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

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Well . . . I have no interest in challenge stars (or for that matter, badges or souvenirs that reflect caching "accomplishments"). I also would not have any interest in finding most of the existing challenge caches if they were simply a traditional with a star attached to it - regardless of whether I could ignore the star part of the cache.

 

So from my perspective, the proposal is a loss that takes away enjoyment in finding a challenge cache as part of this game. And since I would not want to participate in the star system I would have to hope that my existing challenge was grandfathered. In either event, not a win-win.

 

I have seen some challenge star proposals that would still allow owners to link the cache find to completing the challenge star. I would not like having to get a star to log a cache and people who want to log any challenge cache without completing the intended requirements would still be unsatisfied. So that variation is a lose-lose.

 

And if the challenge star was based on a system where the challenges were unmoderated, then it would seemingly be a variation of the old geocaching challenges - go somewhere and buy an ice cream cone - that would result in any number of challenges that were designed not to be completed. It would be a "better mistake" that might signal to me how much the game has gone in other directions. Not a win, either.

 

I would rather have the moratorium become permanent than a challenge star system. But I am not sure how any single proposal could be a "win" for everyone so I suppose the only thing that matters is if Groundspeak devises a system that works for its purposes.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so that's a good feedback. The other thread is probably better for this but let's see

Well . . . I have no interest in challenge stars (or for that matter, badges or souvenirs that reflect caching "accomplishments"). I also would not have any interest in finding most of the existing challenge caches if they were simply a traditional with a star attached to it - regardless of whether I could ignore the star part of the cache.

What is it about Challenge Caches that you enjoy? And how would the proposal change that process for you?

 

So from my perspective, the proposal is a loss that takes away enjoyment in finding a challenge cache as part of this game. And since I would not want to participate in the star system I would have to hope that my existing challenge was grandfathered. In either event, not a win-win.

Your challenge cache can exist in exactly the same way in the proposal. As a traditional with a qualification that's locked to the find - that is, one cannot find and log your geocache unless they also qualify, in order to receive the smiley in their count (whether they like the stars or not). Existing system accounted for. And people who don't like challenges can easily filter your cache out (which they can't currently do without explicitly ignoring your cache)

So what's changed? (aside from the mere existence of 'stars')

 

I have seen some challenge star proposals that would still allow owners to link the cache find to completing the challenge star. I would not like having to get a star to log a cache

How is that different than disallowing someone to log a find on your cache unless they qualify?

 

and people who want to log any challenge cache without completing the intended requirements would still be unsatisfied.

In the case of your cache, yeah, but in the case of say challenge caches I may publish, I could still allow them to find it without qualifying for the attached challenge.

 

And if the challenge star was based on a system where the challenges were unmoderated,

I wouldn't advocate for such a system :P

 

then it would seemingly be a variation of the old geocaching challenges - go somewhere and buy an ice cream cone - that would result in any number of challenges that were designed not to be completed.

Exactly :)

 

I am not sure how any single proposal could be a "win" for everyone so I suppose the only thing that matters is if Groundspeak devises a system that works for its purposes.

Right, I don't think any proposal will satisfy everyone. I don't think we've ever claimed that this idea is a perfect solution. When has any idea ever been met with 100% acceptance on the forums? :laughing: Any "win-win" claim is purely based on addressing concerns and desires - it can't dictate whether someone will ultimately like the idea or accept the resolutions. We can find ways to bridge the gap between A and B, but not everyone will like the bridge design. :P Whatcanyado. At least ideas are out there that show it can be done. Maybe someone else will come along with a better idea or implementation. Presumably that's what Groundspeak will do. It's unlikely that this 'stars' idea will ever come to fruition. But at least it's drawing out what people like and hate about the challenge concept, and some of us are attempting to address all these things during the silence of the moratorium, so that maybe some eyes that have some influence will come up with something.

Edited by thebruce0

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.

Who's ignoring the elephant in the room?

You are. All you seem to want to discuss is the challenge star proposal, which does nothing to solve Groundspeak's biggest concern with challenge caches. You say the proposal maybe, possibly, perhaps, might address that issue, but you couldn't even bother to check. It's almost as if you don't want to be distracted by that large land mammal standing nearby.

 

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?

I didn't say the proposal is objectively snake oil. (How stupid do you think I am?) I used snake oil as a metaphor to express my disapproval with the way you huckster and hype the proposal: it solves "all the biggest complaints on either side," "then the system is exactly for you," "win-win," "haven't seen a better proposal," and "typically anything 'good' about an idea has been incorporated into the proposed idea somehow." Throw in something about how it "cures baldness" and I think you've got yourself a real winner there.

