Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17
Geocaching HQ

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

No challenge cache requires that one devote any amount of time at all to geocaching. All challenge caches are optional; you can walk way from any of them.

 

But what challenge cache can do is choke an area from having a traditional geocache in the area. Some areas are saturated with them.

 

 

There is a suggested feature which would separate the challenge completed part of the cache from the Found It part. All Challenge caches would present as a regular or puzzle or multi or letterbox and only become a Challenge if the finder chooses to engage in fulfilling its requirements.

 

EDIT: Typo

Edited by frinklabs

Share this post


Link to post

No challenge cache requires that one devote any amount of time at all to geocaching. All challenge caches are optional; you can walk way from any of them.

 

But what challenge cache can do is choke an area from having a traditional geocache in the area. Some areas are saturated with them.

 

 

There is a a suggested feature which would separate the challenge completed part of the cache from the Found It part. All Challenge caches would present as a regular or puzzle or multi or letterbox and only become a Challenge if the finder chooses to engage in fulfilling its requirements.

 

Unfortunately we can't have both because people who hide challenges want the coveted find-count-smiley in order to make their caches appealing, otherwise it's just another traditional.

 

But I'm all for your suggested system. I think it's a win-win.

 

It would be simpler for reviewers and Groundspeak if CCs were grandfathered. No extra work involved. If challenge caches still exist, reviewers still have the headache of dealing with submissions that take up a large part of their volunteer time, cache owners who push the envelope, and CC owners who appeal when their CC cache submission gets denied.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately we can't have both because people who hide challenges want the coveted find-count-smiley in order to make their caches appealing, otherwise it's just another traditional.

That issue is addressed in the other thread - the idea is that the "appeal" for challenge completion is separated away from the "Find Smiley" to a very distinct and visible challenge completion statistic. If we (in general, or Groundspeak ideal) want geocaches to be findable by their own merit, then moving the challenge ALR to its own metric allows that to continue (as per all current explicit geocache listing types), and telling CO's that they can't require an additional task in order for someone to earn a smiley becomes something that is much more feasible since the reward for the challenge has just moved instead of being completely removed. Each cache type now is exactly what it says it is; no ALRs.

For those who still want to restrict the find to the challenge qualification, then with the challenge aspect a detectable attribute of a listing, all the search algorithms can now allow people to filter out caches they can't just find by doing what's expected of the cache listing type.

 

So, want to find a challenge cache, but can't/won't complete the challenge - but don't want it to keep appearing in your listing without having to Ignore it?

1) If it's locked to the qualification, you could now filter out challenge caches, or challenge caches you've 'found' but not qualified.

2) If it's unlocked (CO has allowed smiley-finds without qualification) then you can post a find and it no longer shows in any search (as any other found cache).

3) If you don't want to see challenge caches at all, flip a switch and caches you can't smiley-find won't show up at all.

 

It's a change of mentality*, but really challenge caches are more (not exclusively) about the challenge, not the find, so why explicitly lock the find to the qualification? This system allows that flexibility, granting rewards to challenge completers, granting more caches to find for people who hate challenges, and granting cache owners the choice of which group they want the geocache to be geared towards.

 

"people who hide challenges want the coveted find-count-smiley"

 

I think that speaks for many people who don't necessarily feel that way. I for one, who absolutely loves challenges, would be willing to publish challenge caches with this new system, allowing people to Find the cache itself for the smiley, with the option of, at some point if not already, or perhaps never, qualifying for the extra bonus of challenge completion. But I'd also be glad that I have the option of still saying (as currently) "Nope, you can't get a full Smiley-Find for this cache unless you also complete the challenge, because even this cache was hidden with that challenge in mind and I want it to be part of the whole challenge experience" (knowing that now people won't even go for it if they don't care to do the challenge).

 

But I'm all for your suggested system. I think it's a win-win.

Yay!

 

* This is my general response and recognition to any criticism of the proposed system that goes something like "but people won't like it", "but it's different", etc. Yep, it is. But it's a compromise proposal. :) Getting rid of CC entirely, or keeping CCs as is are both options that upset more vocal people than necessary. So remember it's just an idea.

But ever since the challenge cache debate started raging, I feel that this proposal is the result of attempting to address, and find some form of resolution to, all the biggest complaints on either side.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

But ever since the challenge cache debate started raging, I feel that this proposal is the result of attempting to address, and find some form of resolution to, all the biggest complaints on either side.

According to Groundspeak, the biggest problem with challenge caches is the number of appeals they generate when reviewers decide certain ones aren't publishable. I don't see how this proposal resolves that issue at all.

