Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Oxford Stone

Challenge caches and undue restrictions

Recommended Posts

I had (I thought) a nice idea for a challenge cache, namely to visit a cache - any cache, ie choice of anything from 5 to 150 - of each of about 18 local COs. Local cachers would probably qualify anyway, or find themselves with one or two to pick up; anyone from further afield passing through, if they wanted to give it a go, would (as with any other challenge) have a bit of planning to do.

 

It was turned down under this clause:

 

3.A Challenge geocache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: 1.Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

 

Reviewer not wanting to discuss, just referred me back to this clause. I can't appeal as I simply amended the cache to a puzzle instead so can't fill in the appeal form.

 

Was it a good idea for a challenge? Should it have been accepted? Is it in the spirit of challenge caches - my idea being to encourage exploration? I deliberately excluded from my list 2 COs whose caches are all / predominantly premium.

 

I'm not going to criticise this reviewer or any others - but am interested to get feedback.

Share this post


Link to post

It was turned down under this clause:

 

3.A Challenge geocache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: 1.Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

 

Reviewer not wanting to discuss, just referred me back to this clause. I can't appeal as I simply amended the cache to a puzzle instead so can't fill in the appeal form.

 

What's to discuss or appeal?

 

The clause is very specific and fits the challenge you describe perfectly - with the upshot being that the challenge you describe is not acceptable for publication on geocaching.com

 

It's an open and shut case.

Share this post


Link to post

It was turned down under this clause:

 

3.A Challenge geocache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: 1.Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

 

Reviewer not wanting to discuss, just referred me back to this clause. I can't appeal as I simply amended the cache to a puzzle instead so can't fill in the appeal form.

 

What's to discuss or appeal?

 

The clause is very specific and fits the challenge you describe perfectly - with the upshot being that the challenge you describe is not acceptable for publication on geocaching.com

 

It's an open and shut case.

 

Hmmm, yet they published the BigCal challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

It was turned down under this clause:

 

3.A Challenge geocache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically: 1.Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

 

Reviewer not wanting to discuss, just referred me back to this clause. I can't appeal as I simply amended the cache to a puzzle instead so can't fill in the appeal form.

 

What's to discuss or appeal?

 

The clause is very specific and fits the challenge you describe perfectly - with the upshot being that the challenge you describe is not acceptable for publication on geocaching.com

 

It's an open and shut case.

 

Hmmm, yet they published the BigCal challenges.

 

????

Share this post


Link to post

There's a big difference between "find a cache hidden by ANY persons whose usernames start with each letter from A to Z" (an Alphabet Challenge) versus "find caches hidden by these specific 18 cache owners."

 

A Bigcall Challenge is more like an alphabet challenge. "Find a cache hidden by ANY of 50 accounts who are active Charter Members." You are not restricted to any particular Charter Members.

Share this post


Link to post

(with Venn diagrams in my head...) I was asking people to visit any one of a group of caches (defined by their CO rather than having a Christmas word in their title or a rainbow colour, for example), x18. A rainbow challenge restricts you to caches with indigo in their name to get 1/7 of the way there, and that's quite a restriction. Why the big objection to the definition being a CO? Would it in any way go against the spirit of the game? I'm not asking people to find ALL of a set list of caches, so it's not a closed, finite, specific list.

And surely a cache where you first have to find all of a set list of caches is called a Bonus Cache and is OK? Mystified.

Share this post


Link to post

I imagine that part of the logic which gives rise to this restriction revolves around challenge permanence and consistency.

 

If I publish a challenge cache which requires that people find a specific set of caches and just one of them is archived or even disabled for an extended period - that challenge can't be completed.

 

I _could_ change the list of caches that need to be found to get things going again - but then I've fundamentally altered the challenge and would end up with some finders who had completed one challenge and some finders who had completed another challenge.

 

And if I keep altering the challenge then people working towards it would have to keep changing their plans - checking the cache page regularly in case it had changed.

Share this post


Link to post

I imagine that part of the logic which gives rise to this restriction revolves around challenge permanence and consistency.

 

If I publish a challenge cache which requires that people find a specific set of caches and just one of them is archived or even disabled for an extended period - that challenge can't be completed.

