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

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

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.

Wouldn't it make sense to survey the Community Volunteer Reviewers? Trust me, we've had ample opportunity to provide lots of feedback on challenge caches, beginning well prior to the moratorium and continuing right up to this week, reacting to the survey. I'm not at liberty to share details of that feedback, of course, but it should come as no surprise that there are reviewers within each of the following groupings:

 

- Reviewers who enjoy challenge caches as a player and don't mind reviewing them

- Reviewers who enjoy challenge caches as a player, but don't like reviewing them

- Reviewers who are neutral or dislike challenges as a player, but don't mind reviewing them

- Reviewers who are neutral or dislike challenges as a player, and also don't like reviewing them

 

Readers here can assume that reviewer feedback will be taken into account. And so will the views of the community, which was the purpose of the survey. In addition, many reviewers also attempt to convey the consensus of opinion among the cachers in their review territories around the world. We regard ourselves as representatives of our local communities.

 

I am permitted to share my own opinions. As a player, I enjoy working on challenge caches and the extra satisfaction I gain when signing the logbook for a completed challenge. As a reviewer, I generally didn't mind working with cache owners to get their challenges compliant with the listing guidelines, but sometimes it did take an awful lot of work relative to the average "complex" puzzle cache or multicache. Clearer standards -- objective standards -- are one key to the successful return of challenge caches, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

That was me, and whilst I do hate those types I certainly didn't suggest getting rid of them as I know plenty of folks do enjoy them. I know two local cachers who are on streaks of around 700 days; I tried it once and got bored after 7!!

 

As I alluded to in my initial post on this matter (before the survey came out) there are more challenges I'm NOT interested in than those I am but that doesn't change my view that challenges are an important part of the game which I for one would have been gutted had they been banned permanently. If you don't like a challenge don't do it - simples!

Share this post


Link to post

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.

That was me, and whilst I do hate those types I certainly didn't suggest getting rid of them as I know plenty of folks do enjoy them. I know two local cachers who are on streaks of around 700 days; I tried it once and got bored after 7!!

 

As I alluded to in my initial post on this matter (before the survey came out) there are more challenges I'm NOT interested in than those I am but that doesn't change my view that challenges are an important part of the game which I for one would have been gutted had they been banned permanently. If you don't like a challenge don't do it - simples!

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you initially disagreed with the point tomturtle made. You made it very clear (then and now) that you always concurred with that view.

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't like a challenge don't do it - simples!

 

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.

Just a few ways they have a negative impact on the game:

  • Filtering system is no longer designed to do what it's supposed to do - filter out caches you've found. If you find a challenge cache but don't qualify it still remains on your map of unfound caches, unless you put it on your ignore list. The ignore list for caches you do not wish to find, not for caches you've found.
  • They've turned the find count into a commodity, a score.
  • Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.
  • "If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, [...], the geocache will not be published." Most challenge caches do not comply with the guidelines. A streak cache "x number of caches in x days" is an alteration of most cachers' caching style/habits. As that is part of the challenge, i.e. to push them to do more in a day, a month, a year.
  • They encourage "cheating" - throwdowns, false logs, armchair logging, changing find dates, sharing final coordinates of puzzles/mysteries/letterboxes/multis. Forum link Forum link
  • Less fun for cache owners of quality caches. Often their caches don't merit more then a cut n paste log from power cachers trying to qualify for challenges.
  • Encourages the numbers crowd - both finding for numbers and planting for numbers, instead of finding and planting for quality.
  • There are too many of them in some areas and the number is growing - some take up kilometers of good trail and only a handful of people can log them as found. Too many of any cache type that exclude a majority of cachers is not a good thing.
  • Numbers cachers use challenge caches to stimulate the publication of new local caches when they've exhausted their local finds. Which usually results in caches placed simply to help people qualify for challenge caches.
  • People hide caches for no other reason than to fill a challenge cache requirement. "There aren't enough Q caches so here's another one for MegaCacher's Q Challenge." Forum link
  • Cache owners can't opt out. On principle, some of us might not want our caches to be used to encourage the numbers game. Our caches are forced to be involved in qualifying for someone else's cache.
  • People are discovering trackables they've never found in order to qualify for challenge caches that require people to discover huge numbers of trackables. See: Forum link
  • Challenges that depend on old caches. When a cache owner has left and his cache is a rotten pile of pulp, people complain when it gets archived due to neglect. "It's an old cache! It's need for Jasmer/whatever other challenge!" should not be a reason to keep a cache around.
  • While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.
  • Many challenge caches turn cache names, difficulty/terrain ratings, attributes, etc. into commodities. When these tools to facilitate communication between the cache owner and potential seekers gets changed to reflect more accurate information, some challenge seekers get upset because it affects their grid.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