Share this post


Link to post

But ever since the challenge cache debate started raging, I feel that this proposal is the result of attempting to address, and find some form of resolution to, all the biggest complaints on either side.

According to Groundspeak, the biggest problem with challenge caches is the number of appeals they generate when reviewers decide certain ones aren't publishable. I don't see how this proposal resolves that issue at all.

 

Biggest problem, yes. But all these discussion in the forum continually come back to personal complaints about the process. So as they're revamping (ideally) the concept, best to address all the issues. If challenges are segmented from the geocaching process itself, then at least the new system would have a lesser impact on the fundamental concept of geocaching as GS, presumably, wants to promote most. And it compartmentalizes the creation and finding aspect of challenge caches so that a system could be determined for an improved creation process - whether it's automated with only existing system stats, or hand-defined and manually approved, or even partnered through a site like project-gc where custom scripts could be built... who knows; that part, clearly, isn't as significant to the community area of CC, where demonstrably the discussion keeps coming back to the finding process.

 

IIRC, the proposal thread did touch on some ideas for creation of challenge caches as well. But I haven't re-checked so I could be wrong. But I know there have been discussions about that in the forum.

Share this post


Link to post

But ever since the challenge cache debate started raging, I feel that this proposal is the result of attempting to address, and find some form of resolution to, all the biggest complaints on either side, except for the biggest one.

According to Groundspeak, the biggest problem with challenge caches is the number of appeals they generate when reviewers decide certain ones aren't publishable. I don't see how this proposal resolves that issue at all.

Biggest problem, yes....

Okay. There, I fixed it for you.

Share this post


Link to post

Biggest problem, yes. But all these discussions in the forum continually come back to personal complaints about the process. So as they're revamping (ideally) the concept, best to address all the issues. If challenges are segmented from the geocaching process itself, then at least the new system would have a lesser impact on the fundamental concept of geocaching as GS, presumably, wants to promote most. And it compartmentalizes the creation and finding aspect of challenge caches so that a system could be determined for an improved creation process - whether it's automated with only existing system stats, or hand-defined and manually approved, or even partnered through a site like project-gc where custom scripts could be built... who knows; that part, clearly, isn't as significant to the community area of CC, where demonstrably the discussion keeps coming back to the finding process.

 

IIRC, the proposal thread did touch on some ideas for creation of challenge caches as well. But I haven't re-checked so I could be wrong. But I know there have been discussions about that in the forum.

Okay. There, I fixed it for you.

Okay, There, I refixed it back for you.

 

Note that complaints are legitimate complaints and concerns - for those who don't like them, and for those who do like them. That was not a one-sided or biased comment, it was recognition that the process has issues that can be resolved or improved during the revamping process. Pretending they don't exist will just make things worse for the community in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post

Note that complaints are legitimate complaints and concerns - for those who don't like them, and for those who do like them. That was not a one-sided or biased comment, it was recognition that the process has issues that can be resolved or improved during the revamping process. Pretending they don't exist will just make things worse for the community in the long run.

Note that claiming that a proposal addresses all of the biggest complaints when it ignores the biggest complaint is like pretending the elephant in the room doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post

I said "But ever since the challenge cache debate started raging, I feel that this proposal is the result of attempting to address, and find some form of resolution to, all the biggest complaints on either side." Which is true. If you want to add "except for the biggest one", which is the issue Groundspeak has with challenge caches, then add it as your own addendum. I agree. But my statement as I posted it stands. The "biggest complaint" as you put it was the administrative issue, not directly related to the biggest complaints from the community.

 

ETA: I see how "either side" could have been interpreted as Groundspeak side / Community side, instead of Community for / Community against.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the proposal goes far enough. Why not seperate the puzzle solving from the cache find also? For those that like puzzles, they can get their 'fix' while everyone else can find the cache. Or multi-caches? For those that want multiple containers for one smiley, they can get it while the rest can find the cache.

 

Actually I think when they made the change to challenge caches are at the post co-ords is what started a lot of the discussed problems. If the cache wasn't at known co-ords, then people wouldn't complain about not being able to find it without compleating the requirements (or no more than complaints about puzzle caches now).

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the proposal goes far enough. Why not seperate the puzzle solving from the cache find also?

Puzzles (offset caches) are covered by the Unknown/Mystery catch-all and are directly related to locating the geocache.

Challenges are not directly related to locating the geocache (they are an ALR), and they have no explicit property, only a required identifier: "Challenge" in the title. Not filterable. Not searchable. Not guaranteed (non-challenges may also have "challenge" in the title).

