Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
frinklabs

[FEATURE] Challenge Stars

Recommended Posts

The problem is that as long as challenge caches are physical caches (a significant point in making challenge caches what they really are currently) there can never be a happy in-between where people can find-it-sign-it-log-it-online without the challenge ALR and require a qualification ALR before logging a challenge cache that can be physically found. They can't coexist, simultaneously; they are fundamentally mutually exclusive. Anyone demanding one or the other is necessarily making it less fun for the other side.

 

Agreed. I'm rooting for my camp while I'm trying to also avoid challenge caches to go (as long as they don't bother me anymore). On the other hand, I won't cry if they go.

 

Which takes us back to Geocaching Challenges (with a bit tighter of a review process and a couple of minor changes, but nothing significant enough to make the idea sufficiently similar to the current challenge cache idea -- that is, containing a physical cache component)

 

The reference to Geocaching Challenges (That Horrible Thing) is kinda pejorative. The Challenges were so different from what virtual/locationless challenge caches could be. They didn't count towards your find count, they were not related to geocaching, etc. Having virtual challenges that would allow a find when meeting challenge cache's requirements (such as Fizzy, Jasmer and whatsoever) would be a totally different beast than Geocaching Challenges. Totally.

 

In fact, the only difference between physical challenge caches and virtual challenge caches would be there's no container to find for the +1. So what? I repeat, the goal of a challenge is to meet the requirements. That's the meat and the bonus is the +1.

Share this post


Link to post

In fact, the only difference between physical challenge caches and virtual challenge caches would be there's no container to find for the +1.

The draw to challenge caches was 1) the cache and 2) the challenge. Take away the cache, you only have the challenge. You don't have a physical container, you don't have a GPS location. You have couch-logging of challenge worldwide that you've completed in your geocaching career. That is not challenge caches, those are as I said, Geocaching Challenges with a few tighter rules.

We love challenge caches, not just challenges. That's why we don't favour this virtual/locationless challenge concept.

 

So what? I repeat, the goal of a challenge is to meet the requirements. That's the meat and the bonus is the +1.

Then the CO could have the 3rd option to allow people to log the challenge for the stars without finding the cache, if they so desire. That would become exactly what you're talking about; making the physical cache irrelevant for people who "only care about challenges", so they can get their stars; they could also search worldwide for challenges they can complete that aren't tied to the find, and Complete them all.

I can't see that being anything but a big mess, certainly not an improvement...

 

So in summary, as a CO I can provide a few experiences for cachers when publishing; let's say a Multi:

 

1) Design a multi that takes the cacher to an old ruin. Cool!

 

2) Propose a challenge related to the cache theme - finding caches with the ruins attribute.

 

3a) Option: publish as completely unlocked

i) Find-It-Sign-It-Log-It-Online: (+1 smiley) Multi-cache could be Found without completing the challenge by someone who doesn't like challenges. Physical cache found and logged, cache enjoyed.

 

ii) Virtual/Locationless Challenge: (+1 challenge) Without requiring a Find log, this specific Multi-cache Challenge could be marked complete by someone overseas who searched for unlocked western challenge caches they qualify for. Provide qualification proof, post completed log, get +1 challenge count

 

3b) Publish as fully locked listing (ie current standard)

 

i) Challenge Cache: (+1 smiley, +1 challenge) Multi-cache is locked down so that you only get the +1 smiley and the +1 challenge count once you've posted both the found and complete logs.

 

3c) Publish as Challenge-locked (to find):

 

i) Find-It-Sign-It-Log-It-Online: (+1 smiley) Multi-cache could be Found without completing the challenge by someone who doesn't like challenges. Physical cache found and logged, cache enjoyed.

 

ii) Challenge Cache: (+1 smiley, +1 challenge) Challenge may be completed at any time, but challenge completion won't count +1 until the cache is also logged as found. Effectively the same as adding "and must find this cache to qualify" clause to a current challenge cache qualification. (practically the same as current challenge caches anyway)

 

* Challenge Stars "awarded" - just as a Find log counts as +1 smiley but you can calculate the total D and T stars by cross-referencing find logs to their caches' details, the same would go for challenge complete logs with the Challenge rating property.

 

Benefits:

* Ignoring Challenges altogether? Add the filter to exclude challenges. That means the only caches that show are all the non-challenge caches, or challenge caches that allow finds without completion (ie, unlocked or challenge-locked - both allowing FISILIO). Now every cache you see on your map is a cache you can log as found once you've found the physical container. Zero ALRs.

