Jump to content

Challenge that is undoable


Recommended Posts

Please don't mistake this as a post to disparage challenge caches. I'm a big supporter of challenge caches and enjoying taking them on full force. I'd like to discuss challenge caches that have existed in the past, that are still active and are no longer attainable.

 

Here's my main gripe - GC1CHTQ (non pmo)

 

I was combing the area for challenges that I may want to work on since I may find myself in this area in the New year. The challenge was published back in 2008 and at one point, required folks to find 48 out of 51 specific caches published by one specific cache owner. To this day, only 32 of those 51 caches are still active. I posted a note to the page informing the CO that the challenge is no longer attainable by those who don't already qualify (for the most part). In response, the CO changed the qualifications to include the specified type of cache by any cache owner.

 

That's all well and good, but after keyword searching the site and project GC, I can still only find 32 caches that fit the qualifications, regardless of the cache owner (seems he owns every one that I could find). The CO mentioned that he may change the qualifications to a lower number of caches required, however, it's still impossible for most cachers to qualify for this unless you've previously found caches that have been archived by the CO.

 

I understand where the CO is coming from. It's a grandfathered challenge. The guidelines would no longer permit this type of challenge....but why keep this challenge active if you can't complete it anymore? It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

So should a challenge like this be put to rest or should it remain active for the few cachers who have found qualifying caches that have been archived?

Link to comment

Time to let it go.

 

Changing the challenge makes it a new experience, therefore it's a new cache.

 

If you lower the number of caches needed, you de-value the work of those that met the challenge previously...

Agreed.

 

My main issue here is that the cache is currently active and entirely unattainable because there's only 32 active qualifying caches. Whether he lowers it or not, it should at least be archived because of the simple fact that the challenge cannot be completed by anybody anymore.

Link to comment

Time to let it go.

 

Changing the challenge makes it a new experience, therefore it's a new cache.

 

If you lower the number of caches needed, you de-value the work of those that met the challenge previously...

Agreed.

 

My main issue here is that the cache is currently active and entirely unattainable because there's only 32 active qualifying caches. Whether he lowers it or not, it should at least be archived because of the simple fact that the challenge cannot be completed by anybody anymore.

It might be time to archive the challenge, but that should be entirely up to the cache owner. Is it occupying valuable real estate? Do you feel the need to find every cache within a certain radius of your home? Why don't you simply put it on your ignore list and forget about it?

Link to comment

Time to let it go.

 

Changing the challenge makes it a new experience, therefore it's a new cache.

 

If you lower the number of caches needed, you de-value the work of those that met the challenge previously...

Agreed.

 

My main issue here is that the cache is currently active and entirely unattainable because there's only 32 active qualifying caches. Whether he lowers it or not, it should at least be archived because of the simple fact that the challenge cannot be completed by anybody anymore.

It might be time to archive the challenge, but that should be entirely up to the cache owner. Is it occupying valuable real estate? Do you feel the need to find every cache within a certain radius of your home? Why don't you simply put it on your ignore list and forget about it?

 

I don't know, no (I don't live in the area, nor to I care to "clear" areas), I'm not upset that I can't qualify, and it's not bothering me to the fact that I feel the need to ignore it.

 

I simply wanted to see how folks feel about a challenge that's active that nobody can feasibly qualify for anymore. It's like having a puzzle cache active that doesn't work anymore, but a couple of people still have the solution and could technically do it, but nobody else could.

 

Maybe it's a local thing. Our reviewer is quick to disable/archive caches that can't be found. Take GC2K4QJ (non pmo) for example. There were three caches needed to find this one. They were archived and the final remained. Just because some others already had the final coordinates, should the final have been left active?

Link to comment

There still are a significant amount of people that could complete it, so it's still viable, and the CO may also choose to hide more qualifying caches in the future, so I don't think it's hurting anything by staying active.

 

^This^. The OP may not be from the area so he's starting from scratch. But he has no idea how many cachers that are local to the area could be working on the challenge, nor what their progress levels may be. That challenge met the guidelines that were in effect when it was published, and is grandfathered in. Also, there is no shortage of great hiding spots in Western NC, so it's not like it's blocking any new placements out there.