 

Per cache listing type, all caches are what they say they are, and are directly related to the hidden container (or task required, such as Earth, Webcam, or Virtual). Challenge caches are the sole exception.

Share this post


Link to post

Quote, thebruce0, "Puzzles (offset caches) are covered by the Unknown/Mystery..."

 

A quick comment - Offset caches are a subset of Multi-caches. Term is no longer used much on this site. Appeared in the listing guidelines for some years. It was defined as a Multi with info gathering on site that coupled with info on the cache page, yielded clues or coords. (It never meant what many thought it meant, ie it did not refer to projection caches - bearing and distance).

 

I very much like the Challenge Stars idea from the cache seeking point of view.

 

But it doesn't help much with review and appeals side, which is what lead to the current moratorium

Share this post


Link to post

 

But I'm all for your suggested system. I think it's a win-win.

 

I'm against it that it will lead to massive "challenge cache" inflation where hiders will just put in silly requirements so people can build up their challenge cache numbers.

 

Example. I put out 100 geocaches. They can be found by anyone. But I add the most stupid requirement to make it into a challenge cache or make it the most simple challenge cache (find 10 geocaches in any one given year to complete this challenge).

 

With the exception of county, DeLorme, and fizzy grids, and perhaps a few other traditional ideas, never allow new ones to be posted and bring back the simple rule, YOU FIND THE CACHE YOU SIGN THE LOG, IT'S A FIND, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Share this post


Link to post
it's a win-win.
bring back the simple rule, YOU FIND THE CACHE YOU SIGN THE LOG, IT'S A FIND, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

This is exactly what the Challenge Stars system will do. That's the win-win part!

Share this post


Link to post

Quote, thebruce0, "Puzzles (offset caches) are covered by the Unknown/Mystery..."

 

A quick comment - Offset caches are a subset of Multi-caches. Term is no longer used much on this site. Appeared in the listing guidelines for some years. It was defined as a Multi with info gathering on site that coupled with info on the cache page, yielded clues or coords. (It never meant what many thought it meant, ie it did not refer to projection caches - bearing and distance).

Actually, by Offset it's meant that nothing is at the posted coordinates. A multi can't be listed with nothing to do at the posted coordinates. A multi first stage needs to be information-gathering or a container or some form of task. There needs to be something to do at the posted coordinates for a multi; if not, it should be listed as a Mystery, ideally noted on the listing that there is nothing at the posted coordinates.

 

Unless you can find a guideline that allows for the Multi-cache posted coordinate to be irrelevant (and I don't mean published caches that a reviewer may have decided to allow as an exception ;P)

To my knowledge, no reviewer I know will publish a multi-cache with irrelevant posted coordinates, it would have be listed as a Mystery.

Share this post


Link to post

:anitongue:

I don't think the proposal goes far enough. Why not seperate the puzzle solving from the cache find also? For those that like puzzles, they can get their 'fix' while everyone else can find the cache. Or multi-caches? For those that want multiple containers for one smiley, they can get it while the rest can find the cache.

 

This is way too complicated.

 

It would be far simpler to just scrap the mystery and multi cache types altogether and instead ask anyone who needed a fix of some sort to supplement their finding of a box with a piece of paper in it to make their own arrangements to suit their tastes, abilities and commitment levels.

 

I'm thinking for example that all caches should be at ground level and in full view, and if you're the sort of person who likes tree-climb caches, for example, then simply deny yourself the pleasure of signing the piece of paper in the box until after you've climbed a nearby tree. Heck you could extend this method as far as you wanted and include multiple obstacles of myriad different types to deny yourself the final signing a bit of paper in a box bit for as long as humanly possible - and doing so would also save CO's the effort of adding anything novel, challenging or inventive to their caches at all or in fact being creative in any way B)

Share this post


Link to post

According to Groundspeak, the biggest problem with challenge caches is the number of appeals they generate when reviewers decide certain ones aren't publishable. I don't see how this proposal resolves that issue at all.

 

Well, that's because Groundspeak hasn't told us anything about why challenge caches generate so many appeals.

 

And until Groundspeak gives us that information, all of this is just idle speculation. We can't be expected to solve a problem when we're not told what the problem is.

 

With the exception of county, DeLorme, and fizzy grids, and perhaps a few other traditional ideas, never allow new ones to be posted and bring back the simple rule, YOU FIND THE CACHE YOU SIGN THE LOG, IT'S A FIND, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

Which would eliminate EarthCaches as a cache type, because there's no log to sign. I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing, mind you .... but if you insist on signing the log as a condition of making a find, then you're presuming that there is a log to sign. But Groundspeak seems pretty committed to promoting EarthCaches, as evidenced by the number of souvenirs focused on EarthCaches in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm against it that it will lead to massive "challenge cache" inflation where hiders will just put in silly requirements so people can build up their challenge cache numbers.

