and had to make it an 'inspired' type (optional) challenge.

[+ChileHead]

Yep, she really (and I mean really) wanted it to be an ALR challenge cache, but with no statistical way to verify "library" caches, she was not allowed and had to make it an 'inspired' type (optional) challenge.

 

And that's a good thing. Challenges should be verifiable by criteria on the cache page, otherwise you get into disputes between challenge cache owners and finders. If I find a cache called "Cache by the lake" which is a multi that ends in a library, how would the challenge cache owner know that unless they found it? I may have found it in a different state in which case the challenge CO probably hasn't found it.

 

If you can't write a GSAK type macro to verify a challenge, chances are good (but not impossible) it's not a viable challenge.

[+TopShelfRob]

But interestingly enough, while she mentions she wished it could have been a challenge cache and it is not, she doesn't say exactly how many library caches she intended to make the requirment to find before you could log this one. So since she couldn't make the requirment mandatory, it's seems she left out the specific optional requirement. As result, while a few of the finders mentioned that they "like" library caches, none have listed the ones they had found. If she wanted to give people the option of meeting the challenge, you would think she would have asked for a certain amount of library finds, not just a vague "get as many as possible".

 

The only examples I am seeing of these "optional" challenges are ones like these where a true challenge isn't permitted. I'd like to see some examples where people made it a optional challenge by choice.

[+thebruce0]

Well here again it gets highly, highly subjective. Not only is the value of challenges judged by the cacher, but also the CO. She felt the challenge itself would be more arbitrary and pointless without the requirement. But she felt the value of library caches themselves were still worth encouraging people to do them. So this was the result. Why would she put some arbitrary number on a cache listing, if her only real purpose was to get people to pay attention to library caches? If it were allowed as a challenge cache, then there'd be added incentive to have a strict number to qualify for the challenge. Otherwise it would be a challenge cache. As it is, a standard cache provided sufficient means for her to still publish a listing with the inspiration for library caches, without providing some arbitrary count.

 

It's very much like the "Iron Horse" challenge cache I created for caches found in a day. It was more inspired by debates about what are "valid" finds in one day, I opted to have the minimum qualification amount 100 caches - it's a reasonable number for most people in my region, and quite a number of regions around North America. But I also provided additional optional 'tiers' to attempt to achieve if people so desire, even with an added incentive of being the first to claim such tiers.

As a challenge cache, there's a qualification minimum. But to encourage the intent of the cache - finding as many as you can - there was added optional incentive. And most people so far have just gone for the minimum, or slightly above.

(side note: I don't care to hear opinions about "numbers caching" in relation to this challenge idea, I raise it for the purpose of demonstrating various combinations of ALR qualification and optional challenge intentions)

 

In her case, there was more value in raising awareness for the concept of library caches (ie, making an 'optional' challenge listing) than there was on requiring a minimum number of finds (denied, and thus not bothering with the challenge at all). And that was her choice, and that's perfectly fine.

 

My point is simply that each of these types of 'challenge' listings are already currently allowed. And they can even be published with challenges that wouldn't otherwise be allowed as an ALR challenge cache. As linked earlier, you can publish regular caches that encourage non-find streaks, as long as it's not required. Or accrue library cache finds, as long as it's not required. Or consecutive finds with cache properties, as long is it's not required. etc...

 

The only issue is that if the CO is provided the right to verify a user's qualifications (as per the current "Challenge Cache" concept), the challenge must be 'affirmative' and 'reasonable' by the judgement of the reviewer. And then qualification can be required. To advocate that challenge caches be qualification-optional (a style of cache listing that can already be done), or not location-based (already attempted with Geocaching Challenges) therefore necessarily implies the challenge cache concept itself be killed; for no other reason than that it's not fair to people who want to log them found without qualifying. That's all I'm sayin', yo.

Edited May 5, 2014 by thebruce0

[+TopShelfRob]

Well all I'm saying is that by leaving out the "requirement" nature of the optional requirement, it's sort of undermining the viablity of the "optional challenge" cache concept. It's as if to say, "well, since I can't make it a 'true' challenge, I might as well not even bother with making it a challenge at all." It's not really a challenge that you can choose to complete or not, it's just a celebration of library caches, which is fine in itself, but as far as using it to back up what a "great example" of an optional-challenge cache could be, it kind of undermines that argument. ("They not only made the requirement optional, they took it out entirely!")

 

Personally, I think it would have been nice to see the lists of library caches that those that chose to take on the challenge might have presented, and they might have been useful for others who wanted to seek out library caches. Instead there is only a bunch of "yay, I love library caches, too!" comments.

[+thebruce0]

Well all I'm saying is that by leaving out the "requirement" nature of the optional requirement, it's sort of undermining the viablity of the "optional challenge" cache concept. It's as if to say, "well, since I can't make it a 'true' challenge, I might as well not even bother with making it a challenge at all." It's not really a challenge that you can choose to complete or not, it's just a celebration of library caches, which is fine in itself, but as far as using it to back up what a "great example" of an optional-challenge cache could be, it kind of undermines that argument. ("They not only made the requirement optional, they took it out entirely!")