 

I _could_ change the list of caches that need to be found to get things going again - but then I've fundamentally altered the challenge and would end up with some finders who had completed one challenge and some finders who had completed another challenge.

 

And if I keep altering the challenge then people working towards it would have to keep changing their plans - checking the cache page regularly in case it had changed.

 

+1

 

I'll add that Bonus caches are quantitatively different from Challenge Listings, but are prone to the same issues above (i.e. one of the caches goes missing, and the entire house of cards falls apart, making the Final unfindable.).

Share this post


Link to post

Another reason for this particular restriction may be to avoid people setting challenge caches to drive people to do their mate's caches....

Share this post


Link to post

Another reason for this particular restriction may be to avoid people setting challenge caches to drive people to do their mate's caches....

 

This is most likely the reason for that clause.

Share this post


Link to post

Two very reasonable arguments! Mind you I've only met 1/2 of these people - and when I mentioned it on a local FB page, one of the COs was actually the other way, he doesn't want his caches over-visited!

 

Meanwhile the discussion made me remember the row of challenges near here (Marlow UK) I'd set aside as being too hard but the Xmas one (caches with 12 words including green, inn, holly, ivy, church...) is actually pretty easy so it's all good. Plus I'm pretty happy with the 3 alternative puzzles I came up with... all based on... local cachers! (amazing what you can do with the letters and dates on someone's profile...)

Share this post


Link to post

There's a big difference between "find a cache hidden by ANY persons whose usernames start with each letter from A to Z" (an Alphabet Challenge) versus "find caches hidden by these specific 18 cache owners."

 

A Bigcall Challenge is more like an alphabet challenge. "Find a cache hidden by ANY of 50 accounts who are active Charter Members." You are not restricted to any particular Charter Members.

 

While i like the idea of the Bigcall, i don't see that much of difference in it and the OP's cache. With Bigcall, a person is definitely restricted to finding only certain caches. The OP's challenge is restrictive for sure but for most people, would still be much easier to complete than Bigcall.

 

I just don't understand why GS even worries about this. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

Share this post


Link to post

They come in all shapes and sizes - some you look at the logs and noone with under 5000 caches has got it because it's so hard. I've done a 100-day stretch challenge, qualify for a 365/366; am working on rainbow (need indigo and orange OR violet as all must be from different trails); working on 50 church micros (zillions of these caches - clue in the name - in the UK; there are dozens of challenges based around them. IMHO they're over-valued as a series but that's another matter) and one where you need a cache in every 5-mile increment from home up to 250 (have about 20 missing - past about 60 miles it gets hard. 245-250 was in Paris!)

 

So yes a good one encourages you to find more caches along a theme; some are just a bit too rarefied. 200-day stretch, for example. There are some on having a whole line or column on your D/T grid, that I think I qualify for but not worth the drive.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

It's not just you.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

 

For sure. The rejected challenges we hear about are likely the tip of the iceberg. I can only imagine the ridiculous challenge concepts some reviewers have to wade through, and I suspect it's only a matter of time before these things just aren't approved at all anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a big difference between "find a cache hidden by ANY persons whose usernames start with each letter from A to Z" (an Alphabet Challenge) versus "find caches hidden by these specific 18 cache owners."

 

A Bigcall Challenge is more like an alphabet challenge. "Find a cache hidden by ANY of 50 accounts who are active Charter Members." You are not restricted to any particular Charter Members.

 

So if the OP changed his challenge to "find 50 caches published by any or all of these 18 COs" should get published then?

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

 

People have a knack for pushing the limits on anything until they ruin it for all.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a big difference between "find a cache hidden by ANY persons whose usernames start with each letter from A to Z" (an Alphabet Challenge) versus "find caches hidden by these specific 18 cache owners."

 

How much does the phrasing of the challenge have to do with whether or not a challenge cache would be published.

 

For example, "find caches hidden by these specific cache owners" would not be published.

 

If the challenge was 'find caches by 18 different caches owners in this specific zip code", and there were only 18 different cache owners that hid caches in that zip code, it's essentially the same challenge in terms the caches one needs to find to complete the challenge.