 

Example. I put out 100 geocaches. They can be found by anyone. But I add the most stupid requirement to make it into a challenge cache or make it the most simple challenge cache (find 10 geocaches in any one given year to complete this challenge).

I'm not seeing why this is a problem.

 

With the exception of county, DeLorme, and fizzy grids, and perhaps a few other traditional ideas, never allow new ones to be posted and bring back the simple rule, YOU FIND THE CACHE YOU SIGN THE LOG, IT'S A FIND, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

And I don't see how plain and simple is an interesting goal.

Share this post


Link to post

Going sideways here re Offset caches, apologies for the thread diversion. As the term is still in use, I'd rather clarify for those reading this thread. Offset caches as defined in the listing guidelines from late 2003 through early 2011 - multis with virtual stages.

 

Offset Caches

 

Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers NEVER deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20101216075003/http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Going sideways here re Offset caches, apologies for the thread diversion. As the term is still in use, I'd rather clarify for those reading this thread. Offset caches as defined in the listing guidelines from late 2003 through early 2011 - multis with virtual stages.

 

Offset Caches

 

Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers NEVER deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20101216075003/http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Yep, that matches my understanding of offset caches. They are often used when the interesting location that motivates the cache cannot support a container. So you collect information at the interesting location, and that information takes you to a container somewhere else. Sometimes the information gives you a distance and bearing. Sometimes it gives you new coordinates. Sometimes it gives you something else.

 

But when I was back in Massachusetts for a business trip several years ago, this type of cache was routinely listed with the mystery/puzzle type instead of the multi-cache type.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok re Offset - that's referring to the type of task I described - you have something to do at the posted coordinates. So it would be a multi.

If you have to go to the posted coordinates to do something and then offset, it's a multi. If you have nothing to do at the posted coordinates yet have to solve a puzzle for example and apply the result to the posted coordinates (another form of offset) it's a Mystery. The difference is whether the posted coordinates are physically relevant to the task. Puzzle caches may or may not be an "offset", but if you have to solve a puzzle then go to the posted coordinates for something (container or info gathering) - Multi; if you have to solve a puzzle and not go to the posted coordinates for anything (even if you alter those coordinates) - Mystery.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that's because Groundspeak hasn't told us anything about why challenge caches generate so many appeals.

 

From the Help Center article regarding the moratorium:

 

"Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches."

 

Very well.

 

Then I'll note that the "challenge stars" proposal does little to address this problem. Arguments about whether or not the cache should be published would mutate into arguments about whether the associated challenge is legitimate, presumably leading to the same number of appeals that were being generated prior to the moratorium.

Share this post


Link to post

Then I'll note that the "challenge stars" proposal does little to address this problem. Arguments about whether or not the cache should be published would mutate into arguments about whether the associated challenge is legitimate, presumably leading to the same number of appeals that were being generated prior to the moratorium.

+1 Excellent point.

Share this post


Link to post
Then I'll note that the "challenge stars" proposal does little to address this problem. Arguments about whether or not the cache should be published would mutate into arguments about whether the associated challenge is legitimate, presumably leading to the same number of appeals that were being generated prior to the moratorium.
I'm not so sure. I think any proposal that gets rid of the ALR aspect of challenges would reduce some of the angst. It becomes easier for people to ignore the stupid challenges.

 

If I'm not holding the smiley for my geocaches hostage, then who cares whether I have a series of 1000 challenges that are just incremental variations of each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Then I'll note that the "challenge stars" proposal does little to address this problem. Arguments about whether or not the cache should be published would mutate into arguments about whether the associated challenge is legitimate, presumably leading to the same number of appeals that were being generated prior to the moratorium.

I'm not so sure. I think any proposal that gets rid of the ALR aspect of challenges would reduce some of the angst. It becomes easier for people to ignore the stupid challenges.

Groundspeak has indicated that most of the challenge cache appeals come from cache owners who disagree with reviewers who determine that the proposed challenges are not publishable. Relatively few appeals are from finders who dispute whether they have met the challenge requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the proposal goes far enough. Why not seperate the puzzle solving from the cache find also?

Puzzles (offset caches) are covered by the Unknown/Mystery catch-all and are directly related to locating the geocache.