 

* Want to complete challenges? Add the filter to only return challenges. Do a worldwide search for unlocked challenges if you wish, and sit there logging whatever virtual challenges you qualify for (since you don't have to find a physical cache), or seek out local challenge caches you qualify for but have to find in order to gain the +1 challenge count.

 

Everyone wins!

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone wins!

 

I really liked your idea until I stumbled on the option to make it mandatory to meet the requirements of the challenge to be able to log a find.

 

Back to square one for me as I imagine most people would use the option to make it mandatory (seems to be what people don't want to loose - the exclusivity of the finds).

 

Furthermore, a lot of people complained about a "star system". I don't think they'd buy into it. Personally, I think it's a great idea, but there should never be an option to force people into completing the challenge requirements to get a find on a physical cache. My opinion and preference.

Share this post


Link to post
I really liked your idea until I stumbled on the option to make it mandatory to meet the requirements of the challenge to be able to log a find.

 

That is not the intent of the Challenge Stars system as I propose it.

 

It would be mandatory to meet the requirements of the challenge to be able to log a Challenge Completed log type.

 

It would be mandatory to find the container and sign the book to log a Found It.

 

I might be OCD about this, but I can't tolerate the imprecision of the current setup where one may pre-log a challenge with a Note. After that, when you finally complete the challenge requirements, you log a Found It when you weren't at GZ at that time. This would wreak havoc on mileage and chronology stats.

Share this post


Link to post

I really liked your idea until I stumbled on the option to make it mandatory to meet the requirements of the challenge to be able to log a find.

Back to square one for me as I imagine most people would use the option to make it mandatory (seems to be what people don't want to loose - the exclusivity of the finds).

As I said, these are fundamentally mutually exclusive points. You can't have the find & challenge exclusively linked, yet still allow people to log physical caches they as found without qualifying. My suggestion was to let the CO decide what type of challenge cache their listing would be. That doesn't favour one side or the other - it favours the CO. Yes, challenge-ignorers would not be able to log every challenge cache found without qualifying, but they can log more than zero. And I guarantee you there will be COs who won't be that strict about requiring both, or not allowing a find w/o qualification, if the option is there. And yes, doing it that way with the current system defeats the value of the challenge cache; but that's assuaged by counting the completed challenges as its own metric. A "Find" is no longer confusable with completed challenges.

 

Furthermore, a lot of people complained about a "star system". I don't think they'd buy into it. Personally, I think it's a great idea, but there should never be an option to force people into completing the challenge requirements to get a find on a physical cache. My opinion and preference.

People bought into the Difficulty "star system", and the Terrain "star system". Strictly speaking, a Challenge rating is no different than D or T. Don't think of it as a "star system". It's merely a challenge rating. For those want to tally their completed challenge ratings, it would be exactly the same process as for D or T "stars".

Share this post


Link to post
Furthermore, a lot of people complained about a "star system". I don't think they'd buy into it. Personally, I think it's a great idea, but there should never be an option to force people into completing the challenge requirements to get a find on a physical cache. My opinion and preference.

People bought into the Difficulty "star system", and the Terrain "star system". Strictly speaking, a Challenge rating is no different than D or T. Don't think of it as a "star system". It's merely a challenge rating. For those want to tally their completed challenge ratings, it would be exactly the same process as for D or T "stars".

 

Hmmm... I don't see it with the same lens. To me, D/T are indicators of difficulty and terrain. They're not something I gain.

 

The challenge stars would be similar to finds, except they would be separate.

 

Again, I think it's a workable solution (as per frinklabs' position on always being able to log a find on any physical caches, and only being able to earn challenge stars when the requirements are met). I'm just not sure challenge lovers would buy much into that and as long as the criteria for challenge requirements will be left into CO's hands, it will certainly not solve the moratorium issue.

Share this post


Link to post

People bought into the Difficulty "star system", and the Terrain "star system". Strictly speaking, a Challenge rating is no different than D or T. Don't think of it as a "star system". It's merely a challenge rating. For those want to tally their completed challenge ratings, it would be exactly the same process as for D or T "stars".

 

D/T was part of the game from the beginning and can provide important information about how to prepare to find a particular cache - or if you want to find it at all. A "challenge star" does not seem to be as useful. The rating depends on the individual cachers history rather than how the cache is placed. The stars would not be effective in filtering the types of challenges that I might want to find because some things about my personal history and how I choose to play this game may make a "hard" challenge readily attainable, while some "easier" challenges are beyond anything I would contemplate doing.