Actually they're demonstrations of variety, in this case based on the CO's desire to either A) inspire a challenge (optional goal), inspire a caching style/concept (no goal, just awareness), or C) actually create a Challenge Cache (qualification ALR).

 

We have examples of each.

Denying C merely reduces the variety of caching styles and options, since A, B and C are all allowable cache listings, determined by the CO's desire, except that C needs to be statistically verifiable.

[+TopShelfRob]

Well all I'm saying is that by leaving out the "requirement" nature of the optional requirement, it's sort of undermining the viablity of the "optional challenge" cache concept. It's as if to say, "well, since I can't make it a 'true' challenge, I might as well not even bother with making it a challenge at all." It's not really a challenge that you can choose to complete or not, it's just a celebration of library caches, which is fine in itself, but as far as using it to back up what a "great example" of an optional-challenge cache could be, it kind of undermines that argument. ("They not only made the requirement optional, they took it out entirely!")

Actually they're demonstrations of variety, in this case based on the CO's desire to either A) inspire a challenge (optional goal), inspire a caching style/concept (no goal, just awareness), or C) actually create a Challenge Cache (qualification ALR).

 

We have examples of each.

Denying C merely reduces the variety of caching styles and options, since A, B and C are all allowable cache listings, determined by the CO's desire, except that C needs to be statistically verifiable.

I don't disagree with any of that - I'm just adding that in this exact case, she stated she wished she could have made it a challenge cache, but since it wasn't allowed to be a true challenge cache, she didn't desire to make it an optional challenge cache. Again, that's her perogative and that's fine, but if all she wanted to do was inspire a "caching style/concept (no goal, just awareness)", then she could have just done that instead of wanting it to be a challenge in the first place. By saying "I would have made it a challenge if I could have" but then declining to make it an optional challenge, it seems to indicate that an optional-challenge cache is inferior to an allowable ALR challenge cache.

 

Yes, all the varieties are possible, but I get the sense that COs only choose to use "optional challenges" because they have to, not because of a desire to allow non-qualifiers to participate.

 

(And as an aside, if challenge caches can be identified not by being their own sub-type, but by merely having the word "challenge" in the title, why couldn't library caches -- similarly not a official type -- be identifiable by the word "library" in the title? Sure, there may be an occasional non-library cache with 'library' in their title, but on the whole it seems like that would have been a way to verify it. Or, alternatively, she could have just sought to quantify the challenge by asking for people to have found a certain amount of caches with the word 'library' in the title. Perhaps that would have, like the OP of this thread discussed, led to people putting out a lot of non-library caches with the word "library" in the title just to help people qualify.)

[+frinklabs]

I get the sense that COs only choose to use "optional challenges" because they have to, not because of a desire to allow non-qualifiers to participate.

 

Non-qualifiers can already participate -- by posting a note instead of a found it.

 

(this is a recording)

 

Or maybe that's just a local thing here? Are there any challenge caches that indicate notes-as-found-logs will be deleted?

[+TopShelfRob]

I get the sense that COs only choose to use "optional challenges" because they have to, not because of a desire to allow non-qualifiers to participate.

 

Non-qualifiers can already participate -- by posting a note instead of a found it.

 

(this is a recording)

 

Or maybe that's just a local thing here? Are there any challenge caches that indicate notes-as-found-logs will be deleted?

....corrected: partcipiate by receiving a smiley. Boy you guys sure do like keeping me honest around here.

[+thebruce0]

I don't disagree with any of that - I'm just adding that in this exact case, she stated she wished she could have made it a challenge cache, but since it wasn't allowed to be a true challenge cache, she didn't desire to make it an optional challenge cache. Again, that's her perogative and that's fine, but if all she wanted to do was inspire a "caching style/concept (no goal, just awareness)", then she could have just done that instead of wanting it to be a challenge in the first place. By saying "I would have made it a challenge if I could have" but then declining to make it an optional challenge, it seems to indicate that an optional-challenge cache is inferior to an allowable ALR challenge cache.

No, it just indicates she didn't desire an 'optional arbitrary goal' higher than simply raising awareness for library caches, yet would have desired a definitive ALR challenge above the optional arbitrary goal. Other people may think like her. Others may not. Boy it's good we have flexibility in our cache listing guidelines to accommodate different desires!

 

Yes, all the varieties are possible, but I get the sense that COs only choose to use "optional challenges" because they have to, not because of a desire to allow non-qualifiers to participate.

Who knows what motives any CO has for creating one cache or another?

Also, what frinklabs said: "Non-qualifiers can already participate -- by posting a note instead of a found it."

But if you want the smiley, then what are you caching for? To find caches, or to increase your smiley count? If the latter, then you have to abide by the rules for each cache type and the requirements in order to gain that additional WIGAS smiley on your profile.

 

Sure, there may be an occasional non-library cache with 'library' in their title, but on the whole it seems like that would have been a way to verify it. Or, alternatively, she could have just sought to quantify the challenge by asking for people to have found a certain amount of caches with the word 'library' in the title.