Challenges are not directly related to locating the geocache (they are an ALR), and they have no explicit property, only a required identifier: "Challenge" in the title. Not filterable. Not searchable. Not guaranteed (non-challenges may also have "challenge" in the title).

 

Per cache listing type, all caches are what they say they are, and are directly related to the hidden container (or task required, such as Earth, Webcam, or Virtual). Challenge caches are the sole exception.

That's the my point in the second paragraph, when they made challenge caches to be at the listed co-ords the requirements went from something to do before finding the cache to an ALR. When you had to qualify first (before hunting the cache) it put it at the same level as puzzle caches - do something before you can find the cache. In a way, TPTB made the problem themselves (the "I can't log a cache I can find" complaints).

Share this post


Link to post

In a way, TPTB made the problem themselves (the "I can't log a cache I can find" complaints).

 

And yet, this is not the reason for the moratorium.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

In a way, TPTB made the problem themselves (the "I can't log a cache I can find" complaints).

But I really don't this was the reason for the moratorium. Yes there were some I can't log a cache I can find complaints, but my impression was the load on the reviewers going over the multitude of submissions that could not be published followed by the inevitable appeal to get it published is what caused the moratorium. As for the I can't log a cache I can find complaints, the change was made a number of years ago so that things like a Thomas guide challenge the final was published, but you could not claim the find until you completed the ALR.

Share this post


Link to post
Then I'll note that the "challenge stars" proposal does little to address this problem. Arguments about whether or not the cache should be published would mutate into arguments about whether the associated challenge is legitimate, presumably leading to the same number of appeals that were being generated prior to the moratorium.

I'm not so sure. I think any proposal that gets rid of the ALR aspect of challenges would reduce some of the angst. It becomes easier for people to ignore the stupid challenges.

Groundspeak has indicated that most of the challenge cache appeals come from cache owners who disagree with reviewers who determine that the proposed challenges are not publishable. Relatively few appeals are from finders who dispute whether they have met the challenge requirements.

In which case most of the appeals load would be eliminated by simply allowing any challenge for which the CO has already qualified. Yes, we would get some really silly challenges, but I would suspect that the vast majority of COs don't want to put out caches that nobody will find. We could put a limit on the number of similar challenges that the CO can publish (maybe 5) to stop a CO doing something like Find x caches which meet a criterion, find x+1, find x+2 ad nauseam, while allowing for series of increasing difficulty (5, 10, 25 and 50 years unfound time).

Share this post


Link to post
Then I'll note that the "challenge stars" proposal does little to address this problem. Arguments about whether or not the cache should be published would mutate into arguments about whether the associated challenge is legitimate, presumably leading to the same number of appeals that were being generated prior to the moratorium.
I'm not so sure. I think any proposal that gets rid of the ALR aspect of challenges would reduce some of the angst. It becomes easier for people to ignore the stupid challenges.

 

If I'm not holding the smiley for my geocaches hostage, then who cares whether I have a series of 1000 challenges that are just incremental variations of each other?

 

But, the ALR is what makes it a challenge cache. Otherwise, it's just a traditional.

Giving a challenge souvenir defeats the whole porpoise of a challenge cache. Either you meet the requirements, or you do not. Letting people log a find on a cache where they do not meet the requirements is just inane. The dumbing of geocaching. Better just to eliminate challenges caches entirely.

I will admit that there are some very inane challenges. I am working on the PA All County Challenge. But if I go for he PA DeLorme Challenge, I cannot use any caches I used for the PA All County Challenge???

If a Challenge is unobtainable for me, I do not go for it. (Will I ever find caches in 200 contiguous counties? Not worth the effort.) But to allow cachers to log caches where they have not met the requirement is just inane. Why bother having Challenge Caches? If I find the cache and meet the requirements, then I will log a find. If I do not meet the requirements, then I do not log it.

If cachers do not meet the requirements, and wish to log it anyway, the defeats the whole porpoise. In that case, just archive all Challenge Caches. Man of them are rather silly anyway. "Find twelve pairs of caches containing the name of an animal on Noah's Ark." Silly, but it does work. And I don't think there were dolphins or mosquitoes on Noah's Ark.

My suggestion is either to eliminate Challenge Caches altogether, or limit them to normal types: County, DeLorme &c.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the proposal goes far enough. Why not seperate the puzzle solving from the cache find also?

Puzzles (offset caches) are covered by the Unknown/Mystery catch-all and are directly related to locating the geocache.

Challenges are not directly related to locating the geocache (they are an ALR), and they have no explicit property, only a required identifier: "Challenge" in the title. Not filterable. Not searchable. Not guaranteed (non-challenges may also have "challenge" in the title).

