Requiring GSAK for a Challenge Cache?

[+Team Microdot]

I guess I read too much into the earlier post from Keystone:

 

All challenge caches must be verifiable from information available on the Geocaching.com website, such as profile statistics, bookmark lists, or a search of the challenge seeker's finds. If that is laborious, then that is the challenge cache owner's problem.

 

or just misunderstood the emphasis of it altogether

Yes, you and others were reading too much into that post.

 

I see that now - but thanks for the confirmation.

[+geocat_]

And now, the official results directly from HQ...

 

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for writing in to us, and good question. Although the CO of the challenge cache can require proof of the qualifications to be posted to the cache page, he/she cannot require that the proof be in a particular form, such as a screenshot of a GSAK macro. If there are other ways to show that someone met the challenge requirements, those methods also need to be accepted. This is not a grandfathered additional logging requirement. We'll be contacting AirRaidFan regarding this and ask him to change the challenge requirements.

 

Best,

 

<b><br style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8000001907349px;"></b>Alex

 

Community Manager

 

[+Uncle Alaska]

Will he/she archive it or change the wording??

 

PS- Looks like post #3 from hydnsek was the correct answer all along

Edited April 21, 2015 by Uncle Alaska

[+geocat_]

My money is on ARCHIVE

[knowschad]

I still fail to understand the difference between ALR caches (illegal) and challenge caches (legal). To me, both are Additional Logging Requirements. I'm sure reviewers would love to see them go the way of Virtuals, as would I. They perpetuate lousy hides, they perpetuate competition. They make the job MUCH more difficult for the reviewers.

 

But I know that I am in the minority, and that they aren't going away anytime soon. Sadly. Just give me a geocache, not some silly trick that you want me to perform before I get to log your cache.

[+thebruce0]

I'm glad they're not going away. And I hope they don't. I hope they evolve to be more technically streamlined in the geocaching hobby.

 

They're fun, and they encourage finding caches you might not otherwise have considered, they prompt you to search out caches, to learn new strategies, and discover new types of caches and locations that again you may not have ever considered. I like the challenge and the satisfaction of accomplishing a goal. I don't think it gives me an excuse to make individual cache finds any less special or disrespect them or their owners in any way. I find challenges as an additive element of geocaching.

It's unfortunate that there are people out there that end up causing headaches for COs when they prioritize challenge caching over the simple basic act of geocaching. But I don't believe abolishing challenge caches completely is the answer.

 

Nice to see the official response re the OP's cache concern though. Thought that would be the stance on it...

[+jellis]

I can't guarantee that this is the cache the OP is referring to, but this one states that it requires GSAK verification. What I find confusing is that they require a bookmark list, which would be just fine, but then they additionally require the GSAK verification. I can't understand why the bookmark list wouldn't be enough. The GSAK verification seems superfluous to me.

 

If that is the cache in question...

 

Note special requirements to post FOUND log. 'See my profile' won't work. You must use the GSAK macro to see if you qualify, and post screenshot of those results if you do. Logs will be deleted if screenshot not attached.

 

Please NOTE: This is one of the the most difficult of Fizzy Challenges. I qualified under these requirements or I would not host it. Please use the GSAK macro to check your qualifiers. It is specific to each individual Fizzy/state. Not all states are the same. Post a screenshot of your completed terrain/difficulty chart from the GSAK Fizzy Browser.gsk macro using this Kentucky Fizzy Challenge from the drop-down menu. If you do not qualify, please don't ask for a bye. I have geo-friends here and near who also don't quite qualify and they understand it's their challenge to conquer, not mine to give. It's important to me to stay friends. Thanks for understanding. Cache on.

 

How to track your caches:

 

1) Create a Kentucky Fizzy Challengebookmark list and add qualifying FINDS as you complete them.

2) Use the GSAK macro Fzzy Browser.gsk and select the Kentucky Fizzy Challenge from the drop-down menu to ensure you are testing your qualifications for the correct challenge.

When your matrix is complete for this challenge, POST the public bookmark (or a link) and a screenshot of the completed Fizzy Browser.gsk matrix macro output for the Kentucky Fizzy Challenge with your FOUND log.

 

Basic rules (to keep things simple):

 

- All caches found prior to the published date (11/2/07) of this listing DO count - you do NOT start from 'zero'.

- All finds logged after 11/2/07 must be on caches that were published before this cache date (to avoid 'dummy qualifying caches' being listed just to meet the requirements).

- The only exceptions are CITO or EVENT caches with a D/T of 2/2 or less. Because these are short-lived you may log these after the published date to earn the qualifying icons.

- No rating (D/T) changes to existing caches will be accepted as counting toward your goal.

- Generally accepted rules, guidelines and conditions for logging a cache find apply. These must be caches listed on Geocaching.com that you have personally (physically) found and logged (signed cache logbook) yourself!

- No FIND logs on caches that you own will be allowed.

- If you have others with you when you log the final cache, only those who have fulfilled ALL criteria for this cache will be allowed to log THE 81 as a FIND.

- FIND logs without accompanying documentation, or FIND logs protested by other cachers for acceptable reasons (liar caches, phony 5/5's), will be deleted IMMEDIATELY until resolved. NO EXCEPTIONS!

- This cache does not count as the 5/5 in the matrix. You must have a legitimate 5/5 before this one.