 

If the phrasing is important, how much would a reviewer help a CO to change it such that it complies with the guidelines? From what the OP wrote, it doesn't sound like the reviewer offered any help in getting the challenge published.

 

Edited by NYPaddleCacher

Share this post


Link to post

There's a big difference between "find a cache hidden by ANY persons whose usernames start with each letter from A to Z" (an Alphabet Challenge) versus "find caches hidden by these specific 18 cache owners."

 

A Bigcall Challenge is more like an alphabet challenge. "Find a cache hidden by ANY of 50 accounts who are active Charter Members." You are not restricted to any particular Charter Members.

 

While i like the idea of the Bigcall, i don't see that much of difference in it and the OP's cache. With Bigcall, a person is definitely restricted to finding only certain caches. The OP's challenge is restrictive for sure but for most people, would still be much easier to complete than Bigcall.

 

I just don't understand why GS even worries about this. :huh:

 

I think the BigCal is find any one cache by any one of the 50 Charter Members. Not one cache by each of the 50.

Share this post


Link to post

The OPs challenge was to find cache from 18 COs, a BigCal challenge is to find caches by X amount of COs out of 350 (or however many charter members there are)

 

So 18/18 is not ok but 50/350 is ok.

 

Is 17/18 ok? If not 16? If not 15?............

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

It's not just you.

 

Ditto.

 

A challenge was recently published nearby where ther requirement was to find a single cache. And the Challenge cache counted.

 

There's a RI County Challenge - 5 caches to find. If you qualified for the DeLorme or the City challenges, you automatically qualified for the County.

 

Newer challenges seem to be less about "location" (DeLorme), or getting out of your comfort zone (long hikes vice P&Gs), and more about searching for caches with names that start with a certain letter, or contain certain words, etc.

 

And with some of these challenges, it encourages people to throw down caches specifically with these key words or letters in the name. Where's the challenge then?!

Share this post


Link to post
am interested to get feedback.

Something like the following (to me) would appear more in-line with current guidelines and more likely to be published:

"20x20x20 co-radius challenge"

- Find 20 caches by 20 different / unique COs within a 20km radius of posted coordinates

Share this post


Link to post

To Oxford Stone - purely speaking to process, if you want(ed) to appeal, use a new cache report, write up the page as you originally had it, post the GC Code of the original cache in a reviewer note explaining that the original exchange and cache denial is on that listing, and appeal. The appeals group can see the archived notes on the original cache. I'm not encouraging this, I wouldn't expect a different outcome, but I just thought you might want to know "how to".

 

To Roman, challenge cache built on Charter Member owned caches is based on a defined group, and membership in that group is not under the challenge cache owner's control; it's a property of their Geocaching.com membership. This is akin to a challenge to find 50 caches by owners whose username starts with "A".

 

It's not a specific list of "cache owners I like", "cache owners in this area", "cache owners who's challenge hides I think you ought to find", or some other challenge cache owner criterion.

Share this post


Link to post

To Roman, challenge cache built on Charter Member owned caches is based on a defined group, and membership in that group is not under the challenge cache owner's control; it's a property of their Geocaching.com membership. This is akin to a challenge to find 50 caches by owners whose username starts with "A".

 

It's not a specific list of "cache owners I like", "cache owners in this area", "cache owners who's challenge hides I think you ought to find", or some other challenge cache owner criterion.

 

Thank you for another one of your very clear explanations. I now understand the difference. However I need to admit that once again I would have misunderstood the challenge cache guidelines. In my opinion, they are formulated in a way that one can never know whether a challenge cache will go through which I regard as unfortunate.

 

Of course there cannot be a rule for everything, but your explanation above was quite short and concise. It is often hard to understand what is behind a certain statement in the challenge cache guidelines and so it is hard to try to follow the spirit of the rules.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

 

 

It is unfortunate that there isn't some way to differentiate how challenging a challenge is, separate from the difficulty and terrain of its final container, providing the kind of quantification to allow filtering out the decaying old roadkill shoes.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

 

 

It is unfortunate that there isn't some way to differentiate how challenging a challenge is, separate from the difficulty and terrain of its final container, providing the kind of quantification to allow filtering out the decaying old roadkill shoes.