Link to comment
There still are a significant amount of people that could complete it, so it's still viable, and the CO may also choose to hide more qualifying caches in the future, so I don't think it's hurting anything by staying active.
Ditto.

 

Eventually, it should probably be archived, unless more qualifying caches are hidden so it becomes doable by new geocachers again. But I see no need to expedite its archival, especially if there are people who can still qualify based on having found now-archived caches.

Link to comment
http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

4. Challenge geocaches need to be attainable at any time while the geocache is active. A geocache that requires "100 multi-caches found in 2011" would not be publishable, as would not be attainable by someone new to the game.

 

Time to hit the NA button. It is not attainable by someone new to the game, so it's against the rules.

 

I doubt the grandfathered clause covers the "unattainability" :rolleyes:

 

Edited: people who can still qualify based on having found now-archived caches can log it even if archived.

Edited by DeepButi
Link to comment

Over time, some of the older challenges will become impossibly or nearly so - those published with date of find restrictions, and other restrictions that wouldn't fly today. I'd expect them to continue on the site until there's really nobody, or next to nobody who could do them.

 

The challenge mentioned in the OP strikes me as apt to be okay for a quite a while yet. There are cachers in the area who can still qualify and the pool of available caches can be enlarged by the cache owner or anyone else. It's title restricted, but not owner restricted.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

Kind of brings to mind another issue I've had with some challenges...

 

If there was a "back to school" challenge that required finding Georgia-only caches beginning with the letters A to Z and the numbers 0 through 9, but the caches had to have been placed before a certain date back in 2008...would not that challenge grow much more difficult over time? To me, that says that the challenge in 2014 is no longer the same as the challenge as it was back in 2008.

 

This is NOT to say it should be changed or archived, but is it not a similar issue? That the requirements may not longer be attainable in a year or two when there may no longer be any caches in the state of Georgia beginning with '2' that were placed before that date in 2008?

Link to comment

Archive it. If folks have found qualifying caches that have been archived, then they can go find THIS cache after it's been archived.

Some people prefer to sign the challenge cache log after they complete the challenge requirements. If the owner archives the cache and removes it, then they won't have the opportunity go find this cache.

Link to comment

If there was a "back to school" challenge that required finding Georgia-only caches beginning with the letters A to Z and the numbers 0 through 9, but the caches had to have been placed before a certain date back in 2008...would not that challenge grow much more difficult over time? To me, that says that the challenge in 2014 is no longer the same as the challenge as it was back in 2008.

Few challenges are equally difficult today as they were when they were originally placed. Some become harder to complete while others become easier. If the Georgia challenge didn't have the date restriction, then it probably would get easier over time as more and more caches are placed. Challenges change.

Link to comment

If there was a "back to school" challenge that required finding Georgia-only caches beginning with the letters A to Z and the numbers 0 through 9, but the caches had to have been placed before a certain date back in 2008...would not that challenge grow much more difficult over time? To me, that says that the challenge in 2014 is no longer the same as the challenge as it was back in 2008.

Few challenges are equally difficult today as they were when they were originally placed. Some become harder to complete while others become easier. If the Georgia challenge didn't have the date restriction, then it probably would get easier over time as more and more caches are placed. Challenges change.

 

That was kind of my point...you know, the part of my post that you DIDN'T quote...

 

This is NOT to say it should be changed or archived, but is it not a similar issue? That the requirements may not longer be attainable in a year or two when there may no longer be any caches in the state of Georgia beginning with '2' that were placed before that date in 2008?
Link to comment

There still are a significant amount of people that could complete it, so it's still viable, and the CO may also choose to hide more qualifying caches in the future, so I don't think it's hurting anything by staying active.

 

^This^. The OP may not be from the area so he's starting from scratch. But he has no idea how many cachers that are local to the area could be working on the challenge, nor what their progress levels may be. That challenge met the guidelines that were in effect when it was published, and is grandfathered in. Also, there is no shortage of great hiding spots in Western NC, so it's not like it's blocking any new placements out there.

 

Exactly. Is the container present, in good shape, and not anywhere illegal? Those are the main reasons why geocaches get archived. This challenge requires solving puzzles which may take some time, and the owner may always create more. I don't see how anyone can be negatively affected by this.