She considered using 'library in the title' as a qualifier, even a dewey decimal code, but as you describe, there's no guarantee that library in the title is or is not a library cache (and unless you can analyze the worldwide database, no one has a stats about how 'accurate' that property would be), precisely because there is no quantifiable property of a library cache. The goal was to raise awareness for caches that require library access i some manner, not simply 'library' in the title.

 

(And as an aside, if challenge caches can be identified not by being their own sub-type, but by merely having the word "challenge" in the title, why couldn't library caches -- similarly not a official type -- be identifiable by the word "library" in the title?

Well, propose that in the suggestion forum I have no idea if that idea was presented.

[+tozainamboku]

(And as an aside, if challenge caches can be identified not by being their own sub-type, but by merely having the word "challenge" in the title, why couldn't library caches -- similarly not a official type -- be identifiable by the word "library" in the title?

Well, propose that in the suggestion forum I have no idea if that idea was presented.

I suppose you could have a challenge to find caches with the word "library" in the title.

 

I haven't looked at cache in question so I don't know what the cache owner wanted to count as a library cache.

 

I've found caches outside of library that were multi-caches or puzzles where there was at least one stage inside the library. I've also found one puzzle which started outside a library. You needed to get some information off a monument outside the library, but you also needed to know the year Shakespeare died. I didn't know that so I went inside the library to look it up.

 

Most library caches I've found have some puzzle component. Many have coordinates outside the library and you have to figure out the cache is inside based on some hints on the cache page. If they told you straight away that the cache was in the library it would ruin the puzzle. My favorite library cache was one that had no hint that I was to go in the library. I thought either the coords were off or the cache was on the roof. Only when I went inside the library (looking for a way to access the roof) did I discover the key to finding the cache.

 

The problem of having challenge caches with no restrictions is that cachers will be creating challenges that are confusing or disputable. Sure most owners of challenges don't intend to get into arguments over whether some cache on your list is a Library cache or not. Several people have stated that they would accept any list of finds at face value and assume that someone logging the challenge was being honest. But you can bet that no matter if the CO agrees to such a stipulation, someone will question someone else's list if the challenge isn't very clear and verifiable.

 

One reason for the restriction on date found is that you can date your found logs however you want. There have been complaints of cachers who save finds to log days when they don't find a cache to claim a streak challenges.

 

My opinion right now is that the current set of restrictions address most of the problematic challenges. Sure, these restriction limit the creativity of someone making a challenge. But, while I am certain a Library challenge would appeal to a reasonable number of geocachers, I can also see the cache owner archiving it because she has to deal with finders claiming some cache is a library cache that doesn't meet her definition or because some other finder starts posting NA because she is allowing some find to stand. Certainly neither Groundspeak or the reviewers want to be adjudicating such disputes.

[+thebruce0]

My opinion right now is that the current set of restrictions address most of the problematic challenges. Sure, these restriction limit the creativity of someone making a challenge. But, while I am certain a Library challenge would appeal to a reasonable number of geocachers, I can also see the cache owner archiving it because she has to deal with finders claiming some cache is a library cache that doesn't meet her definition or because some other finder starts posting NA because she is allowing some find to stand. Certainly neither Groundspeak or the reviewers want to be adjudicating such disputes.

Yes, This... is precisely why she was denied when wanting to publish it as a challenge.

There is no way to verify that a cache qualifies as what she wanted it to represent. No attribute, no type, no property. Existing caches may or may not be what she wanted if going by the title text. So that wasn't an option for her. The listing itself obviously doesn't go into details about the negotiation, but she is a friend of mine and has talked about it.

Edited May 6, 2014 by thebruce0

[+CanadianRockies]

Several people have stated that they would accept any list of finds at face value and assume that someone logging the challenge was being honest.

This issue really seems to be a burr under your saddle. Please explain why it's heinous for a challenge cache owner to assume a geocacher's statistics are valid while it's okay for a traditional cache owner to assume a signature in the log book wasn't written by a friend while the geocacher was sitting at home watching television.

 

There's only so much that one can reasonably validate. Beyond that, one probably has to assume a certain amount of honesty on the part of geocachers.

Edited May 6, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

Several people have stated that they would accept any list of finds at face value and assume that someone logging the challenge was being honest.

This issue really seems to be a burr under your saddle. Please explain why it's heinous for a challenge cache owner to assume a geocacher's statistics are valid while it's okay for a traditional cache owner to assume a signature in the log book wasn't written by a friend while the geocacher was sitting at home watching television.

 

There's only so much that one can reasonably validate. Beyond that, one probably has to assume a certain amount of honesty on the part of geocachers.

It's not a burr in my saddle. I'm very happy that my experience to date is that Challenge cache owners tend to accept the qualifying lists that people give and if there is some confusion about what qualifies they will make allowances. But I have no guarantee that someone won't intentionally create a challenge that would result in a lot of disputes, just as some people created ridiculous ALRs where the only intention was to delete logs.

 

It's not the Challenge owners I worry about so much. It's when someone else decides that the owner isn't enforcing their requirement or that the owner is letting friends qualify with questionable caches. Then we have controversies over whether the cache needs to be archived.