 

Maybe you'd like to explain how any of those hyped up opinions amount to objective truths. I won't be holding my breath.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

What is it about Challenge Caches that you enjoy? And how would the proposal change that process for you?

 

I like that the challenge and the cache are linked together as part of this game. It can be something "extra" to lead to me to a cache that I would otherwise ignore. I suppose some people enjoy puzzles for the same reasons.

 

Challenge stars seem like a side game. It is much the same way that I felt about the old superperson type of challenges. Another layer that is separate from other aspects of this game. I have no interest in doing a challenge simply to do a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

All you seem to want to discuss is the challenge star proposal, which does nothing to solve Groundspeak's biggest concern with challenge caches. You say the proposal maybe, possibly, perhaps, might address that issue, but you couldn't even bother to check.

 

Exactly...you should definitely fill out the survey Groundspeak has put out on the matter because they are so interested in feedback.

 

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Who's ignoring the elephant in the room?

You are. All you seem to want to discuss is the challenge star proposal, which does nothing to solve Groundspeak's biggest concern with challenge caches. You say the proposal maybe, possibly, perhaps, might address that issue, but you couldn't even bother to check. It's almost as if you don't want to be distracted by that large land mammal standing nearby.

You like to cherry-pick quotes.

Of course I want to see all the issues resolved. For the record, I didn't bring it up in this recent little segment of the revived thread. I merely stepped in to defend it against the same people that consistently hammer it with their own opinions as if it has no value and solves nothing. That isn't helpful at all, let alone addressing your "elephant in the room". How about offering suggestions, yourself, about how to address that elephant in the room?

I'd love to see discussion continue over in that thread about how that proposal can be improved, leaving this thread to discussion about challenge caches in general. Or, actually see ideas about how Groundspeak's issues (which are not the only issues with challenge caches, as just mentioned and linked in this thread) can be assuaged. Have you offered anything? Will you quote yourself if so? Or will you just tell me to go look it up myself?

 

Look, I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here. There is just an ongoing proposal - if you don't like it, fine, not everyone would. But offer why, so that it can be improved, or just accept that the proposal exists, and those of us (not just me) who see it as a solution to a problem that we may see raised in another discussion, may link to it as a proposed solution. If you have a better idea, then offer it.

 

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?

I didn't say the proposal is objectively snake oil. (How stupid do you think I am?)

"don't expect the rest of us to embrace your cure-all snake oil pitch."

That sounds like a truth statement. Sarcastic, sure, but objective. Instead asking us or offering suggestions as to how it can be improved so as not to be seen as snake oil, you're egging us defend it as though it already is snake oil. I don't think you're stupid, I just think you're way too engaged in trying to deny this proposal as remotely feasible because you don't like it.

We don't expect everyone to embrace the idea. No one in their right mind in these forums would.

And that's fine.

Just try to be a little more positive about it, wouldja?

 

As for your quote mining:

I used snake oil as a metaphor to express my disapproval with the way you huckster and hype the proposal: it solves "all the biggest complaints on either side,"

No, it is "attempting to address, and find some form of resolution to, all the biggest complaints on either side [of the community]" as clarified. If it doesn't solve an issue, we want to try to improve it so it can.

"then the system is exactly for you,"

Yes, as it would pertain to someone who does not want to see challenges, and can therefore now filter them out easily and entirely with this system.

 

"win-win,"

Yes, as it pertained to addressing points raised by the two parties involved.

 

"haven't seen a better proposal," and "typically anything 'good' about an idea has been incorporated into the proposed idea somehow."

As my opinion, yes, because such ideas either degrade into arguing opinions, or good ideas have been considered and implemented in this proposed idea for its improvement.

Throw in something about how it "cures baldness" and I think you've got yourself a real winner there.

Why on earth would we do that? This is about geocaching and challenges, and cures for baldness are off topic.

 

Maybe you'd like to explain how any of those hyped up opinions amount to objective truths. I won't be holding my breath.

The only opinion there was mine about "better proposals", which was not saying other ideas were bad. Everything else quoted was specifically mentioned in attempting to solve a process problem, regardless of whether the resolution is "preferred".

 

Please don't hold your breath in anticipation of any reply, because it takes much too long to type up these responses for that to be a safe course of action.

Share this post


Link to post

And in the Forum Oscar Awards category of "Best Timed Post," the nominees are:

 

1. Moun10Bike, for his link to the challenge cache survey; and

2. Oronma, for "Why does my post say Ringbone?"

Share this post


Link to post

This is encouraging:

 

Thank you for your feedback! Once the survey period is complete, we'll get to work on building a better framework for challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

This is encouraging:

 

Thank you for your feedback! Once the survey period is complete, we'll get to work on building a better framework for challenge caches.