 

D/T totals are not displayed in my profile unless I choose to make that public (which I do not). As I understand at least some proposals, challenge stars would be different, ultimately indicating something different than a find, an event, or an cache completed.

 

D/T ratings are not the equivalent of a find or linked to whether I can record a find or a completed task.

 

Ultimately, I think a multi-layered star system would make things more complicated without solving any real problem. If some caches required both the challenge and the signature to record a find, people would complain about that. If some required one or the other, it would mean additional filtering. As it stands things are relatively simple. If I see a question mark I can look at the mystery aspect and decide whether to ignore it or not - whether it be a challenge or a puzzle. Should I decide to complete the challenge, a find is a find. I have yet to read anything that convinced me that the limited ALR presents any more of a problem with a challenge than it does with an earthcache.

 

Yes, it would be nice if challenges could be easily identified with an attribute or an icon. It would be nice if the D rating for both challenges and puzzles told me more about the hide than the prerequisites - but that does not need a new challenge or puzzle star system to resolve. As for me, I would not regard a new stat, an added part of my profile, or anything other than a find count to be a win-win" situation.

Share this post


Link to post

People bought into the Difficulty "star system", and the Terrain "star system". Strictly speaking, a Challenge rating is no different than D or T. Don't think of it as a "star system". It's merely a challenge rating. For those want to tally their completed challenge ratings, it would be exactly the same process as for D or T "stars".

 

Hmmm... I don't see it with the same lens. To me, D/T are indicators of difficulty and terrain. They're not something I gain.

C rating is an indicator of challenge difficulty. It's not something you gain.

 

The challenge stars would be similar to finds, except they would be separate.

No, a Find is a +1 identified by a Find Log on a cache listing. A completed challenge would be identified by a Completed Log on a challenge cache listing.

The sum of Difficulty ratings in your stats (whether you care or not) are Difficulty stars. Ditto for Terrain. Ditto for Challenge.

 

it will certainly not solve the moratorium issue.

This particular thread isn't primarily about solving the moratorium issue. :P It began long before that happened.

Share this post


Link to post

C rating is an indicator of challenge difficulty. It's not something you gain.

 

Oh, I was speaking of challenge stars as finds (the stars you'd get when you meet the requirements of a challenge). Your reference to challenge stars in your reply to my comment made me think you were comparing these stars with the stars of the D/T.

 

It makes sense the "C rating" would be comparable to D/T.

 

But I understood from the "Challenge Stars" system that the end result for meeting the requirements of a challenge would be a virtual reward (what I thought were the challenge stars). This is what challenge lovers would not buy.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I was speaking of challenge stars as finds (the stars you'd get when you meet the requirements of a challenge). Your reference to challenge stars in your reply to my comment made me think you were comparing these stars with the stars of the D/T.

 

It makes sense the "C rating" would be comparable to D/T.

 

But I understood from the "Challenge Stars" system that the end result for meeting the requirements of a challenge would be a virtual reward (what I thought were the challenge stars). This is what challenge lovers would not buy.

 

Ah, ok. Well maybe that's cleared up then?

Challenge "stars" have always been a reference to the very mechanic that D and T use, for a 3rd rating - the Challenge difficulty. A challenge completed log functions just like the find log. You have number of (physical/non-physical) caches found, and you have number of challenges completed. Your D/T/C stars are merely tallied in your stats.

I don't think anyone ever intended to explain "challenge stars" as a reward system, merely the mechanic. But I can see how that could be misunderstood. A better term would be "Challenge rating" (which I try to say often).

 

A "challenge cache" with this system would be a listing containing all three ratings - D/T/C. A regular cache would only have D/T.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Challenge "stars" have always been a reference to the very mechanic that D and T use, for a 3rd rating - the Challenge difficulty. A challenge completed log functions just like the find log. You have number of (physical/non-physical) caches found, and you have number of challenges completed. Your D/T/C stars are merely tallied in your stats.
There have been a couple variations suggested by the OP. One is a total of the number of challenges you've completed. The other is a total of the challenge stars from all the challenges you've completed.

 

Part of the problem with the discussion in this thread is that there are a number of variant suggestions floating around, and it isn't always clear which one someone is discussing (wither as an advocate or as a critic).

Share this post


Link to post
There have been a couple variations suggested by the OP. One is a total of the number of challenges you've completed. The other is a total of the challenge stars from all the challenges you've completed.
Tru dat.

 

My original suggestion was based on an idea of NeverSummer's for a single challenge-completed "point" awarded as a result of posting the Challenge Completed log type.