Link to comment

I dont understand why some of you cachers want to save everything. :ph34r:

 

When a challenge cache get punished, the reviewer does check to see if the challenge is doable. But sometime, over the years, the challenge become undoable and this is where the reviewer need to look it over.

 

I feel a challenge cache need to be doable at all time, even 2 years or 5 years down the road. Especially the challenge cache the OP posted.

Link to comment

I dont understand why some of you cachers want to save everything. :ph34r:

 

When a challenge cache get punished, the reviewer does check to see if the challenge is doable. But sometime, over the years, the challenge become undoable and this is where the reviewer need to look it over.

 

I feel a challenge cache need to be doable at all time, even 2 years or 5 years down the road. Especially the challenge cache the OP posted.

 

Well...I wouldn't say they want to "save" it. I think it's more that there's no reason to try to get rid of it. As they have stated, there may be dozens of folks who could eventually qualify (or qualify already) with what they already have found and what caches are left that meet the requirements. No reason to "punish" them because no new folks can try to meet the challenge.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

1.19. Challenge Geocaches

[updated 12/19/14 to add Additional Point #12]

 

Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available geocaches to meet the challenge at the time of publication.

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

What makes an acceptable challenge geocache?

 

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

 

Additional points to consider when creating a challenge geocache:

 

Challenge geocaches based on a specific list of geocaches, such as those placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

 

Challenge geocaches need to be attainable at any time while the geocache is active.

 

OK. So it's a Grandfathered cache.

 

No need to Archive. Yet.

 

But. If the CO needs to reduce to number of Founds that qualify, then the cache no longer meets the present day criteria...

ANY change, especially to reduce the finds, surely removes the Grandfather status?

 

Is the cache now getting to the point that it no longer appeals to, or is attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers?

 

If nothing else, should it have an eye kept on it (by a reviewer?) to stop any changes, that would -if it was submitted today- stop it from being published..?

 

* This should be for ANY challenge caches, not just this one specifically.

Maybe challenge caches need to be 'locked' to stop any changes/editing once they are published?

Link to comment

I dont understand why some of you cachers want to save everything. :ph34r:

 

When a challenge cache get punished, the reviewer does check to see if the challenge is doable. But sometime, over the years, the challenge become undoable and this is where the reviewer need to look it over.

 

I feel a challenge cache need to be doable at all time, even 2 years or 5 years down the road. Especially the challenge cache the OP posted.

 

Well...I wouldn't say they want to "save" it. I think it's more that there's no reason to try to get rid of it. As they have stated, there may be dozens of folks who could eventually qualify (or qualify already) with what they already have found and what caches are left that meet the requirements. No reason to "punish" them because no new folks can try to meet the challenge.

I disagree with you right there. So you believe its ok to "punish" the new folks because they come into the game too late?

Link to comment

Well...I wouldn't say they want to "save" it. I think it's more that there's no reason to try to get rid of it. As they have stated, there may be dozens of folks who could eventually qualify (or qualify already) with what they already have found and what caches are left that meet the requirements. No reason to "punish" them because no new folks can try to meet the challenge.

I disagree with you right there. So you believe its ok to "punish" the new folks because they come into the game too late?

 

If someone has already invested a lot of work towards a challenge cache and then gets no chance to finish off the project, I'd regard that as a punishment. If someone has not yet invested work and just cannot log a find it for a certain cache, I see no punishment at all. Those who cannot qualify, can easily put the cache on their ignore list if they do not wish to see it.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

How long has it been undoable? (I.e. When were caches archived such that there were only 47 active qualifying caches?)

 

If it has been years, I can see archiving it. If it has been months or weeks, I'd say give it more time.

 

[EDIT to add] Option B: publish a bunch of roadside micros with the qualifying letters in the title. :ph34r:

Edited by TriciaG
Link to comment

Nobody is being "punished" here. The challenge cache is viable by a number of those who found the required caches. If anything, the cache in question is a reward for those cachers who found some the required qualifying caches.