 

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

 

 

It is unfortunate that there isn't some way to differentiate how challenging a challenge is, separate from the difficulty and terrain of its final container, providing the kind of quantification to allow filtering out the decaying old roadkill shoes.

 

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them. :ph34r:

 

:santa:

Share this post


Link to post
:santa:
Am I the only one that thinks of the Grinch when they see that little red-hatted green thing?

 

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them.

This is a good idea.

 

In the context of Challenge Stars, maybe their quantity could be assessed and set by the reviewer at publication, rather than the CO.

 

Existing cache difficulty and terrain are only truly known by someone who has been to GZ and seen the container in context, but the degree of difficulty of a challenge can be determined by reading its requirements in the listing.

Share this post


Link to post

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them. :ph34r:

Maybe they should insert the following sentence into their challenge guidelines:

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

Oh, wait. They already did.

Share this post


Link to post
:santa:
Am I the only one that thinks of the Grinch when they see that little red-hatted green thing?

 

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them.

This is a good idea.

 

In the context of Challenge Stars, maybe their quantity could be assessed and set by the reviewer at publication, rather than the CO.

 

Existing cache difficulty and terrain are only truly known by someone who has been to GZ and seen the container in context, but the degree of difficulty of a challenge can be determined by reading its requirements in the listing.

I sure wouldn't want to be the reviewer who has to grade these. If I were, I'd quickly adopt the 'throw a dart' method.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

There are good traditional caches and there are lame ones. Good multi-caches and lame ones. Good puzzle caches and lame ones.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it me or are challenges becoming the new virtuals? There are good ones that epitomize what challenges were thought to become and then there are the decaying roadkill and old shoe ones.

There are good traditional caches and there are lame ones. Good multi-caches and lame ones. Good puzzle caches and lame ones.

 

Lame is lame. Not a good thing no matter what cache type.

Share this post


Link to post
:santa:
Am I the only one that thinks of the Grinch when they see that little red-hatted green thing?

 

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them.

This is a good idea.

 

In the context of Challenge Stars, maybe their quantity could be assessed and set by the reviewer at publication, rather than the CO.

 

Existing cache difficulty and terrain are only truly known by someone who has been to GZ and seen the container in context, but the degree of difficulty of a challenge can be determined by reading its requirements in the listing.

 

It's a hideous idea and not something that should be foisted on reviewers. They are there to publish the listings, not judge the quality.

Share this post


Link to post
:santa:
Am I the only one that thinks of the Grinch when they see that little red-hatted green thing?

 

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them.

This is a good idea.

 

In the context of Challenge Stars, maybe their quantity could be assessed and set by the reviewer at publication, rather than the CO.

 

Existing cache difficulty and terrain are only truly known by someone who has been to GZ and seen the container in context, but the degree of difficulty of a challenge can be determined by reading its requirements in the listing.

 

It's a hideous idea and not something that should be foisted on reviewers. They are there to publish the listings, not judge the quality.

 

How about an automated system, where the parameters for the challenge qualifications are SQL'd if possible, and then queried against all user finds, to see how many people qualify? The less qualifiers, the more Stars.

 

Just thinking out loud.

Share this post


Link to post

I forgot to one mention another challenge local to me that it seems rude not to look at - but I'm sure some of you will say "Oh FFS" under your breath when you see it...

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC55MY3_explorer-180-challenge and yes there are loads of these in the UK

I couldn't make the GSAK macro thingy work so have peppered 129 squares on my poor unsuspecting paper map with pink highlighter dots.

Glad to have encouraged some good-natured debate on the subject. Reviewers getting involved in the quality of a cache?!?!? Can of worms!!! You'll be asking them to comment on the D/T ratings next!

Share this post


Link to post

How much does the phrasing of the challenge have to do with whether or not a challenge cache would be published.

 

For example, "find caches hidden by these specific cache owners" would not be published.

 

If the challenge was 'find caches by 18 different caches owners in this specific zip code", and there were only 18 different cache owners that hid caches in that zip code, it's essentially the same challenge in terms the caches one needs to find to complete the challenge.