Just a few ways they have a negative impact on the game:

 

Replace "challenge" with "Powertrail" and read your list again. :ph34r:

 

As for impact, only if you let them.

While your list may be true for some/most... whatever it's not true for others. Just a few notes:

 

I filter in GSAK, hardly look at the gc map unless I want location references.

I don't keep an ignore list.

My found (and DNF) score reflect what we did, it's never a goal (except for wanting to log "special caches" for milestones).

I have only found one or two X founds in a day challenges. Most are find X types without time restrictions. No need to do something special, meeting the requirements comes with time.

I don't change my caching habits for challenges.

I wouldn't dream of cheating (examples in other threads). I see no value in a found acquired by cheating anyway.

I've not seen any C/P logs on quality caches that were needed for a challenge, I have no knowledge of a challenge that requires "quality caches" anyway.

I see very little planting for numbers, of course it happens but (at least around here) not a lot.

There are 110 out of 25400 (0.4%). Hardly "too many" in Belgium (unfound database only). No challenge trail and many are "easily attainable" (100 founds in the Netherlands, cached in 10 countries) Some require an amount of T5's but then again T5 challenge or T5 cache is off-limits for us anyway.

Only a few times did I see "placed for a challenge" caches. It's not very common.

Why would anyone opt-out? What's next? ALR: "what's your reason for finding this cache?"

People are discovering TBs for whatever reason.some for challenges, some for numbers, some because they can.

Age should not be taken into account if a cache is abandoned by the CO. However, the existing adoption function can be applied if the CO is still active.

Yes, there are a lot of appeals, we don't know the reason for the appeals though.

Cache info should be as correct as possible however there's no real objective way to rate D or T. Sometimes I can't solve a D2 mystery but have no problem with a D4.5, sometimes a T3.5 is easier to get to than a T2 just like I found "small" containers only slightly larger than a filmcanister and regulars the size of a sandwich.

 

It's not all bad or on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a few ways they have a negative impact on the game:

 

Replace "challenge" with "Powertrail" and read your list again. :ph34r:

 

Power trails definitely have a negative impact on the game too. Probably more than challenge caches. In Ontario they combined the worst 2 examples of degradation to the game. You can find powertrails of challenge caches here.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

Just a few ways they have a negative impact on the game:

 

Replace "challenge" with "Powertrail" and read your list again. :ph34r:

 

As for impact, only if you let them.

While your list may be true for some/most... whatever it's not true for others. Just a few notes:

 

I filter in GSAK, hardly look at the gc map unless I want location references.

I don't keep an ignore list.

My found (and DNF) score reflect what we did, it's never a goal (except for wanting to log "special caches" for milestones).

I have only found one or two X founds in a day challenges. Most are find X types without time restrictions. No need to do something special, meeting the requirements comes with time.

I don't change my caching habits for challenges.

I wouldn't dream of cheating (examples in other threads). I see no value in a found acquired by cheating anyway.

I've not seen any C/P logs on quality caches that were needed for a challenge, I have no knowledge of a challenge that requires "quality caches" anyway.