 

NOTE: All caches logged as FOUND on The KENTUCKY FIZZY CHALLENGE must have been placed by the owner with genuine intent to meet the requirements of their D/T Difficulty/Terrain) rating as outlined on Geocaching.com.

 

Caches hidden but never intended to meet their D/T rating are ineligible. They're pretty obvious!

 

Please follow these rules to maintain a level playing field for everyone. I don't intend to play the role of cache-cop so the honor system is in effect here. Please keep the spirit of The Challenge in mind.

GOLDEN RULE:If you try to sneak an ineligible D/T find (liar cache) into the matrix you'll likely be exposed by your fellow cachers. Play Fair!

 

This is the decon-container-in-a-guardrail Liar Cache that was used as the 5-5 D/T to try and grab FTF on the KY Fizzy Challenge. That log was deleted. If you don't know the difference, or need clarification on the spirit and intent of the Fizzy Challenge, Please contact me!

 

_______________________________________________________

 

To get credit for THE FIND you must post the following with your FOUND IT log:

 

A) A link to your bookmark list showing the 81 caches that meet the requirements plus this FIZZY CHALLENGE as the 82nd find; AND

The screenshot of your completed terrain/difficulty chart from the GSAK Fizzy Browser.gsk macro using this Fizzy Challenge from the drop-down box

 

B.

sorry read this wrong.

I don't see any difference between this an the Original Fizzy other then the date this was published and them requiring no liar caches.

Edited April 21, 2015 by jellis

[+Dame Deco]

Color me confused--here's the CO's log from 9/30/14:

 

This cache was hijacked earlier this month when [names deleted] reported it to Groundspeak HQ as inappropriate and a rules violation so they could get a cheapo smiley. When they logged as FOUND I asked them to provide qualifications per the instruction on the page. When they didn't and couldn't, they did an end run and reported the cache to Groundspeak HQ as inappropriate and in violation of rules. GHQ temporarily allowed their FOUND logs to stand while it was sorted out. It took several days and much correspondence to get the cache restored. The hijacker's logs have been deleted. I have politely and quietly placed all their cache hides on my IGNORE list. Hopefully they will return the favor. I have better ways to spend my time than to defend my seven-year-old listings.

 

The cache requires an image of the Fizzy.gsk output for the Kentucky Fizzy Challenge. If you don't qualify you can always come back, but it's not cool to destroy someone's cache just so you can log it. Play fair or just IGNORE it. It's a shame to tarnish your name for an internet-based game. Cache is enabled.

 

So what's changed since then?

[+jellis]

Color me confused--here's the CO's log from 9/30/14:

 

This cache was hijacked earlier this month when [names deleted] reported it to Groundspeak HQ as inappropriate and a rules violation so they could get a cheapo smiley. When they logged as FOUND I asked them to provide qualifications per the instruction on the page. When they didn't and couldn't, they did an end run and reported the cache to Groundspeak HQ as inappropriate and in violation of rules. GHQ temporarily allowed their FOUND logs to stand while it was sorted out. It took several days and much correspondence to get the cache restored. The hijacker's logs have been deleted. I have politely and quietly placed all their cache hides on my IGNORE list. Hopefully they will return the favor. I have better ways to spend my time than to defend my seven-year-old listings.

 

The cache requires an image of the Fizzy.gsk output for the Kentucky Fizzy Challenge. If you don't qualify you can always come back, but it's not cool to destroy someone's cache just so you can log it. Play fair or just IGNORE it. It's a shame to tarnish your name for an internet-based game. Cache is enabled.

 

So what's changed since then?

what I am wondering is how many cachers were using GSAK in 2007? If not that many, and I only started in 2006, then that would mean they added it after publication.

Edited April 21, 2015 by jellis

[+Dame Deco]

The first few finders used a matrix from itsnotaboutthenumbers.com and a bookmark list, so the GSAK requirement might have been added at a later date. The first picture in the gallery of a GSAK matrix is from 2010.

[+Uncle Alaska]

Some people did not follow his instructions to the letter and post a screenshot of the specific GSAK output, their smiley is still there. (and no, I don't mean those who signed together, If you look through them all, there are some that don't have the GSAK shot at all)

[+Dame Deco]

And it looks he ran the GSAK for someone recently (they must have sent them their My Finds PQ), they thank him for the image--I know someone who asks for your My finds PQ to run on GSAK on his computer to prove the Fizzy. Same thing happened with this cache on occasion, I guess.

[+jellis]

Also I checked, No macro was created in 2007 that would run a list of D/T. The first one I even see is a Fizzy Test 2/2008

[+hydnsek]

Will he/she archive it or change the wording??

 

PS- Looks like post #3 from hydnsek was the correct answer all along

[+dprovan]

Color me confused--here's the CO's log from 9/30/14:

 

...I have better ways to spend my time than to defend my seven-year-old listings.

If he has better things to do, why does he pick fights about exactly how compliance is documented?

[+geocat_]

Color me confused--here's the CO's log from 9/30/14:

 

This cache was hijacked earlier this month when [names deleted] reported it to Groundspeak HQ as inappropriate and a rules violation so they could get a cheapo smiley. When they logged as FOUND I asked them to provide qualifications per the instruction on the page. When they didn't and couldn't, they did an end run and reported the cache to Groundspeak HQ as inappropriate and in violation of rules. GHQ temporarily allowed their FOUND logs to stand while it was sorted out. It took several days and much correspondence to get the cache restored. The hijacker's logs have been deleted. I have politely and quietly placed all their cache hides on my IGNORE list. Hopefully they will return the favor. I have better ways to spend my time than to defend my seven-year-old listings.