 

Per cache listing type, all caches are what they say they are, and are directly related to the hidden container (or task required, such as Earth, Webcam, or Virtual). Challenge caches are the sole exception.

That's the my point in the second paragraph, when they made challenge caches to be at the listed co-ords the requirements went from something to do before finding the cache to an ALR.

Completing the challenge requirements was always an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR). Completing the challenge requirements is something you must do in addition to signing the physical cache before you can claim an online smiley. That's true regardless of whether you sign the physical log before or after you complete the requirements.

 

When you had to qualify first (before hunting the cache) it put it at the same level as puzzle caches - do something before you can find the cache.

Not really. You can claim a smiley for a puzzle cache as long as you have signed the physical log--regardless of whether or not you have solved the puzzle. Even for a challenge cache that you manage to find away from its posted coordinates (those are still allowed today), you cannot claim an online smiley if you haven't met the challenge requirements.

 

Challenge caches have an Additional Logging Requirement. They always have. So what? Some people seem to think that because Groundspeak has deemed ALRs to be unacceptable for most physical caches, ALRs must be unacceptable for all physical caches. Groundspeak doesn't believe this; they've always explicitly carved out an exception for challenge caches from the ALR prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post

Then I'll note that the "challenge stars" proposal does little to address this problem. Arguments about whether or not the cache should be published would mutate into arguments about whether the associated challenge is legitimate, presumably leading to the same number of appeals that were being generated prior to the moratorium.

I think the challenge star proposal would solve the problem of challenge caches in the same way Challenges solved the problem of virtual caches: everyone, including people that like challenge caches, will ignore challenge stars, so soon enough no one will care enough to submit any to begin with, let alone appeal a rejection.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick question for those who think they should be allowed to log challenges without fulfilling the requirements. Should you be allowed to log earthcaches without answering and sending the answers? Do you think EC logs may be deleted if no/wrong answers are send?

 

A new cachetype may be the answer. EC's have ALRs, so do challenges. but as written so many times this is not the problem, it's appeals. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

That's the my point in the second paragraph, when they made challenge caches to be at the listed co-ords the requirements went from something to do before finding the cache to an ALR. When you had to qualify first (before hunting the cache) it put it at the same level as puzzle caches - do something before you can find the cache. In a way, TPTB made the problem themselves (the "I can't log a cache I can find" complaints).

 

Says who? I own a plethora of challenge caches. Not one of them are hidden at the posted coordinates. This is done simply by the choice of the CO and there's no requirement that says challenge caches are to be placed at the posted coordinates. Folks tend not to go out of their way for my challenges until they've qualified because of that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not so sure. I think any proposal that gets rid of the ALR aspect of challenges would reduce some of the angst. It becomes easier for people to ignore the stupid challenges.
Groundspeak has indicated that most of the challenge cache appeals come from cache owners who disagree with reviewers who determine that the proposed challenges are not publishable. Relatively few appeals are from finders who dispute whether they have met the challenge requirements.
I tried to clarify this in my next paragraph.

 

By removing the ALR aspect of challenges, Groundspeak would eliminate a lot of the pressure to restrict challenges. When Groundspeak (and the volunteer reviewers) don't need to restrict challenges (as much, or at all), the appeals load drops.

 

And yes, the new unmoderated (or lightly moderated) ALR-free challenges could work the way Geocaching Challenges (TM, RIP) worked. And some people would ignore them, just as they ignore the current challenge caches. And some people would ignore them because there is no smiley associated with the challenge. And some people would ignore them because many of them are absurd. And some people would ignore the absurd ones, and focus on a few that are interesting to them, just as with current challenge caches. And some people might even embrace them and complete as many challenges as possible, no longer restricted by the need to find the cache location to log completion of the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
EC's have ALRs, so do challenges.
Technically, EarthCaches have LRs (Logging Requirements). Physical caches can have ALRs (Additional Logging Requirements) beyond finding the container and signing the log. EarthCaches (and grandfathered Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches) have no container or log, so they have only Logging Requirements, not Additional Logging Requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

By removing the ALR aspect of challenges, Groundspeak would eliminate a lot of the pressure to restrict challenges.

Yeah, because they would now be free to be as crappy as regular caches.

 

And yes, the new unmoderated (or lightly moderated) ALR-free challenges could work the way Geocaching Challenges (TM, RIP) worked.

Which did not work. So basically you are promoting an idea that has been shown not to work in the past.