 

Agreed.

 

After taking the survey, I have the following observations:

  • I noted at least an allusion to the notion of de-coupling cache finds and challenge qualifications. While "challenge stars" wasn't explicitly mentioned, it seems that they've at least considered the idea.
  • With the number of questions about the future (e.g. "what features would you like to see", "how should old challenge caches be handled"), it seems that Groundspeak is serious about allowing challenge caches to continue on in some form. Of course, that's what Groundspeak said from the beginning. But for the conspiracy theorists who wondered if this was just a way for Groundspeak to gently retire challenge caches, I think this is evidence to the contrary.
  • I'll admit ... I'd never heard of some of the challenge types listed. You learn something new every day ... :)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Question 9 is poorly phrased. It reads as if it's asking whether I agree with the statements themselves. We might quibble about whether "They often require traveling long distances to find qualifying caches" is strictly true, but it's undeniable that a few challenge caches require traveling. So I'm reading the question as asking whether I agree these are reasons to not like challenge caches.

 

Even then, I'm not sure what the question's trying to get at. Is the idea that if enough people say they don't like some of these things, that's a valid reason to not allow them?

 

By the way, I saw nothing in this survey has anything to do with the approval process. Wasn't that the problem that needed to be fixed?

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.

Probably wasn't the primary, but it's the "loudest" complaint heard here in the forums so it probably was a additional concideration.

Share this post


Link to post

By the way, I saw nothing in this survey has anything to do with the approval process. Wasn't that the problem that needed to be fixed?

 

The problem (as I understand it) isn't in the approval process per se, but in the considerable subjectivity in the standards regarding what is and isn't an approvable challenge. Notice that a fair number of questions seemed focused on things that would lessen that ambiguity (e.g. limiting challenges to certain well-known types, requiring automated qualification checkers, requiring owner self-qualification).

Share this post


Link to post

One of my issues with the Challenge Caches is the arbitrarily assigned D/T ratings. I find it ridiculous that a cache located under the lamppost skirt in a parking lot (1.5/1) is allowed to be called a 5/5 - or whatever D/T combo the CO desires. I wonder how popular some of these Challenge caches would be if they were only allowed to be rated 1/1.

Share this post


Link to post

Who's ignoring the elephant in the room?

You are. All you seem to want to discuss is the challenge star proposal, which does nothing to solve Groundspeak's biggest concern with challenge caches. You say the proposal maybe, possibly, perhaps, might address that issue, but you couldn't even bother to check. It's almost as if you don't want to be distracted by that large land mammal standing nearby.

...How about offering suggestions, yourself, about how to address that elephant in the room?

...Have you offered anything? Will you quote yourself if so? Or will you just tell me to go look it up myself?

...If you have a better idea, then offer it.

I did offer suggestions specifically dealing with the elephant. In fact, I even started an entire thread to deal with the elephant, which you participated in.

 

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?

I didn't say the proposal is objectively snake oil. (How stupid do you think I am?)

"don't expect the rest of us to embrace your cure-all snake oil pitch."

That sounds like a truth statement. Sarcastic, sure, but objective. Instead asking us or offering suggestions as to how it can be improved so as not to be seen as snake oil, you're egging us defend it as though it already is snake oil.

Again, it isn't a truth statement, nor is it sarcasm. As I explained in my next sentence, it is a metaphor: "I used snake oil as a metaphor to express my disapproval with the way you huckster and hype the proposal..." I'm not claiming the challenge star proposal is literally "snake oil." I'm claiming your hyperbolic advocacy of the proposal is like the over-the-top sales pitch of a snake oil huckster.

 

Maybe you'd like to explain how any of those hyped up opinions amount to objective truths.

The only opinion there was mine about "better proposals", which was not saying other ideas were bad. Everything else quoted was specifically mentioned in attempting to solve a process problem, regardless of whether the resolution is "preferred".

..."all the biggest complaints on either side,"

 

Who appointed you to judge which are the "biggest" complaints? By what objective measure did you determine this list?

 

"then the system is exactly for you,"

 

Who are you to say what system is for whom, much less an "exact" fit? You said this was a perfect fit because they could ignore everything about challenge caches. But that person doesn't dislike challenge caches; they disliked the super-hero Challenges. They even explained to you, "challenge stars offer me nothing I like about challenge caches just as Challenges offered nothing I liked about virtual caches." So, the proposal isn't even close to an objective "exact" fit; just about the opposite.

 

"win-win,"

 

Who appointed you the person who determines who wins and who loses? And what objective measures do you employ to make these decisions? As it turns out, you are a poor judge and no objective measures were used. You applied that "win-win" comment to the above person whom you claimed that "the system is exactly for you." That person said the challenge stars offer him nothing he likes about challenge caches. Sounds like a loss for them.