 

The cache requires an image of the Fizzy.gsk output for the Kentucky Fizzy Challenge. If you don't qualify you can always come back, but it's not cool to destroy someone's cache just so you can log it. Play fair or just IGNORE it. It's a shame to tarnish your name for an internet-based game. Cache is enabled.

 

So what's changed since then?

 

What seems to be different to me is that in the case you quoted, the cacher didn't actually qualify because he/she never found the caches to qualify. In the original post, I was talking about someone who spent a great deal of time, money and effort to find the caches to qualify. However, he was denied his smiley because he didn't post the GSAK output.

[+Mudfrog]

In the original post, I was talking about someone who spent a great deal of time, money and effort to find the caches to qualify. However, he was denied his smiley because he didn't post the GSAK output.

 

I see above where it looks like GS is probably going to disallow the gsak only requirement but i'll state my opinion anyway.

 

Unless the gsak stipulation was added after the fact, the cache was published with that as a part of the logging requirement. It doesn't matter how much time, money, or effort someone had put in,, the cache page stated up front, what needed to be done to claim the find. The CO's requirements should have been adhered too. Every cacher who looked at the cache page had a decision to make, to either go for it, abiding by the CO's requirements, or to simply walk away. There shouldn't have been any crying or complaining.

[+Dame Deco]

But it looks like the GSAK requirement wasn't there before 2010.

 

And this isn't about the requirements of the challenge--it's simply about proving that you met the requirements. Totally different issue.

[+thebruce0]

I think another way to look at why it's disallowed is that posting results using a 3rd party app is not a geocaching challenge. That is to say, you can qualify for a challenge by finding geocaches. You determine if you qualify by using any available statistics or applications you so desire. But to require the evidence be posting using a specific tool - that's a technical requirement not a geocaching requirement. If you qualify, and you know you did, and you can provide that evidence using any one of multiple methods, then you qualify for the challenge. To say that proof must be provided using a specific method is a further logging requirement that qualifying for the challenge by finding geocaches.

 

Geocaching Challenge: "Find caches starting with A-Z. Post evidence using GSAK script."

Qualification: A-Z caches found!

Determined by: My Finds PQ, looking at found cache names.

Log: Posted with the list of qualifying caches.

Additional requirement: Run GSAK script from Windows PC, post screenshot.

CO denies the find log? ..."But here's the list of caches, I qualify, I didn't need to use the script."

CO: "Doesn't matter, the challenge includes use of GSAK as evidence."

 

If Groundspeak now only lets challenges be geocaching-related challenges, then requiring a method for providing evidence is actually a technical requirement, and done after the geocaching qualifications are complete; it's not a geocaching requirement, and so is no longer allowed (if it ever was before).

[+geocat_]

It will be interesting to see what happens on the cache page over the next couple of days

[+Car54]

It will be interesting to see what happens on the cache page over the next couple of days

 

So was that the objective all along?

 

Mrs. Car54

[+M 5]

I still fail to understand the difference between ALR caches (illegal) and challenge caches (legal). To me, both are Additional Logging Requirements. I'm sure reviewers would love to see them go the way of Virtuals, as would I. They perpetuate lousy hides, they perpetuate competition. They make the job MUCH more difficult for the reviewers.

 

But I know that I am in the minority, and that they aren't going away anytime soon. Sadly. Just give me a geocache, not some silly trick that you want me to perform before I get to log your cache.

 

I generally agree with most of your posts, but this is a MAJOR exception. ALR were getting very silly (wear a dress, moustache, birthday suit, etc....), while challenge caches can get complicated and there are a few wild ones. They are a small percentage of a small percentage of caches. I prefer to look at them the same as ALL caches. I do the ones that interest me. I also view them as goal oriented caches and achieving a goal. Geocaching has devolved into such a parking lot/png/powertrail game and now reviewers seem to be archiving a lot of old lonely caches that have nothing wrong with them, challenge caches are one of the few remaining interests I have in this hobby. How do they perpetuate lousy hides? Thats the CO, not the cache type. I haven't seen many/any that perpetuate competition. There may be a few, but not that I've seen, and besides I'm not on the side that sees competition as bad anyway. Some of the most fun I have geocaching is having good natured competition with my friends. I also doubt the validity that they make the job MUCH more difficult for reviewers. Most are pretty straight forward. I'm sure there are some that they have to put some more work into, but I'd bet most reviewers would take a couple of challenge caches, instead of a 100 country road micro hides. ALRs did have a bunch of silly tricks, the challenge caches I attempt, pique my interest for some reason. I search and plan to complete them and most are some of the most fun I have geocaching. I just completed a trip with 2 friends that we completed/invented numerous challenges and it revitalized me for the game. I was just getting ready to make challenge caches that I completed to give others a chance to have that same rush. I guess I can't now. I'm getting very close to finding a new hobby as this one just keeps devolving.