 

The best thing for th angst regarding this Challenge Cache is...Let it Go

Link to comment

Well...I wouldn't say they want to "save" it. I think it's more that there's no reason to try to get rid of it. As they have stated, there may be dozens of folks who could eventually qualify (or qualify already) with what they already have found and what caches are left that meet the requirements. No reason to "punish" them because no new folks can try to meet the challenge.

I disagree with you right there. So you believe its ok to "punish" the new folks because they come into the game too late?

 

If someone has already invested a lot of work towards a challenge cache and then gets no chance to finish off the project, I'd regard that as a punishment. If someone has not yet invested work and just cannot log a find it for a certain cache, I see no punishment at all. Those who cannot qualify, can easily put the cache on their ignore list if they do not wish to see it.

Thats the nature of the beast. I had a challenge cache that was archived when I was almost done, but do I cry about it? No... Only whiners do.

 

Just move on... Its just a game.

Link to comment

I get so tired of the of the... just put the cache on your ignore list. I feel its nobody job to tell anyone that. If that cache is available to found, it should be found by everybody if they are able to do it... not just a so so group.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

Well...I wouldn't say they want to "save" it. I think it's more that there's no reason to try to get rid of it. As they have stated, there may be dozens of folks who could eventually qualify (or qualify already) with what they already have found and what caches are left that meet the requirements. No reason to "punish" them because no new folks can try to meet the challenge.

I disagree with you right there. So you believe its ok to "punish" the new folks because they come into the game too late?

 

If someone has already invested a lot of work towards a challenge cache and then gets no chance to finish off the project, I'd regard that as a punishment. If someone has not yet invested work and just cannot log a find it for a certain cache, I see no punishment at all. Those who cannot qualify, can easily put the cache on their ignore list if they do not wish to see it.

Its hardly punishment, its just bad luck. There are probably hundreds if not thousands og challenges out there I may or may not qualify for and if one of them gets archived well that's just too bad. I wont lose any sleep over it. It's the way of the game.

Link to comment

Reminds me of a mystery series I went looking for: Find these four mystery caches, and get hints for the final. The final will give you the coords for the bonus cache. One of the caches was broken, and lying on the ground a distance off, with no log book and no hint (though several cachers did log a find on the broken cache.) The CO had been inactive for quite a while. I suggested to the reviewer that that cache should be archived. And that the final and bonus caches should be archived, since they could no longer be found. The reviewer disabled them, and after a month with no response, all three caches were archived. The first three caches in ther series are still 'active'.

Though, as TriciaG suggests, the Challenge Cache can remain active if other cachers hide caches with EJMG in the name. What if I hide a cache in New Jersey with the name: ThE JM Gear Cache. Would that qualify for the challenge? Hmm.. Just needs RJMG somewhere in the title? Rick Might Just Get this cache? I found a cache called: Grandma's Fruit Bowl Series: Little Jack Horner. That has an E, J, M & G in the title. Would that qualify? I don't see why not.

Link to comment

Hit the NA button... and the reviewer will decided what it needs to be done.

 

Changing the challenge is against the guideline of GS. Only if the reviewer oked it.

 

Agree with the first part, I think it should be done away with if its no longer obtainable to someone who started today.

 

As far as changing the challenge guidelines, many challenges get slightly tweaked after the fact to reflect new realities, new pages in county challenges, extending the publication dates....COs can tweak guidelines from time to time without asking a reviewer.

Link to comment

Reminds me of a mystery series I went looking for: Find these four mystery caches, and get hints for the final. The final will give you the coords for the bonus cache. One of the caches was broken, and lying on the ground a distance off, with no log book and no hint (though several cachers did log a find on the broken cache.) The CO had been inactive for quite a while. I suggested to the reviewer that that cache should be archived. And that the final and bonus caches should be archived, since they could no longer be found. The reviewer disabled them, and after a month with no response, all three caches were archived. The first three caches in ther series are still 'active'.

Though, as TriciaG suggests, the Challenge Cache can remain active if other cachers hide caches with EJMG in the name. What if I hide a cache in New Jersey with the name: ThE JM Gear Cache. Would that qualify for the challenge? Hmm.. Just needs RJMG somewhere in the title? Rick Might Just Get this cache? I found a cache called: Grandma's Fruit Bowl Series: Little Jack Horner. That has an E, J, M & G in the title. Would that qualify? I don't see why not.