 

Most challenges aren't an issue. Sure there are cases where someone renames a cache after people have used it to qualify for an alphanumeric challenge, or when the terrain or difficulty rating changes after some uses it toward a fizzy challenge. I suppose there could be some community supported guideline one way or the other that handles these cases. My contention is that without the guidelines/restrictions on challenges, there will be examples where the qualifications are not verifiable and controversies will occur.

 

The current guidelines still allow plenty of challenges. Despite what CanadianRockies or Fizzymagic say, these rules are not preventing them from enjoying challenges. Maybe Fizzymagic's favorite lonely cache challenge would not past muster with the current guidelines since it depends on other people not finding those caches. My guess is that these account for a small number of challenges and that by making the challenge optional one can still have this cache. A reasonable number of geocachers already spend some time looking for caches that haven't been found in a while because of the additional enjoyment and satisfaction they get from finding them. A sanctimonious cacher may say that you don't need a challenge for lonely caches. It seems silly to want to encourage more people to find the limited number of lonely caches - though I suppose in some places there are more than enough lonely caches that the additional interest due to a challenge might be a good thing.

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm very happy that my experience to date is that Challenge cache owners tend to accept the qualifying lists that people give and if there is some confusion about what qualifies they will make allowances. But I have no guarantee that someone won't intentionally create a challenge that would result in a lot of disputes, just as some people created ridiculous ALRs where the only intention was to delete logs.

 

It's not the Challenge owners I worry about so much. It's when someone else decides that the owner isn't enforcing their requirement or that the owner is letting friends qualify with questionable caches. Then we have controversies over whether the cache needs to be archived.

 

Most challenges aren't an issue. Sure there are cases where someone renames a cache after people have used it to qualify for an alphanumeric challenge, or when the terrain or difficulty rating changes after some uses it toward a fizzy challenge. I suppose there could be some community supported guideline one way or the other that handles these cases. My contention is that without the guidelines/restrictions on challenges, there will be examples where the qualifications are not verifiable and controversies will occur.

Perhaps Groundspeak should adopt a guideline worded something like this:

 

Importantly, geocache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the geocache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the geocache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website.

Oh, wait. They already did. There are so many challenge cache guidelines it's hard to keep track of all them.

Edited May 7, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

I'm very happy that my experience to date is that Challenge cache owners tend to accept the qualifying lists that people give and if there is some confusion about what qualifies they will make allowances. But I have no guarantee that someone won't intentionally create a challenge that would result in a lot of disputes, just as some people created ridiculous ALRs where the only intention was to delete logs.

 

It's not the Challenge owners I worry about so much. It's when someone else decides that the owner isn't enforcing their requirement or that the owner is letting friends qualify with questionable caches. Then we have controversies over whether the cache needs to be archived.

 

Most challenges aren't an issue. Sure there are cases where someone renames a cache after people have used it to qualify for an alphanumeric challenge, or when the terrain or difficulty rating changes after some uses it toward a fizzy challenge. I suppose there could be some community supported guideline one way or the other that handles these cases. My contention is that without the guidelines/restrictions on challenges, there will be examples where the qualifications are not verifiable and controversies will occur.

Perhaps Groundspeak should adopt a guideline worded something like this:

 

Importantly, geocache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the geocache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the geocache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website.

Oh, wait. They already did. There are so many challenge cache guidelines it's hard to keep track of all them.

 

It seems that there are some challenge cache guidelines you agree with (if they can help you make a point the challenges caches aren't causing problems) and others that you think are fundamentally different than other guidelines and may also think are unnecessary. Sorry if I can't always tell which ones are which.

 

Here I was pointing out that a real example of a challenge cache, which was denied because of the guidelines, could have been problematic if it had been published and stating my belief that the guidelines help prevent problematic challenge caches like this one; and you go and quote the guideline that may have been the reason the example was denied. Thanks. I'm glad that you agree that the guidelines prevent problematic challenges.

[4wheelin_fool]

So a muggle accidentally finds a geocache. He reads the information sheet printed inside, finds the website, enters his info and creates an account, and logs his find online. Next he receives a LOG DELETION NOTICE, along with an e-mail saying that he needs to find 100 geocaches starting with the letter L in the title before he does that. Not knowing much about the rest of the game, his impression is probably going to be that this is pretty stupid. Of course he could relog with a note, but he certainly did find it.

 

Recently I have had a pair of new cachers send me several emails and posted a few notes on a puzzle that was missing. Since they solved it and visited ground zero they insist that I should award them with a "find". I tried explaining to them that a find is not a reward, but a statement of fact. However they are unable to comprehend this. Personally, I have a pretty liberal definition of a find, which means that you don't necessarily have to sign it , but at least have to touch the container, or at least a piece of it. I also don't do audits or log deletions anyway, in the event of a fake find anyhow. But somehow, they still wanted me to award them with a "find" , and post it "with permission of the CO".

 

This "awarding finds" mentality is officially reinforced from Challenges. We already have COs awarding FTFs and other nonsense for various reasons. After they have had several other COs do this for them, I was expected to do the same. They believe that I "entered into an agreement" by placing the cache, and if it wasn't there, then they deserve the "find" award, since I was unable uphold my end of the agreement. Never mind that a little kid took it home only a few days before, after finding it while hiding easter eggs. No, I am not kidding. If someone finds a puzzle, they don't have to prove they solved it, and I don't see why people who find Challenges have to prove anything either.