 

Then NYPaddleCacher had the excellent idea of making it a rating, like D/T. And like those ratings, their stats can be averaged or summed, depending on what you want to see.

 

Part of the problem with the discussion in this thread is that there are a number of variant suggestions floating around, and it isn't always clear which one someone is discussing (wither as an advocate or as a critic).

I know, right?

 

A lot of the tangential discussions were related to addressing objections posed by those who have engaged in a constructive and Socratic way. For me, this is fun!

Share this post


Link to post
There have been a couple variations suggested by the OP. One is a total of the number of challenges you've completed. The other is a total of the challenge stars from all the challenges you've completed.

hm. I don't see variations, I only see one idea that's evolved over the course of the thread. *shrug*

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but the idea of a distinct challenge rating, to my recollection, was posed before this thread existed. frinklabs took the step to make an official feature request thread for his idea, starting as a single 'star'.

In my mind, it has always been a distinct challenge rating, even per my first post in this thread - primarily because it frees up the D and T to be accurate to the physical cache being found (what the D/T really does describe). And the C star 'award' is handled exactly the same as D and T ratings.

 

Total # of challenges complete is the basic report - just like the Find count.

Total challenge stars is the sum of all C ratings of challenges marked as complete - just like D and T ratings for Found caches.

They're not variants, they're just two ways of looking at the same data, exactly the same as we treat D and T right now.

Share this post


Link to post

C rating is an indicator of challenge difficulty. It's not something you gain.

 

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

 

A "challenge cache" with this system would be a listing containing all three ratings - D/T/C. A regular cache would only have D/T.

 

If challenge caches had their own icon or attribute, the total number of challenge caches completed would be listed.

 

As a separate rating system, it might be one way (but not the only way) to allow the difficulty level of the hide to be just that. But in that case, it should not be a separate rating system for challenges alone, but apply to any puzzle or series final that now receives the Question Mark. A prerequisite rating, as it were.

 

I would not want to see ratings given to caches that would be separate from what we know now as a mystery cache -- a type of star awarded to completing "unlocked" challenges in addition to a find on "locked" cacghes (rather than being a guide to help filter the challenge/puzzle aspect from the difficulty of the hide itself). Otherwise, I see a potential for even more filtering. confusion, or another layer of challenges that would be included in caches solely to boost the totals.

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

If challenge caches had their own icon or attribute, the total number of challenge caches completed would be listed.

Attribute, yes. Icon, no. As discussed earlier, there are challenge caches that are not at the posted coordinates, in the form of unknown/puzzle caches, and as multis; traditional is certainly the most prolific though. Having its own icon, you don't address the different types of physical hides a CO might use with the challenge. As an attribute (or whatever property), the cache type, difficulty and terrain can then each be accurate to the hide, with the challenge applied to it.

 

As a separate rating system, it might be one way (but not the only way) to allow the difficulty level of the hide to be just that. But in that case, it should not be a separate rating system for challenges alone, but apply to any puzzle or series final that now receives the Question Mark. A prerequisite rating, as it were.

If you consider the D and T ratings to be about the cache you are finding, typically considered (at least in my mind) brain vs braun ratings, then if you add the challenge as an additional task, the D and T for the physical component is no longer relevant to the challenge. D and T would need to be specific to the cache, not the challenge; which is why it's better applied as its own distinct rating - the estimated difficulty of the challenge, alongside the difficilty and terrain of finding the cache itself.

 

I would not want to see ratings given to caches that would be separate from what we know now as a mystery cache -- a type of star awarded to completing "unlocked" challenges in addition to a find (rather than being a guide to help filter the challenge/puzzle aspect from the difficulty of the hide itself). Otherwise, I see a potential for even more filtering. confusion, or another layer of challenges that would be included in caches solely to boost the totals.

I don't see there being confusion - a mystery cache with a D and T is specific to the cache. A Challenge rating then is applicable to the challenge and the challenge alone. If you ignore challenges, nothing else about the listing has to change - whereas if the D was rated for the cache (puzzle or just difficulty of finding the container, etc) and the challenge, how would someone know what the D of the cache - not the challenge - was? (apart from the CO separately listing it in the description, which is what some tend to do currently).

 

This solution solidifies the definition of D and T across the board, making it universal for all cache types, treating the (currently ALR) challenges as their own thing, and allowing puzzle/multi -challenge cache types to actually be listed accurately as puzzle/multi/traditional caches - but with a challenge component.