 

Well, I just noticed there's around 10 or more in NJ with EJMG in the title that Bill missed, and a few that he already found, so maybe it isn't impossible. Here's one

http://coord.info/GC2QMMW

 

And another!

 

http://coord.info/GCZZTM :D

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I get so tired of the of the... just put the cache on your ignore list. I feel its nobody job to tell anyone that. If that cache is available to found, it should be found by everybody if they are able to do it... not just a so so group.

I get so tired of people telling others what caches they should find. If someone is able to find an LPC in a Wal-Mart parking lot but opts not to do so, then that's just fine with me.

Link to comment

Hmm.. Just needs RJMG somewhere in the title? Rick Might Just Get this cache? I found a cache called: Grandma's Fruit Bowl Series: Little Jack Horner. That has an E, J, M & G in the title. Would that qualify? I don't see why not.

I'd be surprised if that qualified since the challenge requirement is that "you must have found 48 caches with 'EJMG' in the cache title." Not E, J, M, & G but rather "EJMG" without any spaces or other characters between those four letters. Of course, you could always ask the challenge cache owner; maybe they'd be in a generous mood.

Link to comment

Well looking at that cache, it only has 2 finds and the last was in 2009, so I reckon anyone who's interested in finding it has already done so and it would be no great loss to anyone if it were archived.

 

However if anyone really wants to find it then get a friend (or a sock :ph34r: ) to hide a small power trail of 40 caches called "this is not an EJMG cache #?", find them, then go find the challenge. It might breath new life into this neglected cache.

Link to comment

Reminds me of a mystery series I went looking for: Find these four mystery caches, and get hints for the final. The final will give you the coords for the bonus cache. One of the caches was broken, and lying on the ground a distance off, with no log book and no hint (though several cachers did log a find on the broken cache.) The CO had been inactive for quite a while. I suggested to the reviewer that that cache should be archived. And that the final and bonus caches should be archived, since they could no longer be found. The reviewer disabled them, and after a month with no response, all three caches were archived. The first three caches in ther series are still 'active'.

Though, as TriciaG suggests, the Challenge Cache can remain active if other cachers hide caches with EJMG in the name. What if I hide a cache in New Jersey with the name: ThE JM Gear Cache. Would that qualify for the challenge? Hmm.. Just needs RJMG somewhere in the title? Rick Might Just Get this cache? I found a cache called: Grandma's Fruit Bowl Series: Little Jack Horner. That has an E, J, M & G in the title. Would that qualify? I don't see why not.

 

Well, I just noticed there's around 10 or more in NJ with EJMG in the title that Bill missed, and a few that he already found, so maybe it isn't impossible. Here's one

http://coord.info/GC2QMMW

 

And another!

 

http://coord.info/GCZZTM :D

 

Hah! Thanks 4wf, I may be able to qualify after all. LOL

Link to comment

Here's a radical idea, publish more EJMG caches!

 

Personally, I'd rather see people placing caches because they've discovered an interesting location, have a interesting container, or an idea for a unique hide. As far as reasons goes for placing a cache, the fact that it can have a name which satisfies the criteria for a challenge would pretty much be at the bottom of my list.

 

 

Link to comment
As far as reasons goes for placing a cache, the fact that it can have a name which satisfies the criteria for a challenge would pretty much be at the bottom of my list.
I wonder whether "satisfying the criteria for a challenge" could be considered an agenda...
Link to comment

Here's a radical idea, publish more EJMG caches!

 

Personally, I'd rather see people placing caches because they've discovered an interesting location, have a interesting container, or an idea for a unique hide. As far as reasons goes for placing a cache, the fact that it can have a name which satisfies the criteria for a challenge would pretty much be at the bottom of my list.