I see very little planting for numbers, of course it happens but (at least around here) not a lot.

There are 110 out of 25400 (0.4%). Hardly "too many" in Belgium (unfound database only). No challenge trail and many are "easily attainable" (100 founds in the Netherlands, cached in 10 countries) Some require an amount of T5's but then again T5 challenge or T5 cache is off-limits for us anyway.

Only a few times did I see "placed for a challenge" caches. It's not very common.

Why would anyone opt-out? What's next? ALR: "what's your reason for finding this cache?"

People are discovering TBs for whatever reason.some for challenges, some for numbers, some because they can.

Age should not be taken into account if a cache is abandoned by the CO. However, the existing adoption function can be applied if the CO is still active.

Yes, there are a lot of appeals, we don't know the reason for the appeals though.

Cache info should be as correct as possible however there's no real objective way to rate D or T. Sometimes I can't solve a D2 mystery but have no problem with a D4.5, sometimes a T3.5 is easier to get to than a T2 just like I found "small" containers only slightly larger than a filmcanister and regulars the size of a sandwich.

 

It's not all bad or on purpose.

 

What I get from your reply is....It's not a problem for me so therefore it's not a problem. The stuff that happens in Ontario is Ontario's problem, it doesn't happen where you live so therefore it is not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't like a challenge don't do it - simples!

 

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.

Just a few ways they have a negative impact on the game:

  • Filtering system is no longer designed to do what it's supposed to do - filter out caches you've found. If you find a challenge cache but don't qualify it still remains on your map of unfound caches, unless you put it on your ignore list. The ignore list for caches you do not wish to find, not for caches you've found.
  • They've turned the find count into a commodity, a score.
  • Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.
  • "If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, [...], the geocache will not be published." Most challenge caches do not comply with the guidelines. A streak cache "x number of caches in x days" is an alteration of most cachers' caching style/habits. As that is part of the challenge, i.e. to push them to do more in a day, a month, a year.
  • They encourage "cheating" - throwdowns, false logs, armchair logging, changing find dates, sharing final coordinates of puzzles/mysteries/letterboxes/multis. Forum link Forum link
  • Less fun for cache owners of quality caches. Often their caches don't merit more then a cut n paste log from power cachers trying to qualify for challenges.
  • Encourages the numbers crowd - both finding for numbers and planting for numbers, instead of finding and planting for quality.
  • There are too many of them in some areas and the number is growing - some take up kilometers of good trail and only a handful of people can log them as found. Too many of any cache type that exclude a majority of cachers is not a good thing.
  • Numbers cachers use challenge caches to stimulate the publication of new local caches when they've exhausted their local finds. Which usually results in caches placed simply to help people qualify for challenge caches.
  • People hide caches for no other reason than to fill a challenge cache requirement. "There aren't enough Q caches so here's another one for MegaCacher's Q Challenge."
  • Cache owners can't opt out. On principle, some of us might not want our caches to be used to encourage the numbers game. Our caches are forced to be involved in qualifying for someone else's cache.
  • People are discovering trackables they've never found in order to qualify for challenge caches that require people to discover huge numbers of trackables. See: Forum link
  • Challenges that depend on old caches. When a cache owner has left and his cache is a rotten pile of pulp, people complain when it gets archived due to neglect. "It's an old cache! It's need for Jasmer/whatever other challenge!" should not be a reason to keep a cache around.
  • While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.
  • Many challenge caches turn cache names, difficulty/terrain ratings, attributes, etc. into commodities. When these tools to facilitate communication between the cache owner and potential seekers gets changed to reflect more accurate information, some challenge seekers get upset because it affects their grid.

 

This is a great list and I hope these points are all taken into consideration when they are reviewing the surveys.

Share this post


Link to post

What I get from your reply is....It's not a problem for me so therefore it's not a problem. The stuff that happens in Ontario is Ontario's problem, it doesn't happen where you live so therefore it is not a problem.