 

ETA: To be clear, I'm certainly not against challenge caches having their own cache type/icon, it's an improvement over the current challenge cache implementation - but I foresee issues that aren't addressed coming up again; so I'm suggesting this extra step to attempt to deal with that as well. B)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see there being confusion - a mystery cache with a D and T is specific to the cache. A Challenge rating then is applicable to the challenge and the challenge alone. If you ignore challenges, nothing else about the listing has to change - whereas if the D was rated for the cache (puzzle or just difficulty of finding the container, etc) and the challenge, how would someone know what the D of the cache - not the challenge - was? (apart from the CO separately listing it in the description, which is what some tend to do currently).

 

This solution solidifies the definition of D and T across the board, making it universal for all cache types, treating the (currently ALR) challenges as their own thing, and allowing puzzle/multi -challenge cache types to actually be listed accurately as puzzle/multi/traditional caches - but with a challenge component.

 

The D level issue is the same for any mystery cache as it is with challenges. If you solve a puzzle, then are you dealing with an evil micro hidden in a haystack or with a park and grab? In many cases, the challenge is as cache specific as a puzzle. Determining whether you completed a challenge often requires more work than many puzzles I have done -- at least if there are no macros or checkers. So if there is a separate category to rate a cache beyond the D/T levels for the hide itself, it should apply to any cache where there is a prerequisite - regardless of whether it be a challenge, a puzzle, or a series final. That kind of change makes sense to me. If the purpose of a "C" rating is to solidify the definition of a D/T rating, it should truly be done across the board. Change "C" to "P" (for prerequisite) and I am with you.

 

Otherwise, the guidelines should state that the D is limited to the hide itself and people can figure out for themselves if the puzzle or challenge is easy or hard. The difficulty of either puzzles or challenges are often far more subjective than the present D/T system for traditionals.

 

Adding a new rating for caches with an added component would address the problem with the present rating system, but not whether you can log caches without completing the challenge aspect. I understand that you would make this optional based on the CO, and that was where I see some potential for confusion or an added layer of complexity.

 

This is different from knowing what a D/T rating for the hide might actually be, but rather with any distinction between "locked" and "unlocked" caches. Locked caches would still not allow everyone to record a find. which was the goal of the thread. And adding challenges as an optional component would create a new type of category in addition to the find and D/T (or D/T/P rating). It would mean that the third rating is not specific to the cache find total, but another thing altogether.

 

I have no interest in the number of challenges I do apart from the find total. If I want to see the number of challenges, I should be able to look at an icon in my find totals or the number of attributes found in my stats. Adding an additional optional challenge changes the system from a D/T type of rating to a focus of doing challenges that are distinct from a "challenge cache." I have no interest in challenges just to do challenges or to have numbers in addition to the find total. I would not want to see the numbers of optional caches proliferate with artificial ratings --- but perhaps that depends on how Groundspeak solves the problems that gave rise to the present moratorium.

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

The D level issue is the same for any mystery cache as it is with challenges. If you solve a puzzle, then are you dealing with an evil micro hidden in a haystack or with a park and grab?

I agree. And that's a whole other (much older) discussion that's been had elsewhere presumably since puzzle caches were allowed. At least this suggestion reduces the ambiguity of the D rating by removing the Challenge difficulty from that equation.

 

Change "C" to "P" (for prerequisite) and I am with you.

But the "C" is not a prerequisite. A puzzle is mental work in order to determine the coordinates of a cache; D could also be how hard it is to spot it, or figure out how it's hidden. The D in a multi is similar - how difficult is the mental task required in order to locate the container? A Challenge has nothing to do with actually locating the container.

Whether you think a puzzle should have its own difficulty rating distinct from the physical cache container search difficulty is a different discussion not for this thread. But the "C" is definitely not a prerequisite rating...

 

Adding a new rating for caches with an added component would address the problem with the present rating system, but not whether you can log caches without completing the challenge aspect. I understand that you would make this optional based on the CO, and that was where I see some potential for confusion or an added layer of complexity.

IMO, that's a matter of implementation, and how well Groundspeak would do it. It's more confusing when there are ambiguities and mixed definitions - and more work for reviewers to 'help' people understand. It's less confusing when things are distinct and obvious - as long as things are clear. (Not the GS has had a solid track record in that department recently :ph34r:)

 

This is different from knowing what a D/T rating for the hide might actually be, but rather with any distinction between "locked" and "unlocked" caches. Locked caches would still not allow everyone to record a find. which was the goal of the thread. And adding challenges as an optional component would create a new type of category in addition to the find and D/T (or D/T/P rating). It would mean that the third rating is not specific to the cache find total, but another thing altogether.