 

"typically anything 'good' about an idea has been incorporated into the proposed idea somehow."

 

Why do you get to decide what is "good?" And what objective measures do you use to make that decision? It's your opinion, not an objective truth.

 

Indeed, all these statements are merely your opinions with nothing objective to back them up.

Share this post


Link to post

One of my issues with the Challenge Caches is the arbitrarily assigned D/T ratings. I find it ridiculous that a cache located under the lamppost skirt in a parking lot (1.5/1) is allowed to be called a 5/5 - or whatever D/T combo the CO desires. I wonder how popular some of these Challenge caches would be if they were only allowed to be rated 1/1.

 

*cough* dare I mention an idea that directly addresses that issue? Lest I get a slap on the back of my wrist? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

One of my issues with the Challenge Caches is the arbitrarily assigned D/T ratings. I find it ridiculous that a cache located under the lamppost skirt in a parking lot (1.5/1) is allowed to be called a 5/5 - or whatever D/T combo the CO desires. I wonder how popular some of these Challenge caches would be if they were only allowed to be rated 1/1.

 

*cough* dare I mention an idea that directly addresses that issue? Lest I get a slap on the back of my wrist? :ph34r:

 

Wasn't that idea included indirectly in the survey?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes one of the questions asked about our feeling about inaccurate D/T ratings.

 

As dprovan mentioned, a few of those I wasn't quite sure how to respond; are they true/false? Or do I like/dislike that they are true? It was odd at a few points.

 

The distance one for example, yeah, some challenges require driving a great distance. But if it was something like "I don't like" having to drive a great disance, the answer would make more sense. Otherwise, um, yeah I do agree, because some do require it. /:) Same with the DT ratings; yep, many containers are 1/1 but the listing is rated 5/5, so they're inaccurately rated. But do I like that? That's the question. *shrug*

Interested to eventually find out the results.

Share this post


Link to post

One of my issues with the Challenge Caches is the arbitrarily assigned D/T ratings. I find it ridiculous that a cache located under the lamppost skirt in a parking lot (1.5/1) is allowed to be called a 5/5 - or whatever D/T combo the CO desires. I wonder how popular some of these Challenge caches would be if they were only allowed to be rated 1/1.

 

I agree. I've seen caches and events with purposefully mis-rated D/Ts because they would fill in hard to find combinations in a local challenge. It waters down the importance of D/T ratings. And do those who use these caches with bogus D/T ratings to fulfill a challenge really believe they accomplished something special?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's also easy to use a challenge as a sort of excuse to rate a cache based on your opinion of the challenge difficulty as a means to fill a D/T. Of course, even rating it based on the cache itself comes with a level of subjectivity, but you can easily create a challenge of most any D/T combo coupled with an LPC by adjusting the challenge difficulty, in order to provide a rare D/T for another challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

One of my issues with the Challenge Caches is the arbitrarily assigned D/T ratings. I find it ridiculous that a cache located under the lamppost skirt in a parking lot (1.5/1) is allowed to be called a 5/5 - or whatever D/T combo the CO desires. I wonder how popular some of these Challenge caches would be if they were only allowed to be rated 1/1.

I see a lot of traditionals that are mis-rated as well...wish there was a method for reviewers to vett all ratings.

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.

Probably wasn't the primary, but it's the "loudest" complaint heard here in the forums so it probably was a additional concideration.

 

Since only "a few" people visit the forum you can not consider them "loud". Only a few 10's of people take part in this thread.

 

Same will be true for the survey, I'd like to see how many take it. I doubt 1% of active cachers will take part.

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.

Probably wasn't the primary, but it's the "loudest" complaint heard here in the forums so it probably was a additional concideration.

 

Since only "a few" people visit the forum you can not consider them "loud". Only a few 10's of people take part in this thread.

 

Same will be true for the survey, I'd like to see how many take it. I doubt 1% of active cachers will take part.

Wow! Arguing the terms, sigh. Loud was in quotes, not to be taken literally. In the forums - yes, only used by a very small percent of the total geocaching population - the most common complaint about challenge caches is about not being able to log a cache as found without qualifing. By your logic, the old classic of a guy bringing a boombox on a bus at full volume isn't loud, because he is only one person in a group of 70 on the bus, while there are millions not on the bus. Try to tell the rest of the passengers on that bus, it isn't loud... There may only be a few participationg in this (and similar threads) but the complaints are "loud" in here.