Edited April 21, 2015 by M 5

[Keystone]

I also doubt the validity that they make the job MUCH more difficult for reviewers. Most are pretty straight forward. I'm sure there are some that they have to put some more work into, but I'd bet most reviewers would take a couple of challenge caches, instead of a 100 country road micro hides.

Challenge caches are the 2011-2015 version of the issues with reviewing virtual caches in 2001-2005. They've blossomed into quite a time drain both for reviewers and for the Appeals group at Geocaching HQ. You only see the ones that pass muster, and only after any listing guideline issues are already resolved. Challenge caches, on average, take more reviewer time than any other listing type.

 

In contrast, a string of 100 country road micro hides tend to have copy and paste cache descriptions and few unique issues -- maybe a proximity issue here and there, or questions about private property. But generally, they are very fast reviews. There are no subjective factors, like proving that a challenge can be accomplished/is of interest to a reasonable number of local geocachers. There is no wow factor test for country road micro hides. If there were, I wouldn't publish very many of them.

 

Feel free, however, to continue doubting the validity of that claim. You're entitled to your opinion. Since you don't see what reviewers see, I can understand why you'd think that way. People thought the same thing about virtual caches.

[+M 5]

I also doubt the validity that they make the job MUCH more difficult for reviewers. Most are pretty straight forward. I'm sure there are some that they have to put some more work into, but I'd bet most reviewers would take a couple of challenge caches, instead of a 100 country road micro hides.

Challenge caches are the 2011-2015 version of the issues with reviewing virtual caches in 2001-2005. They've blossomed into quite a time drain both for reviewers and for the Appeals group at Geocaching HQ. You only see the ones that pass muster, and only after any listing guideline issues are already resolved. Challenge caches, on average, take more reviewer time than any other listing type.

 

In contrast, a string of 100 country road micro hides tend to have copy and paste cache descriptions and few unique issues -- maybe a proximity issue here and there, or questions about private property. But generally, they are very fast reviews. There are no subjective factors, like proving that a challenge can be accomplished/is of interest to a reasonable number of local geocachers. There is no wow factor test for country road micro hides. If there were, I wouldn't publish very many of them.

 

Feel free, however, to continue doubting the validity of that claim. You're entitled to your opinion. Since you don't see what reviewers see, I can understand why you'd think that way. People thought the same thing about virtual caches.

 

I based that statement in part from Groundspeaks own claim that, challenge caches account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions. Add to this percentage of the challenge caches submitted that are difficult to review, and it is a small percentage. Which is why I stated that I doubt it makes it MUCH more difficult. Some, yes. As a reviewer, I would feel uncomfortable publishing the 100 country road micros, based on the majority of the ones I've encounered where many are on landowners fences/posts, nearest pulloff that are in driveways or the Logical parking is the side of the road, which turns the grass into a dirt pull-off.

[+geocat_]

It will be interesting to see what happens on the cache page over the next couple of days

 

So was that the objective all along?

 

Mrs. Car54

 

Nope

[+L0ne.R]

I also doubt the validity that they make the job MUCH more difficult for reviewers. Most are pretty straight forward. I'm sure there are some that they have to put some more work into, but I'd bet most reviewers would take a couple of challenge caches, instead of a 100 country road micro hides.

Challenge caches are the 2011-2015 version of the issues with reviewing virtual caches in 2001-2005. They've blossomed into quite a time drain both for reviewers and for the Appeals group at Geocaching HQ. You only see the ones that pass muster, and only after any listing guideline issues are already resolved. Challenge caches, on average, take more reviewer time than any other listing type.

 

In contrast, a string of 100 country road micro hides tend to have copy and paste cache descriptions and few unique issues -- maybe a proximity issue here and there, or questions about private property. But generally, they are very fast reviews. There are no subjective factors, like proving that a challenge can be accomplished/is of interest to a reasonable number of local geocachers. There is no wow factor test for country road micro hides. If there were, I wouldn't publish very many of them.

 

Feel free, however, to continue doubting the validity of that claim. You're entitled to your opinion. Since you don't see what reviewers see, I can understand why you'd think that way. People thought the same thing about virtual caches.

 

I based that statement in part from Groundspeaks own claim that, challenge caches account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions. Add to this percentage of the challenge caches submitted that are difficult to review, and it is a small percentage. Which is why I stated that I doubt it makes it MUCH more difficult.

 

Imagine the work a reviewer had to do to publish this power trail of 72 challenge caches: https://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx?ll=43.82398,-79.91737#?ll=43.77481,-79.96073&z=12

 

 

[+tomturtle]

I also doubt the validity that they make the job MUCH more difficult for reviewers. Most are pretty straight forward. I'm sure there are some that they have to put some more work into, but I'd bet most reviewers would take a couple of challenge caches, instead of a 100 country road micro hides.

Challenge caches are the 2011-2015 version of the issues with reviewing virtual caches in 2001-2005. They've blossomed into quite a time drain both for reviewers and for the Appeals group at Geocaching HQ. You only see the ones that pass muster, and only after any listing guideline issues are already resolved. Challenge caches, on average, take more reviewer time than any other listing type.

 

In contrast, a string of 100 country road micro hides tend to have copy and paste cache descriptions and few unique issues -- maybe a proximity issue here and there, or questions about private property. But generally, they are very fast reviews. There are no subjective factors, like proving that a challenge can be accomplished/is of interest to a reasonable number of local geocachers. There is no wow factor test for country road micro hides. If there were, I wouldn't publish very many of them.