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

Edited by fizzymagic

Share this post


Link to post
EC's have ALRs, so do challenges.
Technically, EarthCaches have LRs (Logging Requirements). Physical caches can have ALRs (Additional Logging Requirements) beyond finding the container and signing the log. EarthCaches (and grandfathered Virtual Caches and Webcam Caches) have no container or log, so they have only Logging Requirements, not Additional Logging Requirements.

 

You know what I meant :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
And yes, the new unmoderated (or lightly moderated) ALR-free challenges could work the way Geocaching Challenges (TM, RIP) worked.
Which did not work. So basically you are promoting an idea that has been shown not to work in the past.
BTW, has Groundspeak ever said specifically why they pulled the plug on Geocaching Challenges (TM, RIP)? Specifically what they thought wasn't working about them? Because after the silly challenges that accompanied the initial rollout, it seemed to me that they were starting to settle down into something that could have been worthwhile. Unfortunately, a week or two after I started looking at them again and installed the app, Groundspeak announced that they were pulling the plug. So it goes.

 

Anyway, I think challenges of some sort will continue to exist, regardless of what Groundspeak does. I recently completed the MROSD Preserve Circuit Geo-Challenge, not because it allowed me to log a challenge cache or get a smiley, and not even for the geocoin (although that is a nice memento), but because it was an interesting goal to work towards. And I've been pleased to earn multiple Orders of Venona, not because they allowed me to log a challenge cache or get a smiley, and not even for the geocoins (although those are nice mementos), but because it was a privilege to contribute to those group efforts. And someday I'd like to earn Kealia's GBA Deathmarch Geocoin, not because it would allow me to log a challenge cache or get a smiley, and not even for the geocoin (although that would be a nice memento), but because it is an experience I would like to share with other GBA members.

 

So I don't think Groundspeak needs to be the moderator of valid challenges. And since the problem with challenge caches (as they currently exist) seems to be the overhead of moderating/reviewing the challenges, perhaps a solution would be to get Groundspeak out of the business of moderating/reviewing challenges.

 

But I don't think that would work as long as challenges are implemented as a logging requirement (additional, or otherwise) for physical geocaches. So IMHO, it makes sense to separate the challenge (which Groundspeak would no longer moderate/review) from the logging requirements for physical geocaches (which Groundspeak would continue to moderate/review).

Share this post


Link to post
BTW, has Groundspeak ever said specifically why they pulled the plug on Geocaching Challenges (TM, RIP)? Specifically what they thought wasn't working about them?

 

Groundspeak didn't really say. Here is Groundspeak's statement on the subject (at least, the only one I could find):

 

In our effort to inspire outdoor play through Geocaching, we are often faced with decisions about what to focus on next, and what to focus on less. It is through these decisions that we explore opportunities to grow the global game of geocaching.

 

Occasionally, during this process, we are faced with the reality that certain ideas don't catch on as we had hoped. In these situations we owe it to ourselves and to you to make tough decisions about the future of every project and the resources to be applied to each. Sometimes, as a result, cool features must become casualties.

 

In this spirit, we have decided to retire Geocaching Challenges.

 

On an office wall here at HQ is a sign that reads, "Let's make better mistakes tomorrow." By accepting that we will sometimes get it wrong, we can allow ourselves to learn from and imagine new opportunities in the world of Geocaching. Our hope is we can take the lessons from Challenges and create better tools to guide you on your next adventure.

 

So, all we officially know is that Groundspeak thought that Challenges were "a cool feature" that "didn't catch on".

Share this post


Link to post

I think the challenge star proposal would solve the problem of challenge caches in the same way Challenges solved the problem of virtual caches: everyone, including people that like challenge caches, will ignore challenge stars, so soon enough no one will care enough to submit any to begin with, let alone appeal a rejection.

Asserted without evidence.

It's a proposal, and at the very least, 2 of us in the forum who love challenge caches would love the new system. :P

 

Anyway, I think challenges of some sort will continue to exist, regardless of what Groundspeak does.

Right, at worst, we go back to arbitrary 'badges' that people plop into their profile html when they accomplish, by their own judgement, some set of minimum qualifications.

 

...which is precisely what evolved into challenges coupled with physical geocaches with ALRs.

 

...which spawned Geocaching Challenges, which were far too loose and failed, returning us to challenge cache ALRs.

 

...which were almost right but were too much of a headache for appeals, so temporarily paused to find a way to improve.

 

...which spawned a proposal that attempts to address many of the issues the community continually raised over the years, both for and against the 'challenge' concept in general - from Geocaching Challenges to Challenge Caches to the reward system itself. Still haven't seen a better proposal (where removing them altogether or leaving them as is aren't options); typically anything 'good' about an idea has been incorporated into the proposed idea somehow B)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

The longer the moratorium goes on, the less I care about challenges (pros AND cons) and the potential solutions/changes.