 

Nope. But taking measures to solve a problem in Ontario is going to have an effect on caches (challenges) in Belgium. It's a global activity but that doesn't mean that geocaching is done the same way all over the world.

It would be interesting to see if there's a difference in the amount of appeals concerning challenges across different countries.

 

We always read that there are more armchair cachers in certain countries so there are differences....

Share this post


Link to post

hmm... lots of good points here. Agree & disagree with a bunch, but my tldr summary is at the bottom :)

 

Just a few ways they have a negative impact on the game:

> Filtering system is no longer designed to do what it's supposed to do - filter out caches you've found. If you find a challenge cache but don't qualify it still remains on your map of unfound caches, unless you put it on your ignore list. The ignore list for caches you do not wish to find, not for caches you've found.

I'll agree with this. I use a combination of bookmark lists and Geosphere highlighting to help indicate what I should find or don't need to find. ie, if I qualify for a challenge, I'll highlight it; if I found it but don't qualify, I'll have it flagged as a challenge but not highlighted, and I see the note of when I found it. My lists also separate found/unqualified from unfound/qualified.

But I agree this is a current issue with the ALR aspect of the current challenge cache implementation - found/unqualified, but no way to distinguish that in the filters as one would hope or expect.

 

> They've turned the find count into a commodity, a score.

Only if you let it be that. And so do powertrails. Moar numbers! Smileys on the map! Correlation != causation.

Also, those smileys are enticing; I think they are taunting people to find more of caches to increase the number. The smiley-face icon has turned the find count into a commodity, a score.

 

> Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

They don't "glorify" the numbers game. They provide a challenge, which may or may not be about looking at quantities. Some do, some don't. They glorify goal-setting and focused target geocaching. Yes, some people abuse it to become about finding as many as possible as the goal. But so what? You can find lots and still be a great respectable geocacher; or you could be a doof who only cares about finding and nothing/no-one else. That's not a problem of challenge caches. That problem exists for any aspect of the game that has their fanatics (such as for powertrails or busy urban hides or easy LPCs).

 

> "If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, [...], the geocache will not be published." Most challenge caches do not comply with the guidelines. A streak cache "x number of caches in x days" is an alteration of most cachers' caching style/habits. As that is part of the challenge, i.e. to push them to do more in a day, a month, a year.

Agreed, that wording has always been iffy. I've never really liked it either, since it's meant to imply (and this was made clear to me a ways back) a reduction of caching habits - that is to say, doing more even though it's an alteration, is not a bad thing, but not doing something you'd otherwise do is a bad thing. Technically you could say most any cache "alters" your caching style: you learn something new, and whenever you learn something new, you alter the way you think and cache, even if on a miniscule scale.

So then what's the spirit of the guideline? No restrictive challenges, only additive. Caching more = good, caching less = bad. Wording that is tough, so they leave that part also to the reviewer discretion and interaction for clarity.

 

> They encourage "cheating" - throwdowns, false logs, armchair logging, changing find dates, sharing final coordinates of puzzles/mysteries/letterboxes/multis. Forum link Forum link

Encourage only in the sense that the cacher chooses to do so. Condoning is a different matter. I think the ET powertrail is a good example of a non-challenge that encourages and condones throwdowns. But what does that particular instance matter to anyone except the COs and maybe people who want to find that series? Challenge caches, again, aren't the problem. It's geocachers who choose to care more about "winning" the challenge than about geocaching as it pertains to interesting logs and retaining cache quality.

So, encourages these things indirectly, merely by their existence, perhaps, but they're still choices that the geocacher (with zero prompting) needs to make for themselves.

 

> Less fun for cache owners of quality caches. Often their caches don't merit more then a cut n paste log from power cachers trying to qualify for challenges.

Same with powertrails. Same with LPCs. That's not a problem with challenge caches, that's a problem with geocachers who choose to care more about numbers, either finding quantity or statistics, than geoacaching as it pertains to interesting logs and retaining cache quality. (sensing a theme here :laughing:).