 

 

There are so many reasons why challenge caches are a bad idea and planting caches just to satisfy a challenge is one of them.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Just last year here in the Twin Cities a challenge was published that required you to find caches in 35 countries. Only one known cacher in the entire state that qualifies. A far cry from the challenge I tried submitting that required you to find caches in 7 of the known 10 hometowns of Laura Ingalls Wilder. My cache was not considered publishable with the requirement to find at least seven caches across four different states but 35 countries seems to be ok. Apparently in MN if you're close buddies with the reviewer you get special privileges. I did poke the NA button and was told to mind my own business.

Edited by bflentje
Link to comment

Just last year here in the Twin Cities a challenge was published that required you to find caches in 35 countries. Only one known cacher in the entire state that qualifies. A far cry from the challenge I tried submitting that required you to find caches in 7 of the known 10 hometowns of Laura Ingalls Wilder. My cache was not considered publishable with the requirement to find at least seven caches across four different states but 35 countries seems to be ok. Apparently in MN if you're close buddies with the reviewer you get special privileges. I did poke the NA button and was told to mind my own business.

 

Seems favoritism thrives everywhere in geocaching. Something I could go on for a while about. That's a whole different topic entirely though and not sure it's a can of worms I'd like to open. I have a friend on one of the reviewer's bad sides and he can't even get a "find twenty wherigos" challenge published.

Link to comment

Just last year here in the Twin Cities a challenge was published that required you to find caches in 35 countries. Only one known cacher in the entire state that qualifies. A far cry from the challenge I tried submitting that required you to find caches in 7 of the known 10 hometowns of Laura Ingalls Wilder. My cache was not considered publishable with the requirement to find at least seven caches across four different states but 35 countries seems to be ok. Apparently in MN if you're close buddies with the reviewer you get special privileges.

Those are serious charges. Since I can't see a single reason a reviewer would reject your challenge based on that description, I can't believe there isn't another problem you haven't made clear. Finding 7 caches in 7 out of 10 specific towns across 4 states doesn't seem controversial in the least. There must be half a dozen challenge caches published in the last year in my area that require a similar effort, most owned by people with no special relation with the reviewers.

Link to comment

Just last year here in the Twin Cities a challenge was published that required you to find caches in 35 countries. Only one known cacher in the entire state that qualifies. A far cry from the challenge I tried submitting that required you to find caches in 7 of the known 10 hometowns of Laura Ingalls Wilder. My cache was not considered publishable with the requirement to find at least seven caches across four different states but 35 countries seems to be ok. Apparently in MN if you're close buddies with the reviewer you get special privileges.

Those are serious charges. Since I can't see a single reason a reviewer would reject your challenge based on that description, I can't believe there isn't another problem you haven't made clear. Finding 7 caches in 7 out of 10 specific towns across 4 states doesn't seem controversial in the least. There must be half a dozen challenge caches published in the last year in my area that require a similar effort, most owned by people with no special relation with the reviewers.

 

Serious charge? :rolleyes:

 

The thought was that one of the 10 only had a single hide (at the time) and that 7 of 9 (instead of 7 of 10) if that one cache disappeared would then be considered unreasonable.

 

You can say what you want about my lame challenge idea but the notion of finding caches in 35 countries is NOT reasonable. I wish it were.

Link to comment

Just last year here in the Twin Cities a challenge was published that required you to find caches in 35 countries. Only one known cacher in the entire state that qualifies. A far cry from the challenge I tried submitting that required you to find caches in 7 of the known 10 hometowns of Laura Ingalls Wilder. My cache was not considered publishable with the requirement to find at least seven caches across four different states but 35 countries seems to be ok. Apparently in MN if you're close buddies with the reviewer you get special privileges. I did poke the NA button and was told to mind my own business.

 

Seems favoritism thrives everywhere in geocaching. Something I could go on for a while about. That's a whole different topic entirely though and not sure it's a can of worms I'd like to open. I have a friend on one of the reviewer's bad sides and he can't even get a "find twenty wherigos" challenge published.

 

There's 23 Wherigos in NJ, 41 in PA, 39 in NY, and 1 in DE. So they need to find 20 out of a total of 104 in the four closest states to qualify.

 

 

Sounds like it should be appealed.