Share this post


Link to post

One of my issues with the Challenge Caches is the arbitrarily assigned D/T ratings. I find it ridiculous that a cache located under the lamppost skirt in a parking lot (1.5/1) is allowed to be called a 5/5 - or whatever D/T combo the CO desires. I wonder how popular some of these Challenge caches would be if they were only allowed to be rated 1/1.

 

I agree. I've seen caches and events with purposefully mis-rated D/Ts because they would fill in hard to find combinations in a local challenge. It waters down the importance of D/T ratings. And do those who use these caches with bogus D/T ratings to fulfill a challenge really believe they accomplished something special?

 

Misrated caches make me sad, whatever the cause.

 

The one negative result of challenge caches that seems significant to me is that they have spawned the creation of misrated caches, both challenge caches that overestimate their difficulty and in other caches purposely misrated to provide D/T combinations to fill in needed grid spaces.

 

Most other arguments (most particularly the "I found it so I should be able to log it! WAAAAH" argument) do not strike me as legitimate. Is this problem enough to justify the needless complex "solutions" people have proposed here? Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow! Arguing the terms, sigh. Loud was in quotes, not to be taken literally. In the forums - yes, only used by a very small percent of the total geocaching population - the most common complaint about challenge caches is about not being able to log a cache as found without qualifing. By your logic, the old classic of a guy bringing a boombox on a bus at full volume isn't loud, because he is only one person in a group of 70 on the bus, while there are millions not on the bus. Try to tell the rest of the passengers on that bus, it isn't loud... There may only be a few participationg in this (and similar threads) but the complaints are "loud" in here.

 

Consider this forum one bus, where one guy is loud. That doesn't take away the fact that 50 other buses are quiet. As on any other forum there are almost no posts by people who are happy with how things are going, you only read complaints. This gives the impression that it's all bad, which it isn't.

 

As for this:

the most common complaint about challenge caches is about not being able to log a cache as found without qualifing

On this forum (a few 10' in the thread) it is, but again, not the reason for the moratorium. These complaints came later, after the moratorium was in effect.

Can't (quickly) find any threads about people complaining they can't log challenges without qualifying before the moratorium thread started. So it was a non issue until then.

Share this post


Link to post

And in the Forum Oscar Awards category of "Best Timed Post," the nominees are:

 

1. Moun10Bike, for his link to the challenge cache survey; and

2. Oronma, for "Why does my post say Ringbone?"

 

Really, I should win that award since I gave Moun10Bike the perfect set-up.

Share this post


Link to post

 

the most common complaint about challenge caches is about not being able to log a cache as found without qualifing

On this forum (a few 10' in the thread) it is, but again, not the reason for the moratorium. These complaints came later, after the moratorium was in effect.

Can't (quickly) find any threads about people complaining they can't log challenges without qualifying before the moratorium thread started. So it was a non issue until then.

 

No, it wasn't a non-issue. It was frequently brought up in threads about challenges. There may not have been topics specifically about that, but it was a frequent point of discussion. My contribution to it was the fact that, more often than not, the physical cache was an afterthought because the physical cache was a requirement. I've often felt it should be more of a virtual type of cache...maybe even tying it down to a specific location like a normal virtual would, without raising proximity issues but still requiring a visit to a given location. All that was talked about before and after the moratorium was announced.

Share this post


Link to post

 

No, it wasn't a non-issue. It was frequently brought up in threads about challenges. There may not have been topics specifically about that, but it was a frequent point of discussion. My contribution to it was the fact that, more often than not, the physical cache was an afterthought because the physical cache was a requirement. I've often felt it should be more of a virtual type of cache...maybe even tying it down to a specific location like a normal virtual would, without raising proximity issues but still requiring a visit to a given location. All that was talked about before and after the moratorium was announced.

 

Got a link to a pre-April 2015 thread?

Share this post


Link to post

 

No, it wasn't a non-issue. It was frequently brought up in threads about challenges. There may not have been topics specifically about that, but it was a frequent point of discussion. My contribution to it was the fact that, more often than not, the physical cache was an afterthought because the physical cache was a requirement. I've often felt it should be more of a virtual type of cache...maybe even tying it down to a specific location like a normal virtual would, without raising proximity issues but still requiring a visit to a given location. All that was talked about before and after the moratorium was announced.

 

Got a link to a pre-April 2015 thread?

 

Are you kidding? Nearly every discussion of challenge caches ended up talking about the discrepancy between "finding" the cache container and "qualifying for" the find based on the challenge requirements.