 

I suspect I'm not the only one.

Share this post


Link to post

The longer the moratorium goes on, the less I care about challenges (pros AND cons) and the potential solutions/changes.

 

I suspect I'm not the only one.

 

You are not alone :)

Share this post


Link to post

It gives me time to sort through the myriads still in my area and determine which ones I can still log as found, and which I'll just have to settle with finding physically :)

I don't mind. I'd love to find them ALL before the moratorium ends. But GLWT.

Share this post


Link to post

Still haven't seen a better proposal (where removing them altogether or leaving them as is aren't options); typically anything 'good' about an idea has been incorporated into the proposed idea somehow)

I've seen several proposals that actually address the biggest problem that Groundspeak has indicated exists with challenge caches (i.e., they generate too many appeals when reviewers deny publication). If you want to continue ignoring the elephant in the room, go ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to embrace your cure-all snake oil pitch.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen several proposals that actually address the biggest problem that Groundspeak has indicated exists with challenge caches (i.e., they generate too many appeals when reviewers deny publication). If you want to continue ignoring the elephant in the room, go ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to embrace your cure-all snake oil pitch.

Who's ignoring the elephant in the room?

And please explain why the proposal is objectively "snake oil", instead that being just your opinion because you don't like the idea, nor helping to improve and suggest ways it can be better?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I think the challenge star proposal would solve the problem of challenge caches in the same way Challenges solved the problem of virtual caches: everyone, including people that like challenge caches, will ignore challenge stars, so soon enough no one will care enough to submit any to begin with, let alone appeal a rejection.

Asserted without evidence.

It's a prediction, not an assertion.

 

It's a proposal, and at the very least, 2 of us in the forum who love challenge caches would love the new system. :P

I have to admit, I don't really understand this. But I'm pretty sure I'd ignore challenge stars for the same reason I ignored Challenges: challenge stars offer me nothing I like about challenge caches just as Challenges offered nothing I liked about virtual caches.

 

The longer the moratorium goes on, the less I care about challenges (pros AND cons) and the potential solutions/changes.

 

I suspect I'm not the only one.

Although I admit I know this has been explicitly denied by GS, I still think this is the plan: put it on the shelf until no one cares, then forget about it. Was there a "one year moratorium" on virtual caches before they were officially dropped?

Edited by dprovan

Share this post


Link to post

The longer the moratorium goes on, the less I care about challenges (pros AND cons) and the potential solutions/changes.

 

I suspect I'm not the only one.

Although I admit I know this has been explicitly denied by GS, I still think this is the plan: put it on the shelf until no one cares, then forget about it. Was there a "one year moratorium" on virtual caches before they were officially dropped?

 

That's essentially what I was driving at. It may not even be their "plan", but it is likely the effect. For a short while I heard a lot of moaning and wailing about the moratorium...now I never hear complaints or even inquiries. In fact, most folks seem to be chugging right along, pursuing those challenges they always were working towards...only now they aren't churning out more, even sillier ones.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the challenge star proposal would solve the problem of challenge caches in the same way Challenges solved the problem of virtual caches: everyone, including people that like challenge caches, will ignore challenge stars, so soon enough no one will care enough to submit any to begin with, let alone appeal a rejection.

Asserted without evidence.

It's a prediction, not an assertion.

Then predicted, and already refuted:

It's a proposal, and at the very least, 2 of us in the forum who love challenge caches would love the new system. :P

 

 

I'm pretty sure I'd ignore challenge stars for the same reason I ignored Challenges: challenge stars offer me nothing I like about challenge caches just as Challenges offered nothing I liked about virtual caches.

Then the system is exactly for you. You can now ignore everything about Challenges, without taking away the enjoyment from anyone else. Win-win.

 

Although I admit I know this has been explicitly denied by GS, I still think this is the plan: put it on the shelf until no one cares, then forget about it. Was there a "one year moratorium" on virtual caches before they were officially dropped?

While the result may be that challenge caches are dropped (though I'd guess that's a slim possibility), I highly doubt that it would be due to Groundspeak waiting out the commotion until 'no one cares'. For one, those who do would easily call them out on that, and there's plenty on record from them saying it's a one year moratorium. So, at worst, after one year they might publically drop the challenge cache concept from the guidelines, like they dropped Geocaching Challenges but much more gracefully, and likely with much more community blowback than GeoChal's. But I can't see them waiting until it "blows over" then just sweep it all under the rug.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17

×