 

> Encourages the numbers crowd - both finding for numbers and planting for numbers, instead of finding and planting for quality.

Encourages in the sense that it allows for cachers who care more about "winning" the challenge than geocaching as it pertains to interesting logs and retaining cache quality, but certainly not condoning such behaviour on a conceptual level.

And "quality" is subjective, both to the finder and the hider. Is that in reference to container quality? Hide difficulty? Terrain challenge? Listing clarity? Impact on surrounding nature? Complexity of a series? Intensity of storytelling? Technical merit? What is quality? Today it's many, many things to many different people, including people who like challenges and are enticed by improving statistics, because they merely exist (and don't condone controversial practices).

 

> There are too many of them in some areas and the number is growing - some take up kilometers of good trail and only a handful of people can log them as found. Too many of any cache type that exclude a majority of cachers is not a good thing.

If someone really like night caches, they could take up an entire forest with a series. Worthy of the same level of complaint? Or was that CO just quick enough to get there first? Series of LPCs posted in a mall parking lot surrounded by a small forest and nice trails now blocked from caches; good/bad? All of these are situations that can exist now. Challenge caches aren't the problem, the problem is perception and population of cachers who enjoy a certain experience getting a little too excited and not considering that other people may also like to place (and find) a variety of experiences in the same area.

 

> Numbers cachers use challenge caches to stimulate the publication of new local caches when they've exhausted their local finds. Which usually results in caches placed simply to help people qualify for challenge caches.

That can happen. But the problem here isn't challenge caches, the problem is cachers who want a challenge to be easier and care less about geocaching as it pertains to interesting logs and retaining cache quality for other cachers. Even so, cachers can still place "good" caches even as qualifiers for a challenge and it wouldn't be a problem (except of course a challenge CO who may not like that their challenge is statistically now much easier to qualify)

 

> People hide caches for no other reason than to fill a challenge cache requirement. "There aren't enough Q caches so here's another one for MegaCacher's Q Challenge."

"This trail is empty! It looks perfect for a long power trail of quick and easy film cans hung in the tree!"

...subjective issue with a cacher, not challenge caches.

 

> Cache owners can't opt out. On principle, some of us might not want our caches to be used to encourage the numbers game. Our caches are forced to be involved in qualifying for someone else's cache.

I don't like that my cache inflates someone's smiley count. I just want people to find my cache and enjoy the experience, but all these people who just want to find more and not appreciate my cache are ruining the experience. Why can't I just lock my cache listing from find logs so they people want to find it can do it and get the experience I intended?

I've seen plenty of comments from people who only care that finders of their cache had an enjoyable time, whether they found it the 'proper' way or not. I get the 'artist' aspect of being a CO - putting them out hoping that finders enjoy the experience I create for them, but in this game, there's no way to force or guarantee that. Especially with puzzles. And now, also with our geocaches that happen to fit as a qualifier for a new challenge in the area (or rarely, for one across the world)

 

> People are discovering trackables they've never found in order to qualify for challenge caches that require people to discover huge numbers of trackables. See: Forum link

Sure, also a problem in that it's something cachers can do if they choose, but not a problem with challenge caches.

 

> Challenges that depend on old caches. When a cache owner has left and his cache is a rotten pile of pulp, people complain when it gets archived due to neglect. "It's an old cache! It's need for Jasmer/whatever other challenge!" should not be a reason to keep a cache around.

Agreed, but I don't see that as a problem with challenge caches whatsoever. Alternatively, it can and has also encouraged people to adopt old caches and fix them up to keep them good and active for much longer. Two sides of the same coin.

 

> While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.

Yep, and hopefully a new system will help address that significant issue of subjectivity in judgment calls for various aspects of the concept. :)

 

> Many challenge caches turn cache names, difficulty/terrain ratings, attributes, etc. into commodities. When these tools to facilitate communication between the cache owner and potential seekers gets changed to reflect more accurate information, some challenge seekers get upset because it affects their grid.