1. Terminology is rough. I just went with that because it's easily visualized and short words. Don't care about labels, just concepts. Point being, as I said, people just want to FISILIO can turn off challenges altogether and nothing would change except they wouldn't see challenge info, or caches they cannott log without qualifying. That is not currently possible the way things are now. People can't even filter to find or exclude challenge caches. So that's a huge benefit to the system.

2. The only new category would be Challenge caches. Not cache types (just as they are not now), but something people either may or may not be interested in. No complexity in searching, aside from effectively toggling another 'attribute' (or searching for rating ranges, just as with D or T). There's either a challenge or there's not, or there are no challenges whatsoever (wherein caches that can be Found without qualification will still be shown to those who don't care about challenges, and they'll see them as traditional, multi, mystery, etc - accurate to the actual physical cache hide; meaning for example that mystery caches will now always imply there is nothing at the posted coordinates - which is not true of most current challenge caches)

3. Correct, the third rating is not specific to the cache find total. It's only applicable to the challenge caching metric, for those people who choose to do challenges and log them. For those who don't, the third rating is irrelevant. win win.

 

I have no interest in the number of challenges I do apart from the find total. If I want to see the number of challenges, I should be able to look at an icon in my find totals or the number of attributes found in my stats.

Which you can do with this system.

 

Adding an additional optional challenge changes the system from a D/T type of rating to a focus of doing challenges that are distinct from a "challenge cache." I have no interest in challenges just to do challenges or to have numbers in addition to the find total.

Neither am I interested in challenges just for the sake of challenges. But comments have been made here about making challenges "virtual", for those who (apparently) ONLY care about challenges, and not the physical challenge cache component. This system addresses that. (couch-logging unlocked challenges across the world; which I personally find dumb, but hey, the system logic allows for it if they decide to go that way, similar to (the failed) Worldwide Challenges)

 

I would not want to see the numbers of optional caches proliferate with artificial ratings --- but perhaps that depends on how Groundspeak solves the problems that gave rise to the present moratorium.

Artificial ratings will always be a problem. Not sure how that's related to this though...

Share this post


Link to post

Virtualizing the challenge caches would have the benefit to stop the irritant for those who care nothing about challenges as there would be nothing to find at GZ...

There would be nothing to do at GZ, making virtualized-yet-published-at-coordinates-caches meaningless and pointless. The closest to 'virtualized' caches I acn slightly understand would be regional challenges (not tied to a gps location but a state/province/territory/etc). But then you have to deal with duplicates, and other things discussed earlier in the thread.

 

It's why I feel like challenges ought to be dealt with as two separate groups:

1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.

2 - Challenges that are localized...those that are tied to a place (county challenge in a given state, grid challenges in a given state, etc.) or "quirkier" challenges such as those that spell out a word or follow a theme of some sort. I see no problem with these having a physical cache to sign...or even with keeping them much like they are right now. Obviously something has to be tightened up to address the issues GS is having with challenges. I think if these were to remain actual caches with posted coordinates, there would need to be a container to find and a log to sign. Otherwise, they would be submitted for review by the cacher and the 'owner' of the challenge would then have the opportunity to review the qualifications and award the points or stars or whatever they are to the individual.

 

I know this idea has holes, but it at least address MY concerns with challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

It's why I feel like challenges ought to be dealt with as two separate groups:

1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.

 

Yes! Indeed, you painted the challenges for what they really are (or should be), accomplishments/achievements.

 

2 - Challenges that are localized...those that are tied to a place (county challenge in a given state, grid challenges in a given state, etc.) or "quirkier" challenges such as those that spell out a word or follow a theme of some sort. I see no problem with these having a physical cache to sign...or even with keeping them much like they are right now. Obviously something has to be tightened up to address the issues GS is having with challenges. I think if these were to remain actual caches with posted coordinates, there would need to be a container to find and a log to sign. Otherwise, they would be submitted for review by the cacher and the 'owner' of the challenge would then have the opportunity to review the qualifications and award the points or stars or whatever they are to the individual.

 

No! :P What did you expect from me? :rolleyes:

 

IMHO, "local" challenges should disappear. Those are probably the ones raising the most concerns with Groundspeak, but who am I to know (just my feeling). Therefore it would leave a perfect challenge system (virtual and automatically assigned whenever you meet the easily measurable requirements).

Share this post


Link to post

1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.