 

Feel free, however, to continue doubting the validity of that claim. You're entitled to your opinion. Since you don't see what reviewers see, I can understand why you'd think that way. People thought the same thing about virtual caches.

 

I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting. I will also note that the demand for virtual caches is still strong, so I am hoping that Groundspeak will find a solution to whatever concerns it has this time, rather than just banning them.

[+Uncle Fuzzy]

I can't guarantee that this is the cache the OP is referring to, but this one states that it requires GSAK verification. What I find confusing is that they require a bookmark list, which would be just fine, but then they additionally require the GSAK verification. I can't understand why the bookmark list wouldn't be enough. The GSAK verification seems superfluous to me.

 

Does anyone bother to contact the CO's of such caches? Or do we take one look at it and start to bash him/her? I can't speak for all of them but I can about this particular cache. I use a MAC and have never used GSAK. I have wanted to do this cache for some time now. I contacted the CO and explained my situation. I sent him a my finds query in an email and he ran it through the macro for me. I thanked him for his time and jumped on a plane. Not only did I do this cache I did a few others while out there including Earthcaches.

 

Funny thing is, I had not one problem logging any of his caches. It makes me wonder, is it possible some people treat others the way they are treated. If that's the case don't you think it's interesting that people that dish it out and can't take like to complain about it?

[+Team Microdot]

I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting.

 

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

[+thebruce0]

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

Wow... that was exceedingly and falsely flavoured.

 

How about:

2a. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge encouraged you to set and complete a personal goal that you found interesting and fun - then go and sign the log on whatever type of container and hide the challenge cache itself may be, for the reward and satisfaction of completing a personal goal (and the +(n+1) smileys)

2b. Ignore the cache you're not interested in, or that you can't do, or that you don't like (as with any other cache out there).

[+Team Microdot]

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

Wow... that was exceedingly and falsely flavoured.

 

How about:

2a. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge encouraged you to set and complete a personal goal that you found interesting and fun - then go and sign the log on whatever type of container and hide the challenge cache itself may be, for the reward and satisfaction of completing a personal goal (and the +(n+1) smileys)

2b. Ignore the cache you're not interested in, or that you can't do, or that you don't like (as with any other cache out there).

 

Wow... thaat was quick.

 

The post I referred to compared just two examples - and I responded to those two examples.

 

Feel free to add as many made up examples as you like to your version of the post, if it makes you happy

Edited April 22, 2015 by Team Microdot

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

Wow... that was exceedingly and falsely flavoured.

 

How about:

2a. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge encouraged you to set and complete a personal goal that you found interesting and fun - then go and sign the log on whatever type of container and hide the challenge cache itself may be, for the reward and satisfaction of completing a personal goal (and the +(n+1) smileys)

 

Or set a personal goal then go out and accomplish that goal. Go out and find a cache of your choice as a reward. You don't need challenge caches for that.

 

2b. Ignore the cache you're not interested in, or that you can't do, or that you don't like (as with any other cache out there).

 

I don't consider this a viable solution. Ignoring a cache doesn't make it go away. Ignore a type of cache doesn't stop that type of cache from having an impact on the game, and Challenge caches are definitely having an impact on the game and it's not all positive.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Or set a personal goal then go out and accomplish that goal. Go out and find a cache of your choice as a reward. You don't need challenge caches for that.

Sure, you can do that as well.

 

2b. Ignore the cache you're not interested in, or that you can't do, or that you don't like (as with any other cache out there).

I don't consider this a viable solution. Ignoring a cache doesn't make it go away. Ignore a type of cache doesn't stop that type of cache from having an impact on the game, and Challenge caches are definitely having an impact on the game and it's not all positive.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't a solution either.

FWIW (and I've never hidden this), I'm not of the mind that challenge caches are implemented perfectly either. But I'm not willing to jump on the "throw'em all overboard!" mentality. They do promote a positive experience. But right now it's also easy for them to create issues and problems, or be mishandled. So I'm glad GS is holding off on publishing new ones for a while until this concept can be fleshed out a bunch, from the front end and the back end.

Edited April 22, 2015 by thebruce0

[+TerraViators]

I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting.

 

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

I believe you have misunderstood tomturtle's post. I agree with him. I find a challenge cache much more interesting. I enjoy the challenge of it. It's not about what I found to qualify, it's about completing the challenge. The basic novelty of finding caches have worn off for me. It's like betting on a sporting event. If you have a vested interest in the outcome, it's more exciting.

[+Team Microdot]

I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting.

 

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

I believe you have misunderstood tomturtle's post. I agree with him. I find a challenge cache much more interesting. I enjoy the challenge of it. It's not about what I found to qualify, it's about completing the challenge. The basic novelty of finding caches have worn off for me. It's like betting on a sporting event. If you have a vested interest in the outcome, it's more exciting.

 

I see.

 

Could you explain how you think I've misunderstood tomturtle's post and we'll see if you're right?

[+thebruce0]

"Why do people find geocaches? If you like to hike, just go on a hike."

 

"Geocaches give us something more fun to do at the same time, a target, a goal, and we get to hike while finding them."

----

 

"Why do people like challenge caches? If you like geocaching, just find geocaches."