 

People should realize that the only thing that lets you get upset is yourself. They have put expectations on other people where it wasn't due. The problem isn't challenge caches, the problem is cachers who care less about geocaching as it pertains to interesting logs and retaining cache quality for others. If I had a cache I knew was useful as a rare challenge qualifier, but I had to make a change, I wouldn't feel I had to 'stick it' to those people, but I'd know the cache should be accurate foremost to itself. So I'd make the change, but provide whatever info I could to let people using for a challenge know about the change. Then it's up to any challenge CO to decide whether to consider the change for their finders who may want to use it as a qualifier; that's not my choice. But at least I can be considerate of people who care about that. (just as I'd expect someone to be considerate of finders to change the T rating of the cache if the terrain has actually changed significantly). I wouldn't blame challenge caches for me doing that, I'd blame cachers who make a fuss about that who feel their stats are more important than a cache and its finders. And yep, they are also a finder of the challenge cache, but challenge qualification is just that - a challenge involving other caches, as opposed to a listing which is directly related to the cache that's hidden. It's a step apart. Perhaps that's also subjective, but I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who'd defend that challenge cache qualification should trump direct listing accuracy to its own container - If so, then there's definitely a problem with the challenge cache perception that Groundspeak needs to address :P

 

---

 

Ok, so to sum up - I agree with the intent of the use of the word "encourages" in that challenge caches in their current form allow for misuse and abuse, but that word comes with the connotation that somehow Challenge Caches are the cause, or in some way condone a style of geocaching that many can find abusive or annoying or which they just simply dislike personally (which others may really enjoy) - even though it's perfectly feasible for a "good cacher" to continue caching as they always did, just with an added awareness for achieving a higher level of goals or providing them for others. And, many of these problems raised existed before challenge caches, and still exist pertaining to other aspects of the hobby.

 

Challenge caches have indeed opened the door to make it easier for more controversial geocaching practices to take place by those who would or already employ such practices. So is the answer to blame challenge caches? To rid the game of challenge caches altogether? Throw the baby out with the bathwater?

 

What I get from your reply is....It's not a problem for me so therefore it's not a problem. The stuff that happens in Ontario is Ontario's problem, it doesn't happen where you live so therefore it is not a problem.

What I get often from complaints about challenges is...It's a problem for me so therefore it's a problem for the entire geocaching hobby and the cause of its downfall.

Problems do exist. Problems will always exist, amogst positive reception and activity. Problems are directly related to individuals, not what is condoned and promoted by the concept, even though it allows certain problems to exist. The system can be improved to reduce those problems, and understanding and player ethic and be improved to reduce those problems.

Or, the entire concept can be trashed. But that would give me a :sad:

Share this post


Link to post

What I get from your reply is....It's not a problem for me so therefore it's not a problem. The stuff that happens in Ontario is Ontario's problem, it doesn't happen where you live so therefore it is not a problem.

I don't deny these are problems in some places, I simply deny that challenge caches are the cause. After all, we have plenty of challenge caches here in the San Francisco bay area, yet I rarely seem them cause any of the problems you list here. Logic tells us that that means challenge caches are not the cause in Ontario, either, so we should look for something else in Ontario to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post

What I get from your reply is....It's not a problem for me so therefore it's not a problem. The stuff that happens in Ontario is Ontario's problem, it doesn't happen where you live so therefore it is not a problem.

I don't deny these are problems in some places, I simply deny that challenge caches are the cause. After all, we have plenty of challenge caches here in the San Francisco bay area, yet I rarely seem them cause any of the problems you list here. Logic tells us that that means challenge caches are not the cause in Ontario, either, so we should look for something else in Ontario to explain it.