 

First one that comes to mind: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325377

Also: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=321752&view=findpost&p=5380356

 

There are numerous discussions about"pre signing the logs" and signing the log sheets and posting a "Note" instead as a way of tracking found caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pleased the survey seems to address most issues - there's something there for everyone - I hate Streak and Numbers based challenges but love Grid filler types and other interesting ones. The implication of the poll is that they'll return and be better. I particularly like the idea of all challenges requiring a checker. Some of them are so hard to even work out if you've qualified!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pleased the survey seems to address most issues - there's something there for everyone - I hate Streak and Numbers based challenges but love Grid filler types and other interesting ones. The implication of the poll is that they'll return and be better. I particularly like the idea of all challenges requiring a checker. Some of them are so hard to even work out if you've qualified!

 

I would advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pleased the survey seems to address most issues - there's something there for everyone - I hate Streak and Numbers based challenges but love Grid filler types and other interesting ones. The implication of the poll is that they'll return and be better.

Except I hate grid filler types and love streak and numbers, and the survey was set up so that you and I vote against each other: "People hate streak and numbers and they hate grid fillers."

 

Well, really, I don't hate any of them nor do I love any of them, but that particular question asked about preferences, so even though I would strongly agree that all those types of challenge caches should be supported, to honestly answer the question I had to say I don't care much for grid fillers. And I had to say I kinda like streak and numbers since the other positive answer would proclaim some kind of extreme love for that type. So despite my unwavering support of challenge caches of all kinds, my honest answers for that question made me look lukewarm on challenge caches.

 

Contrast that with the next question, #9, where if you dislike challenge caches for one of the listed reasons, it will often make sense to strongly agree with that dislike.

Share this post


Link to post

I would advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

I noticed that Section 9 (i.e., what to you dislike about challenge caches) had statements that included phrases like "they require," "some require," "I have to," and "they make me." It irks me that the survey designer(s) start out with the assumption that geocachers have to do certain challenge caches that they don't like. They don't. As you noted, if I hate a particular kind of challenge cache, then I can simply ignore it. Just like I can ignore other types of geocaches that I don't enjoy doing.

Share this post


Link to post

I would advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

I noticed that Section 9 (i.e., what to you dislike about challenge caches) had statements that included phrases like "they require," "some require," "I have to," and "they make me." It irks me that the survey designer(s) start out with the assumption that geocachers have to do certain challenge caches that they don't like. They don't. As you noted, if I hate a particular kind of challenge cache, then I can simply ignore it. Just like I can ignore other types of geocaches that I don't enjoy doing.

 

But if you choose to take up the challenge, the first three statements are accurate (regarding the ALRs), no?

Share this post


Link to post

Right, the basis for that question is, these are complaints, so the statements will imply negative reception, asking whether you agree. Even though the wording of that section is awkward. Like, if you were listening to someone "wine" by saying those statements, woud you agree with them or not? The problem is when the statement is true (as opposed to "I don't like") - do you agree because it's true, or disagree, and if you disagree are you saying it's not true or just that you don't agree with the externally implied sentiment that it's a bad thing? :unsure:

Yes, doing it technically as written, there'd be no problem, but the number of people who've expressed confusion at the wording shows that it's not clear-cut. There's confusion.

The scale should really just be from Strongly like to strongly dislike.

 

I also think it would be nice to have the option of saying "I don't like... But I don't think they should be removed", but I think Groundspeak is reserving that latter judgment for themselves, and merely gauging what people like and don't like, not actually whether it should exist or not.

 

I dunno, it's sort of an awkward survey, but its primary intent is pretty clear. Like/dislike. Nothing more, nothing less.

Share this post


Link to post

I would advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

I noticed that Section 9 (i.e., what to you dislike about challenge caches) had statements that included phrases like "they require," "some require," "I have to," and "they make me." It irks me that the survey designer(s) start out with the assumption that geocachers have to do certain challenge caches that they don't like. They don't. As you noted, if I hate a particular kind of challenge cache, then I can simply ignore it. Just like I can ignore other types of geocaches that I don't enjoy doing.

 

Might not use the word "irk",,, Otherwise, i agree with everything said above.

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that Section 9 (i.e., what to you dislike about challenge caches) had statements that included phrases like "they require," "some require," "I have to," and "they make me." It irks me that the survey designer(s) start out with the assumption that geocachers have to do certain challenge caches that they don't like. They don't. As you noted, if I hate a particular kind of challenge cache, then I can simply ignore it. Just like I can ignore other types of geocaches that I don't enjoy doing.

But if you choose to take up the challenge, the first three statements are accurate (regarding the ALRs), no?

That's an interesting hair to split: if I accept the challenge, then the challenge makes me do things I don't want to do. I can't deny that, but the point remains that these entries boil down to "I dislike challenge caches because they challenge me."

 

I also think it would be nice to have the option of saying "I don't like... But I don't think they should be removed"...