 

A find is a find. Well most of the time. The definition is getting weirder everyday, much like 1/1 LPC traditionals being listed as 5/5 unknowns.

 

How about a little checkbox added to the find log that says you also completed the Challenge? Then all of the completed Challenges could be tabulated somewhere?

Edited May 9, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dprovan]

So a muggle accidentally finds a geocache. He reads the information sheet printed inside, finds the website, enters his info and creates an account, and logs his find online. Next he receives a LOG DELETION NOTICE, along with an e-mail saying that he needs to find 100 geocaches starting with the letter L in the title before he does that. Not knowing much about the rest of the game, his impression is probably going to be that this is pretty stupid. Of course he could relog with a note, but he certainly did find it.

I'm remarkably unconcerned about this scenario, as unlikely as it is inconsequential.

[+CanadianRockies]

A find is a find.

Here we go again.

 

You're being too literal with your definition of a "find." In the context of Groundspeak geocaching, a "find" has a different meaning than that which you'll see in a dictionary.

 

For an EarthCache, a "find" means that you visited the location and sent the appropriate answers. For most Virtuals, a "find means you visited the location and sent the appropriate answers or photograph. For Events, a "find" means you attended the event. For a Webcam, a "find" means you used the webcam to get a picture of yourself at the coordinates and uploaded that photo. For a GPS Adventures Exhibit, a "find" means you visited the exhibit. For a Traditional, a "find" means you (or a companion) located the container and signed its physical log.

 

And, for a Challenge Cache, a "find" means you located the container, signed its physical log, and completed the challenge's requirements.

[+K13]

In many cases, a "find" is what the cache owner allows. One particular webcam CO, says in the description

If it is ever offline for a bit, please take a photo of yourself with the fountain in the background.

and on a recent note further says

.....On the cache page there is an alternative way to log the cache. While some may not agree that this cache should be logged this way, that is up to the finder and how they want to play the game. We all play the game differently and at different levels......

[4wheelin_fool]

And, for a Challenge Cache, a "find" means you located the container, signed its physical log, and completed the challenge's requirements.

 

Which is silly. You can "find" the requirements for virtual and earthcaches at a location, which is a perfect substitute for not having a container, as well as finding yourself on a webcam picture, or finding yourself at an event. But if there is a container and insisting that it is not a find despite holding in your hands is silly, whether you need to take a picture with a funny hat, or find 100 caches starting with the letter L.

 

I'm aware that being immersed in geocaching rules is necessary to understanding this, but there are a large number of people who lose interest in the game every year. Part of the reason is due to silly rules which don't make too much sense. Turning a 1/1.5 traditional LPC into a 5/5 unknown with logging rules is a little nerdy. Just my opinion. I like challenges, but don't think a find log should be any type of award to be handed out. What happens if the CO stops logging in and checking qualifications? Should it be archived? If these caches are to be given special treatment, then they need to be identified in a unique way. A little checkbox in the find log is reasonable. What we have now is a workaround with the mystery icon and threats of find log deletion.

Edited May 9, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+tozainamboku]

So a muggle accidentally finds a geocache. He reads the information sheet printed inside, finds the website, enters his info and creates an account, and logs his find online. Next he receives a LOG DELETION NOTICE, along with an e-mail saying that he needs to find 100 geocaches starting with the letter L in the title before he does that. Not knowing much about the rest of the game, his impression is probably going to be that this is pretty stupid. Of course he could relog with a note, but he certainly did find it.

 

Recently I have had a pair of new cachers send me several emails and posted a few notes on a puzzle that was missing. Since they solved it and visited ground zero they insist that I should award them with a "find". I tried explaining to them that a find is not a reward, but a statement of fact. However they are unable to comprehend this. Personally, I have a pretty liberal definition of a find, which means that you don't necessarily have to sign it , but at least have to touch the container, or at least a piece of it. I also don't do audits or log deletions anyway, in the event of a fake find anyhow. But somehow, they still wanted me to award them with a "find" , and post it "with permission of the CO".

 

This "awarding finds" mentality is officially reinforced from Challenges. We already have COs awarding FTFs and other nonsense for various reasons. After they have had several other COs do this for them, I was expected to do the same. They believe that I "entered into an agreement" by placing the cache, and if it wasn't there, then they deserve the "find" award, since I was unable uphold my end of the agreement. Never mind that a little kid took it home only a few days before, after finding it while hiding easter eggs. No, I am not kidding. If someone finds a puzzle, they don't have to prove they solved it, and I don't see why people who find Challenges have to prove anything either.

 

A find is a find. Well most of the time. The definition is getting weirder everyday, much like 1/1 LPC traditionals being listed as 5/5 unknowns.

 

How about a little checkbox added to the find log that says you also completed the Challenge? Then all of the completed Challenges could be tabulated somewhere?

I find it odd this is posted here and not in on of the new threads on throwdowns and cache log audit.