Would anyone be interested in these universal challenges? It seems like a solution looking for a problem. In any case, this doesn't sound "much like" souvenirs, it sounds exactly like souvenirs, and, as far as I know, GS could implement souvenirs like this today if they felt like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Would anyone be interested in these universal challenges?
I would. I've earned online badges in other contexts. I filled my 366-day grid because I thought it would be fun to have a filled grid in my stats (an online badge of sorts). I started my longest streak so I could earn all of the 31 Days of August Souvenirs a couple years ago, and then continued it for 100 days so it would match my longest slump (another online badge of sorts), and then continued it further with no particular challenge in mind. Eventually, I ended it at 366 days with challenge caches in mind, and ending with a 30-day puzzle streak for a local challenge. But a 30-day puzzle streak Souvenir or other online badge would have been sufficient incentive as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Virtualizing the challenge caches would have the benefit to stop the irritant for those who care nothing about challenges as there would be nothing to find at GZ...

There would be nothing to do at GZ, making virtualized-yet-published-at-coordinates-caches meaningless and pointless. The closest to 'virtualized' caches I acn slightly understand would be regional challenges (not tied to a gps location but a state/province/territory/etc). But then you have to deal with duplicates, and other things discussed earlier in the thread.

 

It's why I feel like challenges ought to be dealt with as two separate groups:

1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.

2 - Challenges that are localized...those that are tied to a place (county challenge in a given state, grid challenges in a given state, etc.) or "quirkier" challenges such as those that spell out a word or follow a theme of some sort. I see no problem with these having a physical cache to sign...or even with keeping them much like they are right now. Obviously something has to be tightened up to address the issues GS is having with challenges. I think if these were to remain actual caches with posted coordinates, there would need to be a container to find and a log to sign. Otherwise, they would be submitted for review by the cacher and the 'owner' of the challenge would then have the opportunity to review the qualifications and award the points or stars or whatever they are to the individual.

 

I know this idea has holes, but it at least address MY concerns with challenges.

 

In general, I agree with your idea. However, I think it would be much simpler to keep the +1 smiley for completing the challenge. I don't think that quantifying the difficulty with "stars" is necessary either. We don't quantify difficulty from the D/T rating on other caches types. A 5/5 cache counts the same as a 1.5/1.5 and I don't think I can recall anyone suggesting that it should be changed. I know that some people don't care for them, but a +1 and a digital badge that could go on an "achievements" tab in our profile would, to me, be a sufficient reward. I also like the idea of "levels" of difficult that's represented in the Badgegen badges. For example, the "Traveling Cacher" has badges from Bronze (find caches in 2 countries) to Diamond (find caches in 35 countries).

 

Although cron disagrees, I think there's definitely a place for regional challenges. The Delorme and "all counties" challenges have been around for a long time and are attainable goals for those living with that region.

 

Although we haven't been given details regarding the appeals issue that was stated as a primary reason for the moratorium I suspect that disputes over attainability had a lot to do with. I've seen a lot of challenges that seem to be more about who can create the most difficult, most exclusive challenge rather than something that can be enjoyed by a broad audience. I'm suggesting that all challenges should be easy but I really don't see the point in creating a challenge for which less that 1% of the geocachers would ever qualify. The attainability issue comes into play in the case of regional souvenirs. A challenge to find a cache a day for a year make sense in areas where there are a significant number of caches, but for the many areas in the world that don't have the luxury of thousands of caches within 20-50 miles, not so much. Maybe a CO in Peru that has traveled a bit might qualify for a "find 10 web cams" cache, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me to create a "find 10 web cams" cache in Peru.

Share this post


Link to post

1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.

Would anyone be interested in these universal challenges? It seems like a solution looking for a problem. In any case, this doesn't sound "much like" souvenirs, it sounds exactly like souvenirs, and, as far as I know, GS could implement souvenirs like this today if they felt like it.

 

Kind of why I thought "challenges" was an inaccurate description. Not really a "souvenir" so much as a special achievement or accomplishment. More than a souvenir that might, say, tell everyone you found a cache in Iowa...and thus would not be relegated to a back corner of a user's profile, but displayed more prominently...which is why I like the notion of "Challenge Stars" - or perhaps "Achievement Ratings" or something to more accurately reflect what the user has attained.

Share this post


Link to post

1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.

Would anyone be interested in these universal challenges? It seems like a solution looking for a problem. In any case, this doesn't sound "much like" souvenirs, it sounds exactly like souvenirs, and, as far as I know, GS could implement souvenirs like this today if they felt like it.