I see what you're saying, but the more reasonable change would be the change the question to ask what we want or don't want instead of asking which type we prefer. I prefer bigger caches, but that's doesn't mean I don't enjoy finding micros or don't want them to be supported.

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed that Section 9 (i.e., what to you dislike about challenge caches) had statements that included phrases like "they require," "some require," "I have to," and "they make me." It irks me that the survey designer(s) start out with the assumption that geocachers have to do certain challenge caches that they don't like. They don't. As you noted, if I hate a particular kind of challenge cache, then I can simply ignore it. Just like I can ignore other types of geocaches that I don't enjoy doing.

But if you choose to take up the challenge, the first three statements are accurate (regarding the ALRs), no?

That's an interesting hair to split: if I accept the challenge, then the challenge makes me do things I don't want to do. I can't deny that, but the point remains that these entries boil down to "I dislike challenge caches because they challenge me."

 

One might argue that accepting a challenge means one WANTS to do what is required. Phrases like "they require," "some require," and "I have to" are pretty neutral, in my opinion. They don't really read to me like they are implying that the person doesn't want to do them. If I want to drive a car, I have to start the engine. It's not a matter of whether I want to start it or not...it's a statement of what has to happen in order for me to get the result I want.

 

On the other hand, saying "they make me" is not accurate. Nobody is making anyone do anything...from accepting the challenge to fulfilling the requirements. The car manufacturer isn't making me start the engine. "Making" is active. "Requiring" is more passive.

Share this post


Link to post

I see what you're saying, but the more reasonable change would be the change the question to ask what we want or don't want instead of asking which type we prefer. I prefer bigger caches, but that's doesn't mean I don't enjoy finding micros or don't want them to be supported.

Completely agreed, which is why I also said "I think Groundspeak is reserving that latter judgment for themselves [what should exist based on what we want or don't want], and merely gauging what people like and don't like".

 

The other metric would be different wording, and likely a different survey or another question.

Better might have been two questions about the same set of challenge styles; one for whether we like them (or think they are a problem), and one for whether we think they should be disallowed. Those offer different perspectives of public opinion on challenge caches, which they'll have a hard time distinguishing in the survey as it stands.

At least they'll some form of idea, whatever it implies.

Share this post


Link to post

As for this:

the most common complaint about challenge caches is about not being able to log a cache as found without qualifing

On this forum (a few 10' in the thread) it is, but again, not the reason for the moratorium. These complaints came later, after the moratorium was in effect.

Can't (quickly) find any threads about people complaining they can't log challenges without qualifying before the moratorium thread started. So it was a non issue until then.

They've been around for a long time. The whole 'challenge star' debate/'solution' came about because of these complaints - which predate the moratorium by many months.

Share this post


Link to post

I would advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

I noticed that Section 9 (i.e., what to you dislike about challenge caches) had statements that included phrases like "they require," "some require," "I have to," and "they make me." It irks me that the survey designer(s) start out with the assumption that geocachers have to do certain challenge caches that they don't like. They don't. As you noted, if I hate a particular kind of challenge cache, then I can simply ignore it. Just like I can ignore other types of geocaches that I don't enjoy doing.

But if you choose to take up the challenge, the first three statements are accurate (regarding the ALRs), no?

Section 9 starts with: "9. Here are some things community members have indicated they don’t like about challenge caches. Rate your level of agreement or disagreement with each statement."

 

The straight-forward* implication of the statements that use phrases like "they require" is that I dislike/like challenge caches because they require me to do these things. It's more of a leap to infer a meaning like "I dislike/like challenge caches because, when I choose to take up the challenge, they require..." Even if such an inference was made, my reply would be: "If you dislike doing those things, then don't choose to take up those kinds of challenges." And I'd still wonder why the writer wanted to ask the question in that way.

 

If you start with the knowledge that geocachers don't have to do any challenge caches they dislike, then many of those Section 9 statements become rather meaningless. If, instead, Groundspeak simply wants to ban certain types of challenge caches so reviewers and appeal lackeys are less burdened, then one way** to go about much of this section is to have the survey respondents rate the various kinds of problematic challenges and drop the least popular ones.

 

-----------

 

*Straight-forward in the relative sense, after you (hopefully) have sorted out that disagreeing/agreeing with those statements actually means you dislike/like those aspects of challenge caches.

 

**It probably isn't the best way, but it is better than the current way of asking for this information.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pleased the survey seems to address most issues - there's something there for everyone - I hate Streak and Numbers based challenges but love Grid filler types and other interesting ones. The implication of the poll is that they'll return and be better. I particularly like the idea of all challenges requiring a checker. Some of them are so hard to even work out if you've qualified!