 

I have to admit that my personal discomfort with challenge caches stems from having a similar view as 4wheelin_fool as to the nature of a the Found log. When the WIGAS log is a reward from the cache owner instead of a log reporting that someone has found a cache, it seems a bit of a perversion of the original idea of providing an online log. However, it's a bit too late to close this Pandora's box (I used this idiom becaues one can argue that all the evils of geocaching are due to the idea that the online log is a reward). I've accepted the online found log is now the WIGAS log.

 

Some supporters of challenge caches do not see the Found log as a reward for doing the challenge. Instead they would say the cache itself is the reward. The online found log simply meen you found the challenge cache, however the challenge qualfication is what allows you to find this cache in first place. It is as the challenge cache doesn't even exist until you complete the qualifications. On could even imagine a world where Geocaching.com could determine who qualified for a challenge and who did not, and show the real coordinates only to to those who qualify, and disable Found and DNF logs for those who do not qualify.

[+CanadianRockies]

And, for a Challenge Cache, a "find" means you located the container, signed its physical log, and completed the challenge's requirements.

Which is silly.

No more silly than having to sign a physical log in order to "find" a Traditional cache. Signing a log has nothing to do with "finding" a cache in the dictionary sense. But in the context of geocaching, a cache owner is allowed to say you didn't "find" their Traditional unless you also sign that log.

 

The meaning of words depends on their context. In the context of challenge caches, a "find" isn't a find until you locate the cache, sign its physical log, and complete its requirements.

 

I'm aware that being immersed in geocaching rules is necessary to understanding this, but there are a large number of people who lose interest in the game every year. Part of the reason is due to silly rules which don't make too much sense.

My guess is that mediocre caches hidden beneath lamppost skirts and on guardrails have much more to do with the loss of interest than do challenge caches. For many of us, the wonderful experiences that challenge caches inspire help keep geocaching interesting. Challenge caches might well keep more people interested in geocaching than cause them to give it up.

 

I like challenges, but don't think a find log should be any type of award to be handed out.

But find logs also are a type of "award" handed out for locating Traditional caches hidden under piles of sticks (and signing their physical logs).

 

What happens if the CO stops logging in and checking qualifications? Should it be archived?

Of course.

 

What we have now is a workaround with the mystery icon and threats of find log deletion.

There are threats of log deletions if you fail to adequately answer EarthCache questions. There are threats of log deletions if you fail to adequately provide the requested information for Virtuals. There are threats of log deletions if you don't upload Webcam photos. There are threats of log deletions if you don't sign Traditional logs.

Edited May 9, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

You can find a traditional cache. You can LOG that find online if you've signed the logsheet.

 

You can find a challenge cache. You can LOG that find online if you've signed the logsheet and completely qualified.

 

You can find the location of an Earthcache or Virtual. You can LOG that find online if you send all the required information to the CO and it's accepted.

 

You can find the location of a webcam. You can LOG that find online if you do the required photo task and post the photo online.

 

If you don't want to or can't log that find online, then you can post a note.

[+TopShelfRob]

I think a good point was raised earlier - what about (albeit the low probability) of a newbie cacher accidentally stumbling upon a challenge cache?

 

• 
   
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a puzzle cache they didn't solve - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher (non-premium member) stumbles upon a premium only cache - they can find the cache description page by backdoor - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a challenge cache - they can only log it as a note
  

 

Now, I'm not saying that that is likely or has ever actually happened much, but if that scenario does happen, explain how you could easily explain to them how those rules aren't confusing insofar as the underlying premise is generally: "if you can find it, you can log it"

 

Generally, but not in the case of a challenge cache. Well, tell me how they would know it was a challenge cache if they just stumbled upon it and had not seen the cache description? Especially if they have previously "stumbled upon" a puzzle cache that they hadn't solved that they were permitted to log as found without a problem.

 

Perhaps all challenge caches should be required to have a large disclaimer on them: "This is a challenge cache. Please read cache description and make sure you are entitled to log this cache as a find before logging!" I would hate for such a cacher to find a cache out in the wild and then not find out until they got home that they weren't entitled to log a smiley on it.

 

Granted, I have enough trouble finding caches that I am looking for, I don't know how all these people seem to keep "stumbling" over these allegedly well-hidden caches out in the wild, but I guess it could happen.

[+Roman!]

I think a good point was raised earlier - what about (albeit the low probability) of a newbie cacher accidentally stumbling upon a challenge cache?

 

• 
   
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a puzzle cache they didn't solve - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher (non-premium member) stumbles upon a premium only cache - they can find the cache description page by backdoor - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a challenge cache - they can only log it as a note
  

 

Now, I'm not saying that that is likely or has ever actually happened much, but if that scenario does happen, explain how you could easily explain to them how those rules aren't confusing insofar as the underlying premise is generally: "if you can find it, you can log it"

 

Generally, but not in the case of a challenge cache. Well, tell me how they would know it was a challenge cache if they just stumbled upon it and had not seen the cache description? Especially if they have previously "stumbled upon" a puzzle cache that they hadn't solved that they were permitted to log as found without a problem.