 

"Challenge caches give us something more fun to do at the same time, a target, a goal, and we get to find more geocaches while doing them."

 

Challenges are an enhancement to the fun of geocaching.

Not everyone who hikes would like geocaching.

Not everyone who likes geocaching would like challenge caches.

 

- Challenge caches hurt the sport because some challenges are frivolous and people who complete them ruin the fun for others by not valuing each geocache find as much as they would otherwise, and they promote competition.

- Geocaches can ruin good hiking trails and forests because they promote large groups of people to trample nature and damage trails ...Should we get rid of geocaches?

 

Try applying the same logic to promoting good geocaching sportsmanship to promoting a good challenge caching concept.

 

I hope GS does well during this moratorium.

Edited April 22, 2015 by thebruce0

[+TerraViators]

I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting.

 

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

I believe you have misunderstood tomturtle's post. I agree with him. I find a challenge cache much more interesting. I enjoy the challenge of it. It's not about what I found to qualify, it's about completing the challenge. The basic novelty of finding caches have worn off for me. It's like betting on a sporting event. If you have a vested interest in the outcome, it's more exciting.

 

I see.

 

Could you explain how you think I've misunderstood tomturtle's post and we'll see if you're right?

Sure, I'll bite.

 

I believe your answer was in your question. Yes, that plain old park and grab challenge cache is more interesting to him than the plain old park and grab caches he found to qualify for the original plain old park and grab challenge.

 

I suppose you didn't misunderstand it. You nailed it.

[+Team Microdot]

I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting.

 

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

I believe you have misunderstood tomturtle's post. I agree with him. I find a challenge cache much more interesting. I enjoy the challenge of it. It's not about what I found to qualify, it's about completing the challenge. The basic novelty of finding caches have worn off for me. It's like betting on a sporting event. If you have a vested interest in the outcome, it's more exciting.

 

I see.

 

Could you explain how you think I've misunderstood tomturtle's post and we'll see if you're right?

Sure, I'll bite.

 

I believe your answer was in your question. Yes, that plain old park and grab challenge cache is more interesting to him than the plain old park and grab caches he found to qualify for the original plain old park and grab challenge.

 

I suppose you didn't misunderstand it. You nailed it.

 

Well I'd say one of us has defnintely read tomturtle's original post wrong.

 

I don't think it's me.

 

He refers to a single cache in a single location and how that cache is much more interesting if it's a challenge cache and I still maintain that there's no logical reason why it should be.

[+TerraViators]

I have no doubt that reviewing challenges is more time consuming, but on the other hand, I would much rather go out and find a challenge cache that I qualified for that a plain old park and grab at the same location. It makes the game more interesting.

 

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

Logic like that I just can't take seriously.

I believe you have misunderstood tomturtle's post. I agree with him. I find a challenge cache much more interesting. I enjoy the challenge of it. It's not about what I found to qualify, it's about completing the challenge. The basic novelty of finding caches have worn off for me. It's like betting on a sporting event. If you have a vested interest in the outcome, it's more exciting.

 

I see.

 

Could you explain how you think I've misunderstood tomturtle's post and we'll see if you're right?

Sure, I'll bite.

 

I believe your answer was in your question. Yes, that plain old park and grab challenge cache is more interesting to him than the plain old park and grab caches he found to qualify for the original plain old park and grab challenge.

 

I suppose you didn't misunderstand it. You nailed it.

 

Well I'd say one of us has defnintely read tomturtle's original post wrong.

 

I don't think it's me.

 

He refers to a single cache in a single location and how that cache is much more interesting if it's a challenge cache and I still maintain that there's no logical reason why it should be.

It's quite possible I misunderstood tomturtle's post. I'm not very good at this game. In my opinion, the reason the single cache (the challenge cache) is more interesting than a plain old park and grab in the same location has nothing to do with the location. It has to do with the challenge aspect only. The location is irrelevant to him.

 

Like eating a hamburger in the park for lunch everyday could be mundane, but I'll bet that same hamburger in that same park is much more satisfying if you haven't eaten in three days. It's not about the hamburger, it's about how it satisfies you.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Or set a personal goal then go out and accomplish that goal. Go out and find a cache of your choice as a reward. You don't need challenge caches for that.

Sure, you can do that as well.

 

2b. Ignore the cache you're not interested in, or that you can't do, or that you don't like (as with any other cache out there).

I don't consider this a viable solution. Ignoring a cache doesn't make it go away. Ignore a type of cache doesn't stop that type of cache from having an impact on the game, and Challenge caches are definitely having an impact on the game and it's not all positive.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't a solution either.

FWIW (and I've never hidden this), I'm not of the mind that challenge caches are implemented perfectly either. But I'm not willing to jump on the "throw'em all overboard!" mentality. They do promote a positive experience. But right now it's also easy for them to create issues and problems, or be mishandled. So I'm glad GS is holding off on publishing new ones for a while until this concept can be fleshed out a bunch, from the front end and the back end.

 

I'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater either (who *does* that anyway?).

 

I strongly support GS's decision to enact an moratorium, though personally I would have called it a "indefinite ban" to prevent the backlash if they decide not to rescind the moratorium.