Exactly. This isn't an adjustment to challenge caches, it's a scrapping of challenge caches in favour of automated statistical achievement badges. Groundspeak could implement that now (well they are actually with this upcoming souvenir period), and we can do that already with custom profile content if we desire.

 

Additionally, while I don't see anything wrong with Universal and Localized challenges, separating the two means less fun and creativity, as many challenges are combinations of both types of qualification. It adds a limit to creativity that doesn't currently exist. As I mentioned elsewhere for example, what if someone wants to publish a challenge that is to complete your D/T grid within one state? That's statistical and localized; where does it go? Or should it be denied?

 

In general, I agree with your idea. However, I think it would be much simpler to keep the +1 smiley for completing the challenge. I don't think that quantifying the difficulty with "stars" is necessary either. We don't quantify difficulty from the D/T rating on other caches types. A 5/5 cache counts the same as a 1.5/1.5 and I don't think I can recall anyone suggesting that it should be changed.

Uh, not really. A 5/5 cache counts as a +1 smiley the same as a 1.5/1.5, but the D5 is very different than a D1.5, and your D total (stars) is different by 3.5, as would be displayed in your stats currently. Stars already exist for D and T. You don't have to look at them if you don't want, but they are summed.

 

I know that some people don't care for them, but a +1 and a digital badge that could go on an "achievements" tab in our profile would, to me, be a sufficient reward.

And that's doable. That's your challenge completed count. In your stats, if you desire, you can also find the total challenge star sum, just like D and T. Or not, if you don't care to look.

 

Although cron disagrees, I think there's definitely a place for regional challenges. The Delorme and "all counties" challenges have been around for a long time and are attainable goals for those living with that region.

So who gets to publish and own it? The first person to make it? Another person comes along and is denied because it already exists; so they alter it a bit (however they decide to) - hey reviewer, why can't I publish this now? It's not exactly the same... etc

 

Although we haven't been given details regarding the appeals issue that was stated as a primary reason for the moratorium I suspect that disputes over attainability had a lot to do with. I've seen a lot of challenges that seem to be more about who can create the most difficult, most exclusive challenge rather than something that can be enjoyed by a broad audience. I'm suggesting that all challenges should be easy but I really don't see the point in creating a challenge for which less that 1% of the geocachers would ever qualify. The attainability issue comes into play in the case of regional souvenirs. A challenge to find a cache a day for a year make sense in areas where there are a significant number of caches, but for the many areas in the world that don't have the luxury of thousands of caches within 20-50 miles, not so much. Maybe a CO in Peru that has traveled a bit might qualify for a "find 10 web cams" cache, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me to create a "find 10 web cams" cache in Peru.

Right and this really is only get worse over time as the spread of 'experience' grows between beginners and long time vets. Attainability I think at best will always have to be regionally judged by the local reviewer... I don't think there would ever be a lower limit, but there may well be a max limit.

Share this post


Link to post

1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.

Would anyone be interested in these universal challenges? It seems like a solution looking for a problem. In any case, this doesn't sound "much like" souvenirs, it sounds exactly like souvenirs, and, as far as I know, GS could implement souvenirs like this today if they felt like it.

Exactly. This isn't an adjustment to challenge caches, it's a scrapping of challenge caches in favour of automated statistical achievement badges. Groundspeak could implement that now (well they are actually with this upcoming souvenir period), and we can do that already with custom profile content if we desire.

 

Additionally, while I don't see anything wrong with Universal and Localized challenges, separating the two means less fun and creativity, as many challenges are combinations of both types of qualification. It adds a limit to creativity that doesn't currently exist. As I mentioned elsewhere for example, what if someone wants to publish a challenge that is to complete your D/T grid within one state? That's statistical and localized; where does it go? Or should it be denied?

 

I kind of already covered that in my second point (which wasn't quoted).

 

2 - Challenges that are localized...those that are tied to a place (county challenge in a given state, grid challenges in a given state, etc.) or "quirkier" challenges such as those that spell out a word or follow a theme of some sort. I see no problem with these having a physical cache to sign...or even with keeping them much like they are right now. Obviously something has to be tightened up to address the issues GS is having with challenges. I think if these were to remain actual caches with posted coordinates, there would need to be a container to find and a log to sign. Otherwise, they would be submitted for review by the cacher and the 'owner' of the challenge would then have the opportunity to review the qualifications and award the points or stars or whatever they are to the individual.

 

They're clearly localized challenges that take general statistical achievements and make them more focused and more of a true "challenge".

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×