 

Perhaps all challenge caches should be required to have a large disclaimer on them: "This is a challenge cache. Please read cache description and make sure you are entitled to log this cache as a find before logging!" I would hate for such a cacher to find a cache out in the wild and then not find out until they got home that they weren't entitled to log a smiley on it.

 

Granted, I have enough trouble finding caches that I am looking for, I don't know how all these people seem to keep "stumbling" over these allegedly well-hidden caches out in the wild, but I guess it could happen.

 

So you want to complicate things on the off chance some never before happened scenario happens, I think you should give up geocaching and get into politics.

 

Again, you've been told over and over that the way challenge caches are set up works, why do you feel the need to complicate and ruin what so many people enjoy?

 

I know we are in the entitled generation but I'm not there yet, earn it or ignore it, either way, move along, I give you no sympathy.

[+TopShelfRob]

I think a good point was raised earlier - what about (albeit the low probability) of a newbie cacher accidentally stumbling upon a challenge cache?

 

• 
   
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a puzzle cache they didn't solve - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher (non-premium member) stumbles upon a premium only cache - they can find the cache description page by backdoor - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a challenge cache - they can only log it as a note
  

 

Now, I'm not saying that that is likely or has ever actually happened much, but if that scenario does happen, explain how you could easily explain to them how those rules aren't confusing insofar as the underlying premise is generally: "if you can find it, you can log it"

 

Generally, but not in the case of a challenge cache. Well, tell me how they would know it was a challenge cache if they just stumbled upon it and had not seen the cache description? Especially if they have previously "stumbled upon" a puzzle cache that they hadn't solved that they were permitted to log as found without a problem.

 

Perhaps all challenge caches should be required to have a large disclaimer on them: "This is a challenge cache. Please read cache description and make sure you are entitled to log this cache as a find before logging!" I would hate for such a cacher to find a cache out in the wild and then not find out until they got home that they weren't entitled to log a smiley on it.

 

Granted, I have enough trouble finding caches that I am looking for, I don't know how all these people seem to keep "stumbling" over these allegedly well-hidden caches out in the wild, but I guess it could happen.

 

So you want to complicate things on the off chance some never before happened scenario happens, I think you should give up geocaching and get into politics.

 

Again, you've been told over and over that the way challenge caches are set up works, why do you feel the need to complicate and ruin what so many people enjoy?

 

I know we are in the entitled generation but I'm not there yet, earn it or ignore it, either way, move along, I give you no sympathy.

Oh no you misunderstand.

 

I don't want to complicate things, or ruin things, or change things at all. I'm just raising a hypothetical situation that was alluded to a few posts back and following the logic. I sure don't need any sympathy for a situation which I do not find myself in, as I certainly would be aware any such cache I am seeking was a challenge cache or not. I don't "stumble" onto caches without knowing what I am doing, as I generally am aware of what is on the Geocaching map in an area I am searching.

 

As dprovan said, "I'm remarkably unconcerned about this scenario, as unlikely as it is inconsequential." I'd go a little further and say it's probably darn unlikely that it would ever happen.

 

Perhaps you are confusing my comments here with my comments earlier in this thread, thinking that whatever I am saying has an ulterior motive of trying to get rid of challenge caches when I've already said that is no longer the case. Either that, or you are just anti- whatever I say, which I'm sure wouldn't be a first here in the forums.

 

And, no, I don't think I'd be good at politics. I'd have to try to get too many people like you to vote for me.

[+Roman!]

I think a good point was raised earlier - what about (albeit the low probability) of a newbie cacher accidentally stumbling upon a challenge cache?

 

• 
   
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a puzzle cache they didn't solve - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher (non-premium member) stumbles upon a premium only cache - they can find the cache description page by backdoor - they can log it found - no problem
  
• A newbie cacher stumbles upon a challenge cache - they can only log it as a note
  

 

Now, I'm not saying that that is likely or has ever actually happened much, but if that scenario does happen, explain how you could easily explain to them how those rules aren't confusing insofar as the underlying premise is generally: "if you can find it, you can log it"

 

Generally, but not in the case of a challenge cache. Well, tell me how they would know it was a challenge cache if they just stumbled upon it and had not seen the cache description? Especially if they have previously "stumbled upon" a puzzle cache that they hadn't solved that they were permitted to log as found without a problem.

 

Perhaps all challenge caches should be required to have a large disclaimer on them: "This is a challenge cache. Please read cache description and make sure you are entitled to log this cache as a find before logging!" I would hate for such a cacher to find a cache out in the wild and then not find out until they got home that they weren't entitled to log a smiley on it.

 

Granted, I have enough trouble finding caches that I am looking for, I don't know how all these people seem to keep "stumbling" over these allegedly well-hidden caches out in the wild, but I guess it could happen.

 

So you want to complicate things on the off chance some never before happened scenario happens, I think you should give up geocaching and get into politics.

 

Again, you've been told over and over that the way challenge caches are set up works, why do you feel the need to complicate and ruin what so many people enjoy?

 

I know we are in the entitled generation but I'm not there yet, earn it or ignore it, either way, move along, I give you no sympathy.