 

Except ... for the future.

 

Suppose a newbie comes along and starts hiding caches in that zip code. Under the former phrasing ("find caches hidden by these specific cache owners"), the newbie's cache placements can't be used to complete the challenge. Under the latter phrasing ("find caches by 18 different owners in this zip code"), the newbie's cache placements can be used.

 

The long-term prognosis for the caches is different, as well. Under the former phrasing, the ability to complete the cache depends on a specific set of cache owners maintaining active caches. If one of them quits the game and archives all of their caches (it's been known to happen), the challenge cache is dead. Under the latter phrasing, the challenge can be sustained indefinitely by new owners.

 

So I don't agree that both phrasings yield the same challenge. The latter seems to be far more sustainable than the latter.

 

Admittedly, this is one of the difficulties of challenge caches; the difficulty in completing the challenge can change over time --- either making the challenge easier or more difficult. Some examples:

  • A local cacher has a series of challenge caches related to souvenirs: to qualify, you have to have X souvenirs on your profile (X=10, 20, 30, etc.). The series was created when there were relatively few souvenirs available (mostly just the geographic ones); the difficulty levels were set accordingly. Of course, Groundspeak started adding souvenirs for lots of things --- slowly at first (like WWFMs and single dates like 11/11/11 and 12/12/12), but then in bulk (30 Days of August 2013, 7 Souvenirs of August 2014). The published difficulty levels don't correspond anymore. Consequently, he's archived that series and started a new series of souvenir challenges, with the difficulty levels adjusted accordingly.
  • Last year I visited Decatur, GA. In March 2013, someone posted a challenge cache (GC485C8): to qualify, you had to find every other cache in the city. Some folks were starting to work on it ... and then three months later, someone posted another challenge cache within the city limits (CD4EGJ6) that requires someone to find two different caches on the same day 4000 miles apart. Not surprisingly, that challenge made the first challenge immensely more difficult (to date, no-one has qualified).

 

Share this post


Link to post

There's a big difference between "find a cache hidden by ANY persons whose usernames start with each letter from A to Z" (an Alphabet Challenge) versus "find caches hidden by these specific 18 cache owners."

 

A Bigcall Challenge is more like an alphabet challenge. "Find a cache hidden by ANY of 50 accounts who are active Charter Members." You are not restricted to any particular Charter Members.

Ohhh yes.... big difference!

 

To the original OP just talk to the 18 players and let them all add, prior to their name ".O." then say in the cache page that for you to sign the cache you must have found at least 5 caches from users that start with ".O."

 

In this way you are not specifying the cache owners because it can be ANY person with a ".O." at the start of their name. :ph34r:

 

PS: Ohhh wait, I forgot... It´s bad to find ways to breach the guidelines, so even tho you can do this... don´t!

Share this post


Link to post

Two very reasonable arguments! Mind you I've only met 1/2 of these people - and when I mentioned it on a local FB page, one of the COs was actually the other way, he doesn't want his caches over-visited!

 

Meanwhile the discussion made me remember the row of challenges near here (Marlow UK) I'd set aside as being too hard but the Xmas one (caches with 12 words including green, inn, holly, ivy, church...) is actually pretty easy so it's all good. Plus I'm pretty happy with the 3 alternative puzzles I came up with... all based on... local cachers! (amazing what you can do with the letters and dates on someone's profile...)

 

Find 10 caches that are in a 10km radious from this one!

Share this post


Link to post

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them. :ph34r:

Maybe they should insert the following sentence into their challenge guidelines:

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

Oh, wait. They already did.

 

What is a "reasonable number"? In Brazil a reasonable number may be 1/300 and in the USA may be 100/30.000. Same odds... Again don´t you just love the subjectivity of the guidelines!

Share this post


Link to post

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them. :ph34r:

Maybe they should insert the following sentence into their challenge guidelines:

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

Oh, wait. They already did.

 

What is a "reasonable number"? In Brazil a reasonable number may be 1/300 and in the USA may be 100/30.000. Same odds... Again don´t you just love the subjectivity of the guidelines!