 

In generally, I like the idea of challenges, but think they've gotten way out of hand. I totally support the various suggestions of decoupling a challenge or achievement from an additional cache places for one to log.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

It's quite possible I misunderstood tomturtle's post. I'm not very good at this game. In my opinion, the reason the single cache (the challenge cache) is more interesting than a plain old park and grab in the same location has nothing to do with the location. It has to do with the challenge aspect only. The location is irrelevant to him.

 

So when I said:

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

 

The answer was - nothing at all, assuming that with the exception of the plain old park and grab at the end - with it's irrelevant location, all the same caches were found for both options.

 

Like eating a hamburger in the park for lunch everyday could be mundane, but I'll bet that same hamburger in that same park is much more satisfying if you haven't eaten in three days. It's not about the hamburger, it's about how it satisfies you.

 

That reminds me of an Eddie Murphy skit about crackers

 

Apart from that though the burger example differs from what was originally being discussed.

 

We were talking about a bunch of caches plus a plain old park and grab vs the same bunch of caches without the plain old park and grab rather than a plain old park and grab after no caches for a number of days.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Team Microdot

[+thebruce0]

Like eating a hamburger in the park for lunch everyday could be mundane, but I'll bet that same hamburger in that same park is much more satisfying if you haven't eaten in three days. It's not about the hamburger, it's about how it satisfies you.

 

We were talking about a bunch of caches plus a plain old park and grab vs the same bunch of caches without the plain old park and grab rather than a plain old park and grab after no caches for a number of days.

 

I see it as:

* No hamburger for 3 days, building up hunger in anticipation of eating the hamburger = finding caches towards qualification in anticipation of finding and qualifying for the challenge cache

* Eating the hamburger = finding and logging the cache online

* Eating hamburgers for three days = finding all the above caches and logging them online.

 

So it was the experience (hungering ~ qualifying), not the count (lack of hamburgers !~ finding caches), that was the direct analogy.

 

In that way, no matter how mundane the challenge cache itself is, the experience as a whole makes logging that last cache satisfying.

 

... and GSAK has absolutely nothing to do with that experience

If challenges are to be geocaching-related and verifiable with publicly accessible stats, then GSAK can't be part of the qualification requirement. (to bring it back to the OP )

Edited April 22, 2015 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

It's like the difference between hitting golf balls and playing a round of golf. You can hit balls because you want to, sure, but most people find it more fun to be challenged by a course.

 

I'm not advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater either (who *does* that anyway?).

Nobody throws the baby out with the bathwater. That's what makes it a good metaphor.

 

I strongly support GS's decision to enact an moratorium, though personally I would have called it a "indefinite ban" to prevent the backlash if they decide not to rescind the moratorium.

I assume this was a joke. The moratorium was problematic. The shouting wouldn't die down for the entire year if they'd presented it as an indefinite ban.

 

In generally, I like the idea of challenges, but think they've gotten way out of hand. I totally support the various suggestions of decoupling a challenge or achievement from an additional cache places for one to log.

I'd prefer challenge caches as they are. I don't think I'd be very interested in some decoupled achievement mechanism. But, then, I really haven't seen a big problem with challenge caches to begin with.

[+DragonsWest]

We had the decoupled achievment mechanism and it was not retired, but wiped, as if it hadn't existed at all (much to the chagrin of those who actually enjoyed them.)

 

As to Challenges, in principal I like them, they fill a niche, one defined by the players and not TPTB. Some, such as the Jasmer and Fizzy are great longterm achievements, which grow in difficulty as the days march on.

 

County and DeLorme challenges have taken me far and wide, very rewarding and enjoyable. Some, such as the consecutive days, a cache find for every day of the year, find 100 letterboxes and such are fun goals to work towards.

 

There are some, however, which I feel people have cooked up to just plain be hard, without much redeeming merit. OK, there could be people who just like to grind away at these, so I'll not grumble much about them. I simply bypass these. I may qualify, but if it takes me an hour of clerical work to find whether I qualify, I ain't doing it.

 

I hope to see after a year the return of them, with a bright shiny new icon and mechanism for transitioning challenges to Challenges.

[+lamoracke]

I think GSAK can make figuring out if you qualify for a challenge easier. It makes my Thomas Guide challenge so much easier for me for example. However, requiring anyone to use GSAK would be out of bounds.

[+Team Microdot]

So that plain old park and grab at the same location is somehow much better because you had to jump through hoops just to be allowed to log it as found?

 

Colour me bewildered

 

And really HOW does that challenge make the game more interesting?

 

Consider the two options:

 

1. Go out and find a bunch of caches because you want to.

 

2. Go out and find a bunch of caches because a challenge says you have to - then go and sign the log on that plain old park and grab.

 

What did option 2 add to the experience to make it more interesting? Oh yeah - that plain old park and grab at the end.

It's like the difference between hitting golf balls and playing a round of golf. You can hit balls because you want to, sure, but most people find it more fun to be challenged by a course.

 

It sounds as though you're saying that regular caching is equivalent to just hitting golf balls and that subsequently finding a challenge cache somehow transforms that overall experience into a more wholesome and rewarding one.

 

From the admittedly limited number of challenge caches I've completed, I would have to disagree on both counts.

 

And I'd be inclined to suggest that anyone who finds that challenge caching has transformed their regular caching into the equivalent of just hitting golf balls is doing themselves a considerable disservice.

[+redsox_mark]

 

It sounds as though you're saying that regular caching is equivalent to just hitting golf balls and that subsequently finding a challenge cache somehow transforms that overall experience into a more wholesome and rewarding one.