Link to comment

Just last year here in the Twin Cities a challenge was published that required you to find caches in 35 countries. Only one known cacher in the entire state that qualifies. A far cry from the challenge I tried submitting that required you to find caches in 7 of the known 10 hometowns of Laura Ingalls Wilder. My cache was not considered publishable with the requirement to find at least seven caches across four different states but 35 countries seems to be ok. Apparently in MN if you're close buddies with the reviewer you get special privileges. I did poke the NA button and was told to mind my own business.

 

Seems favoritism thrives everywhere in geocaching. Something I could go on for a while about. That's a whole different topic entirely though and not sure it's a can of worms I'd like to open. I have a friend on one of the reviewer's bad sides and he can't even get a "find twenty wherigos" challenge published.

 

There's 23 Wherigos in NJ, 41 in PA, 39 in NY, and 1 in DE. So they need to find 20 out of a total of 104 in the four closest states to qualify.

 

 

Sounds like it should be appealed.

 

A lot easier than 35 countries.

Link to comment

Just last year here in the Twin Cities a challenge was published that required you to find caches in 35 countries. Only one known cacher in the entire state that qualifies. A far cry from the challenge I tried submitting that required you to find caches in 7 of the known 10 hometowns of Laura Ingalls Wilder. My cache was not considered publishable with the requirement to find at least seven caches across four different states but 35 countries seems to be ok. Apparently in MN if you're close buddies with the reviewer you get special privileges. I did poke the NA button and was told to mind my own business.

 

Seems favoritism thrives everywhere in geocaching. Something I could go on for a while about. That's a whole different topic entirely though and not sure it's a can of worms I'd like to open. I have a friend on one of the reviewer's bad sides and he can't even get a "find twenty wherigos" challenge published.

 

There's 23 Wherigos in NJ, 41 in PA, 39 in NY, and 1 in DE. So they need to find 20 out of a total of 104 in the four closest states to qualify.

 

 

Sounds like it should be appealed.

 

A lot easier than 35 countries.

Or finding 50 states plus D.C.

Link to comment

Serious charge? :rolleyes:

Yes, saying MN reviewers evaluate caches differently for their buddies is a serious charge.

 

The thought was that one of the 10 only had a single hide (at the time) and that 7 of 9 (instead of 7 of 10) if that one cache disappeared would then be considered unreasonable.

Still hard to believe that's why it was rejected, but it sounds like the total number of potential caches was too small and the locations too specific. That sounds like a dicey reason to reject a cache, but without more details, I wouldn't know if those are valid objections. But it still sounds like a criteria problem, not a favoritism problem.

 

You can say what you want about my lame challenge idea but the notion of finding caches in 35 countries is NOT reasonable. I wish it were.

Not sure where this came from. I thought your challenge idea sounded great, I was just questioning whether there was a valid reason to reject it other than that you weren't buddies with the reviewer.

Link to comment

Serious charge? :rolleyes:

Yes, saying MN reviewers evaluate caches differently for their buddies is a serious charge.

 

The thought was that one of the 10 only had a single hide (at the time) and that 7 of 9 (instead of 7 of 10) if that one cache disappeared would then be considered unreasonable.

Still hard to believe that's why it was rejected, but it sounds like the total number of potential caches was too small and the locations too specific. That sounds like a dicey reason to reject a cache, but without more details, I wouldn't know if those are valid objections. But it still sounds like a criteria problem, not a favoritism problem.

 

You can say what you want about my lame challenge idea but the notion of finding caches in 35 countries is NOT reasonable. I wish it were.

Not sure where this came from. I thought your challenge idea sounded great, I was just questioning whether there was a valid reason to reject it other than that you weren't buddies with the reviewer.

 

Your opinion doesn't matter to me. But nice of you to derail the point.

Link to comment

 

 

You can say what you want about my lame challenge idea but the notion of finding caches in 35 countries is NOT reasonable. I wish it were.

 

Just as a point of reference, project-gc tells me that there are about 67 people in the U.S. that have found caches in 35 countries or more. "According to the stats" the person from the U.S. that has found caches in the most countries has found them in 95 different countries. It lists cacher names in decending order for the number of countries. I came in at #385 in the U.S. with 21 countries. Even a challenge cache for finding caches in 20 or more countries would be pretty unreasonable, though maybe less so if the cache was located in Europe.

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...