 

The example you've shown above demonstrates clearly why rigid guidelines would be impractical and - worst case scenario - utterly unworkable and thus why subjective viewpoints are a fairly fundamental factor in their practical use :)

Share this post


Link to post

There's a big difference between "find a cache hidden by ANY persons whose usernames start with each letter from A to Z" (an Alphabet Challenge) versus "find caches hidden by these specific 18 cache owners."

 

A Bigcall Challenge is more like an alphabet challenge. "Find a cache hidden by ANY of 50 accounts who are active Charter Members." You are not restricted to any particular Charter Members.

 

While i like the idea of the Bigcall, i don't see that much of difference in it and the OP's cache. With Bigcall, a person is definitely restricted to finding only certain caches. The OP's challenge is restrictive for sure but for most people, would still be much easier to complete than Bigcall.

 

I just don't understand why GS even worries about this. :huh:

 

I think the BigCal is find any one cache by any one of the 50 Charter Members. Not one cache by each of the 50.

 

I understand this. But when you look at it more closely you'll see that it's tougher to complete than the OP's idea. There are less than 500 Charter Members which is very small percentage of total geocachers. On top of this, these CMs are not in just one area of the world. Don't get me wrong, i like the sound of the Bigcall challenge and have it on my to do list. I'm just noting that it is somewhat harder to accomplish than many of the other challenge caches out there.

Share this post


Link to post

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them. :ph34r:

Maybe they should insert the following sentence into their challenge guidelines:

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

Oh, wait. They already did.

 

But a cache can be placed on a space station or at the bottom of the sea where maybe one out of millions can ever get to it. Yes, i know it's a publicity thing and honestly, i don't care that these are out. It's just that it bugs me when i see someone not practice what they preach.

Share this post


Link to post

But a cache can be placed on a space station or at the bottom of the sea where maybe one out of millions can ever get to it. Yes, i know it's a publicity thing and honestly, i don't care that these are out. It's just that it bugs me when i see someone not practice what they preach.

Don´t be like that... It´s their company, they can do whatever they want! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

The latter seems to be far more sustainable than the latter.

 

Are you sure about that? :laughing:

 

Well, that's why I said "seems to be". I never, never, ever speak in absolutes.

 

(Almost never. :) )

Share this post


Link to post

It all comes to the conclusion, that challenge caches are a bad idea and simply should not be done.

 

I may use this line in other discussions as well...

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post

But a cache can be placed on a space station or at the bottom of the sea where maybe one out of millions can ever get to it. Yes, i know it's a publicity thing and honestly, i don't care that these are out. It's just that it bugs me when i see someone not practice what they preach.

 

The placement of traditional caches has absolutely nothing to do with challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

But a cache can be placed on a space station or at the bottom of the sea where maybe one out of millions can ever get to it. Yes, i know it's a publicity thing and honestly, i don't care that these are out. It's just that it bugs me when i see someone not practice what they preach.

 

The placement of traditional caches has absolutely nothing to do with challenge caches.

 

Huh? Take away the challenge and I would suspect that the placement of most challenge *caches* would be indistinguishable from a traditional cache.

 

I don't know why people keep on bringing up the ISS cache or the Rainbow Thermal vents cache at the bottom of the ocean as examples. To me, they're just a novelty, not a cache that 99.9999% of all geocachers would ever have the opportunity to find.

Share this post


Link to post
:santa:
Am I the only one that thinks of the Grinch when they see that little red-hatted green thing?

 

Let the reviewers apply a WOW factor rating to them.

This is a good idea.

 

In the context of Challenge Stars, maybe their quantity could be assessed and set by the reviewer at publication, rather than the CO.

 

Existing cache difficulty and terrain are only truly known by someone who has been to GZ and seen the container in context, but the degree of difficulty of a challenge can be determined by reading its requirements in the listing.

 

It's a hideous idea and not something that should be foisted on reviewers. They are there to publish the listings, not judge the quality.

 

How about an automated system, where the parameters for the challenge qualifications are SQL'd if possible, and then queried against all user finds, to see how many people qualify? The less qualifiers, the more Stars.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

Man, you are really pushing for this challenge stars idea of yours.

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

×