 

 

To me it's not the perfect analogy - but is there such a thing.. but it makes sense to me if I think of it this way.

 

Imagine someone invents the game of hitting golf balls. And I love it. Whenever I get a chance I go and hit some balls.

 

Then someone creates a golf course. Wow - not only does that involve hitting balls (which I love), but it adds an extra, new dimension that makes it more fun for me.

 

Though I'm not sure if there is any point debating WHY a challenge can be fun. It's like debating why Geocaching is fun - a lot of non-cachers just don't get that. For me, a good challenge cache adds extra fun. If others don't get that same reaction, that's fine.

 

Now to be sure, challenges are only one aspect. If you ask me my 5 favorite caching experiences, none of them will have anything to do with a challenge cache.

[+coachstahly]

 

It sounds as though you're saying that regular caching is equivalent to just hitting golf balls and that subsequently finding a challenge cache somehow transforms that overall experience into a more wholesome and rewarding one.

 

 

To me it's not the perfect analogy - but is there such a thing.. but it makes sense to me if I think of it this way.

 

Imagine someone invents the game of hitting golf balls. And I love it. Whenever I get a chance I go and hit some balls.

 

Then someone creates a golf course. Wow - not only does that involve hitting balls (which I love), but it adds an extra, new dimension that makes it more fun for me.

 

Though I'm not sure if there is any point debating WHY a challenge can be fun. It's like debating why Geocaching is fun - a lot of non-cachers just don't get that. For me, a good challenge cache adds extra fun. If others don't get that same reaction, that's fine.

 

Now to be sure, challenges are only one aspect. If you ask me my 5 favorite caching experiences, none of them will have anything to do with a challenge cache.

 

+1

 

I recently completed my Jasmer grid by finding Marooned at Lake Lanier, GA. The journey I needed to completely fill in that grid was a fun challenge and rewarding in its own right. Signing a quick P&G challenge cache (Jasmer edition) would allow me to think back on the places I went and the old caches I found, giving me a nice reminder of what I had to go through to get it done. Signing a quick P&G cache at the same location, while nice in its own way, doesn't give me the same satisfaction.

 

My top 5 experiences (maybe even top 10) have nothing to do with challenge caches. More often than not, the jouney to get them done was what I'll remember, not the actual cache.

[+Team Microdot]

 

It sounds as though you're saying that regular caching is equivalent to just hitting golf balls and that subsequently finding a challenge cache somehow transforms that overall experience into a more wholesome and rewarding one.

 

 

To me it's not the perfect analogy - but is there such a thing.. but it makes sense to me if I think of it this way.

 

Imagine someone invents the game of hitting golf balls. And I love it. Whenever I get a chance I go and hit some balls.

 

Then someone creates a golf course. Wow - not only does that involve hitting balls (which I love), but it adds an extra, new dimension that makes it more fun for me.

 

Though I'm not sure if there is any point debating WHY a challenge can be fun. It's like debating why Geocaching is fun - a lot of non-cachers just don't get that. For me, a good challenge cache adds extra fun. If others don't get that same reaction, that's fine.

 

Now to be sure, challenges are only one aspect. If you ask me my 5 favorite caching experiences, none of them will have anything to do with a challenge cache.

 

I guess I'm coming at it from the perspective that most of the physical caches around here that are challenge caches are banal nano hides in locations that nobody would actively visit if there wasn't a cache there.

 

BUT - and this is a big BUT - even if a challenge cache were the best, most creative hide ever, in the most fantastic location - I wouldn't see it as effectively lessening the value of the caches I did in order to qualify to find the challenge.

 

As things stand my experience of challenge caches is largely that they are a quick tick in a box arising from the type of caches I like doing and would do anyway - whether challenge caches existed or not and even if the Utopia described above - fantastic challenge cache at end existed, that still wouldn't see me looking down on all the other caches I'd done along the way.

[+redsox_mark]

 

BUT - and this is a big BUT - even if a challenge cache were the best, most creative hide ever, in the most fantastic location - I wouldn't see it as effectively lessening the value of the caches I did in order to qualify to find the challenge.

 

As things stand my experience of challenge caches is largely that they are a quick tick in a box arising from the type of caches I like doing and would do anyway - whether challenge caches existed or not and even if the Utopia described above - fantastic challenge cache at end existed, that still wouldn't see me looking down on all the other caches I'd done along the way.

 

Interesting.

 

I'm not saying that the physical hide for the challenge cache is or needs be creative. Of course that is a bonus... and if I work on a challenge and find the final is a dull nano on a street sign, I would prefer a better final. Similar to solving a difficult puzzle cache. But as with the puzzle cache, I will get some fun out of completing the task regardless.

 

I don't see the challenge taking anything away from other caches; it just adds to them. I go out and find cache A - a nice old cache in good location, hidden in 2001. That will make me feel happy. If that cache was the last cell I needed to fill in my Jasmer grid, it will make me even happier. Then later - when I find and log a Jasmer challenge cache, I will reflect on all those past caches and my achievement, and that will make me happy too. And whatever sort of cache that final challenge cache is - a nano or a ammo box - I will be happier finding THAT cache then if THAT cache was a traditional in the same location.

 

That may not be logical, but it is what I feel.