 

Examples, of finders that cut n paste and one that threw down a cache in the name of qualifying for challenges:

 

Cut n paste:

Today I was caching with the [group-name-of-the-day] group. We had lots of time for some good socializing, too - either on some of the longer hikes, or when we were standing around watching people climb trees! I had other things to do in the morning so I was a bit late catching up with the group, they'd done a dozen or so caches by the time I showed up. Our goal was as many multis as we could do, and also qualify for the 10-10-10 challenge with multis, unknowns, and traditionals.

 

Cut n paste:

I have been looking forward to this caching day in [city] for some time now. Our main goal today was to find multi caches to help qualify for a challenge that we have been working on for the past couple months. Our list was way too big today, but we achieved our goals.

 

Throwdown:

Out on a Challenge run plus a few others. I had a spare pill bottle and replaced the missing cache .

Share this post


Link to post

Examples, of finders that cut n paste and one that threw down a cache in the name of qualifying for challenges:

 

And you think they would not have C/P'ed or put a throw down if they found the caches without the challenges in mind?

 

Just about any series (not even PT) or clusters of individual caches get a lot of C/P logs.

Share this post


Link to post

For logging, it's laziness, or lack of time on the cacher part. Even "laziness" is biased towards subjectively interesting and valuable log content, yet still has nothing to blame except the cacher.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota. Everywhere I've studied lists of challenge caches, those that require lots of finds in a single day always have made up a small minority of the available challenges. I'm not the first to explain this to you, but you keep spewing this nonsense. Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota. Everywhere I've studied lists of challenge caches, those that require lots of finds in a single day always have made up a small minority of the available challenges. I'm not the first to explain this to you, but you keep spewing this nonsense. Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

 

Googled and found lots of active challenges that require people to find xx caches in a day, here's a sample:

 

 

XXTREME COE CACHER CHALLENGE - 50 FINDS IN ONE DAY

The 50 caches must be found on a calendar day.

30 in a Day Challenge (with a triple twist) <br style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;">Find 30 caches on one day including 3 different cache types, 3 different size containers and 3 different cache owners.

 

GC3BM35

To be able to meet the requirements to find the cache you need to find 80 caches in one day

 

 

25-Puzzles-in-1-Day Challenge

 

 

The 100-Caches-In-A-Day Challenge Geocache

 

The 100 Non-Traditional Caches in a day Challenge

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota.

Googled and found lots of active challenges that require people to find xx caches in a day, here's a sample:

 

Call me pedantic but lots <> most.

 

I just checked the challenges in my area and out of ~250 challenges only about %10 are about finding numbers in a single day.

Edited by MartyBartfast

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota. Everywhere I've studied lists of challenge caches, those that require lots of finds in a single day always have made up a small minority of the available challenges. I'm not the first to explain this to you, but you keep spewing this nonsense. Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

 

Googled and found lots of active challenges that require people to find xx caches in a day, here's a sample:

 

 

XXTREME COE CACHER CHALLENGE - 50 FINDS IN ONE DAY

The 50 caches must be found on a calendar day.

30 in a Day Challenge (with a triple twist) <br style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;">Find 30 caches on one day including 3 different cache types, 3 different size containers and 3 different cache owners.

 

GC3BM35

To be able to meet the requirements to find the cache you need to find 80 caches in one day

25-Puzzles-in-1-Day Challenge

The 100-Caches-In-A-Day Challenge Geocache

The 100 Non-Traditional Caches in a day Challenge

Your list = California-USA (2), SE England-UK (2), Ontario-CA (1), Florida-USA (1)

 

But, those are not "most" challenges. How about a geographic region where >50% of challenges are find X caches in a day? There are "some" challenges that require a minimum number of finds, but there are also "some" challenges that do not. Trying to paint all challenge caches negatively because of 'some' challenges and 'some' cachers is quite a generalization.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota. Everywhere I've studied lists of challenge caches, those that require lots of finds in a single day always have made up a small minority of the available challenges. I'm not the first to explain this to you, but you keep spewing this nonsense. Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

 

Googled and found lots of active challenges that require people to find xx caches in a day, here's a sample:

 

 

XXTREME COE CACHER CHALLENGE - 50 FINDS IN ONE DAY

The 50 caches must be found on a calendar day.