Oh no you misunderstand.

 

I don't want to complicate things, or ruin things, or change things at all. I'm just raising a hypothetical situation that was alluded to a few posts back and following the logic. I sure don't need any sympathy for a situation which I do not find myself in, as I certainly would be aware any such cache I am seeking was a challenge cache or not. I don't "stumble" onto caches without knowing what I am doing, as I generally am aware of what is on the Geocaching map in an area I am searching.

 

As dprovan said, "I'm remarkably unconcerned about this scenario, as unlikely as it is inconsequential." I'd go a little further and say it's probably darn unlikely that it would ever happen.

 

Perhaps you are confusing my comments here with my comments earlier in this thread, thinking that whatever I am saying has an ulterior motive of trying to get rid of challenge caches when I've already said that is no longer the case. Either that, or you are just anti- whatever I say, which I'm sure wouldn't be a first here in the forums.

 

And, no, I don't think I'd be good at politics. I'd have to try to get too many people like you to vote for me.

 

Well, you are very mistaken about politics, you never need anyone to like you, they just need to hate you less than the competition.

[+dprovan]

Now, I'm not saying that that is likely or has ever actually happened much, but if that scenario does happen, explain how you could easily explain to them how those rules aren't confusing insofar as the underlying premise is generally: "if you can find it, you can log it"

It's no different than having to explain to them that they can't claim the find because they didn't actually sign the log when they found the cache. Yeah, there are rules, and you have to learn them. Your scenario is like worrying about playing tennis with someone and having to explain that serves have to land in the proper service court.

[+tozainamboku]

Now, I'm not saying that that is likely or has ever actually happened much, but if that scenario does happen, explain how you could easily explain to them how those rules aren't confusing insofar as the underlying premise is generally: "if you can find it, you can log it"

It's no different than having to explain to them that they can't claim the find because they didn't actually sign the log when they found the cache. Yeah, there are rules, and you have to learn them. Your scenario is like worrying about playing tennis with someone and having to explain that serves have to land in the proper service court.

Most newbies who accidentally find a cache would have no idea why you would log it online much less care about the rules that people have made up that make the online log a WIGAS log and not a found log.

 

If they came to the site the may see some instructions for logging finds. Maybe here. Nothing explaining anything about logging requirements. I suspect that if they bothered registering for an account, it probably wouldn't occur to them to log some cache they accidentally came across as a find. If they did, they would probably believe anything a cache owner told. If the cache owner said, "your not supposed to log caches you found before you became a member" they would probably happily delete their log.

 

I know that CanadianRockies thinks I've got a burr in my saddle, but it keeps coming back to this. If a muggle finds a traditional cache and either signed the physical log with a different name than they later use for their geocaching.com account, or perhaps they didn't sign the physical log at all, the overwhelming majority of traditional cache owners would say "OK, even though you are supposed to sign the log, I understand that you didn't know this, so I'm not going to delete your online log." On the other hand nearly every challenge cache owners are going to say, "You may have found the cache, but the rules say you can't find a challenge cache until you've done the challenge part, so I'm going to delete your log".

 

Nearly every one who has been caching for a while and logs their find online, understands that the online log is in reality a WIGAS log. They accept that cache owners can have rules regarding the use of the online found log; many are not even aware that the guidelines limit what these rules can be. So mostly, challenge cache owners don't have to delete logs since people aren't using found logs unless they've met the challenge. I think the hypothetical situations occur infrequently enough that we don't hear much about deleted logs and most challenge cache owners have never had to delete a log.

[+TopShelfRob]

I wouldn't worry about it, either, just tell them that's the rules. But that doesn't mean I'd expect them to not find it confusing.

[+dprovan]

Most newbies who accidentally find a cache would have no idea why you would log it online much less care about the rules that people have made up that make the online log a WIGAS log and not a found log.

Yes, I agree: neither scenario is at all likely, so neither should concern us in the slightest.

 

If they came to the site the may see some instructions for logging finds. Maybe here. Nothing explaining anything about logging requirements.

Let me get this straight: your hypothetical newbie is going to carefully read the guidelines to find the rule about signing the physical log, but they're not going to read the description of the cache to see that it says, "You may not log a find unless..."?

 

I know that CanadianRockies thinks I've got a burr in my saddle, but it keeps coming back to this. If a muggle finds a traditional cache and either signed the physical log with a different name than they later use for their geocaching.com account, or perhaps they didn't sign the physical log at all, the overwhelming majority of traditional cache owners would say "OK, even though you are supposed to sign the log, I understand that you didn't know this, so I'm not going to delete your online log." On the other hand nearly every challenge cache owners are going to say, "You may have found the cache, but the rules say you can't find a challenge cache until you've done the challenge part, so I'm going to delete your log".

And again I say, so what? Even if we move on from the unlikely accidental newbie to the slightly more likely case of an active cacher making an intentional find without realizing it's a challenge cache, we see that the negative effect is negligible: "I'm sorry, but you didn't meet the requirements, so I have to delete your log." If the finder is upset about one less logged find, then I'd say they have an attitude problem that has nothing to do with challenge caches.