 

I would. advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

 

Personally, I would like to see less "you hate" from others when someone is expressing criticism about as aspect of the game. As I see it, it's not simply a matter of whether one likes or dislikes challenge caches or certain types of challenge caches. Those that are critical of challenge caches may be doing so because of the impact they may be having on the game as a whole. Instead of playing the hate card how about addressing the *reasons* for the criticism. Even if one never finds a challenge cache (perhaps using an ignore list) the impact on the game as a whole or within localized communities still exists.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pleased the survey seems to address most issues - there's something there for everyone - I hate Streak and Numbers based challenges but love Grid filler types and other interesting ones. The implication of the poll is that they'll return and be better. I particularly like the idea of all challenges requiring a checker. Some of them are so hard to even work out if you've qualified!

 

I would. advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

 

Personally, I would like to see less "you hate" from others when someone is expressing criticism about as aspect of the game. As I see it, it's not simply a matter of whether one likes or dislikes challenge caches or certain types of challenge caches. Those that are critical of challenge caches may be doing so because of the impact they may be having on the game as a whole. Instead of playing the hate card how about addressing the *reasons* for the criticism. Even if one never finds a challenge cache (perhaps using an ignore list) the impact on the game as a whole or within localized communities still exists.

 

There is no attempt to play any hate card. That was the word used by the poster who I quoted. I simply don't want to lose these challenges which I consider vital to the game and which make the game more interesting. The positives far out weigh the negatives with challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pleased the survey seems to address most issues - there's something there for everyone - I hate Streak and Numbers based challenges but love Grid filler types and other interesting ones. The implication of the poll is that they'll return and be better. I particularly like the idea of all challenges requiring a checker. Some of them are so hard to even work out if you've qualified!

I would. advocate not taking away those types that you "hate" from others who find value in them. The ignore button can be used for those you personally don't like.

Personally, I would like to see less "you hate" from others when someone is expressing criticism about as aspect of the game. As I see it, it's not simply a matter of whether one likes or dislikes challenge caches or certain types of challenge caches. Those that are critical of challenge caches may be doing so because of the impact they may be having on the game as a whole. Instead of playing the hate card how about addressing the *reasons* for the criticism. Even if one never finds a challenge cache (perhaps using an ignore list) the impact on the game as a whole or within localized communities still exists.

I don't think tomturtle was playing the "hate card." In this instance, a cacher actually does "hate" certain types of challenge caches. Tomturtle made the valid point that you can hate certain kinds of challenges but not be in favor of getting rid of those kinds of challenges. And that cacher agreed.

Share this post


Link to post

Those that are critical of challenge caches may be doing so because of the impact they may be having on the game as a whole.

Were there any questions on the survey that addressed the issue of the impact on the rest of the game? It occurs to me that I don't remember much in the survey that would help GS address this issue or the review overhead issue. Instead everything in the survey seemed to focus on the like/dislike issues that I don't consider valid to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post

Those that are critical of challenge caches may be doing so because of the impact they may be having on the game as a whole.

Were there any questions on the survey that addressed the issue of the impact on the rest of the game? It occurs to me that I don't remember much in the survey that would help GS address this issue or the review overhead issue. Instead everything in the survey seemed to focus on the like/dislike issues that I don't consider valid to begin with.

 

There was at least one statement about Challenge caches taking space away from other caches....a part of #9, IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post

Those that are critical of challenge caches may be doing so because of the impact they may be having on the game as a whole.

Were there any questions on the survey that addressed the issue of the impact on the rest of the game? It occurs to me that I don't remember much in the survey that would help GS address this issue or the review overhead issue. Instead everything in the survey seemed to focus on the like/dislike issues that I don't consider valid to begin with.

There was at least one statement about Challenge caches taking space away from other caches....a part of #9, IIRC.

The answer to that question wouldn't help them address the issue. In fact, it only gives the responder a free chance to declare this is a problem without any supporting argument. After all, the only reason it would be a problem that challenge caches take space away from other caches is if challenge caches are inherently less valuable than other caches.

 

But I did forget that example, so thanks for reminding me of it.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be pointed out again that the article describing the moratorium doesn't technically say "the biggest problem with challenge caches". It merely said the largest appeals overhead comes from challenge caches even though they're a tiny fragment of caches that exist - and continued to list the other issues with challenge caches that primarily come from community concerns.

 

I don't get the sense that the "biggest problem" Groundspeak wants to solve is simply reducing reviewer overhead. That's one of the issues with the current system. An important one, but I think there's too much effort to make it out as though if Groundspeak's efforts aren't focused first and foremost on reducing their overhead then something's not right here.

 

They trying to improve the entire concept, from reviewer work to community acceptance and enjoyment.

Share this post


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

×