30 in a Day Challenge (with a triple twist) <br style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;">Find 30 caches on one day including 3 different cache types, 3 different size containers and 3 different cache owners.

 

GC3BM35

To be able to meet the requirements to find the cache you need to find 80 caches in one day

25-Puzzles-in-1-Day Challenge

 

The 100-Caches-In-A-Day Challenge Geocache

The 100 Non-Traditional Caches in a day Challenge

 

Your list = California-USA (2), SE England-UK (2), Ontario-CA (1), Florida-USA (1)

 

But, those are not "most" challenges. How about a geographic region where >50% of challenges are find X caches in a day? There are "some" challenges that require a minimum number of finds, but there are also "some" challenges that do not. Trying to paint all challenge caches negatively because of 'some' challenges and 'some' cachers is quite a generalization.

 

I'm not going to spend hours collecting a list of x-number-of-caches in a day active challenge caches in the world. I found 5 in about 5 minutes. You want a concise list, you do the work. There's enough of them out there that encourage speed caching and this sanctioned behaviour effects the pastime in general.

Share this post


Link to post

What I get from your reply is....It's not a problem for me so therefore it's not a problem. The stuff that happens in Ontario is Ontario's problem, it doesn't happen where you live so therefore it is not a problem.

Nope. But taking measures to solve a problem in Ontario is going to have an effect on caches (challenges) in Belgium. It's a global activity but that doesn't mean that geocaching is done the same way all over the world.

It would be interesting to see if there's a difference in the amount of appeals concerning challenges across different countries.

 

As I understand it, Ontario has "a lot" of challenge caches. Does that mean the global geocaching experience should be guided by what happens in Ontario? There are some state laws in the USA that don't allow caches in cemeteries...does that mean cemetery caches should be disallowed globally?

 

Perhaps the better solution would be outreach within the Ontario geocaching community, so geocachers in Ontario can address Ontario-specific issues? Taking up such issues within the Ontario geocaching community may have the added benefit of expanding one's view of how "many" cachers think about challenge caches, not just the small fraction of cachers that participate in these forums.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota. Everywhere I've studied lists of challenge caches, those that require lots of finds in a single day always have made up a small minority of the available challenges. I'm not the first to explain this to you, but you keep spewing this nonsense. Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

 

Googled and found lots of active challenges that require people to find xx caches in a day, here's a sample:

 

 

XXTREME COE CACHER CHALLENGE - 50 FINDS IN ONE DAY

The 50 caches must be found on a calendar day.

30 in a Day Challenge (with a triple twist) <br style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;">Find 30 caches on one day including 3 different cache types, 3 different size containers and 3 different cache owners.

 

GC3BM35

To be able to meet the requirements to find the cache you need to find 80 caches in one day

25-Puzzles-in-1-Day Challenge

 

The 100-Caches-In-A-Day Challenge Geocache

The 100 Non-Traditional Caches in a day Challenge

 

Your list = California-USA (2), SE England-UK (2), Ontario-CA (1), Florida-USA (1)

 

But, those are not "most" challenges. How about a geographic region where >50% of challenges are find X caches in a day? There are "some" challenges that require a minimum number of finds, but there are also "some" challenges that do not. Trying to paint all challenge caches negatively because of 'some' challenges and 'some' cachers is quite a generalization.

 

I'm not going to spend hours collecting a list of x-number-of-caches in a day active challenge caches in the world. I found 5 in about 5 minutes. You want a concise list, you do the work. There's enough of them out there that encourage speed caching and this sanctioned behaviour effects the pastime in general.

Why would I "do the work"? I'm not proclaiming that "Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day."

 

If someone wants to make statements claiming truths about something, whether that something is challenge caches or the weather, then they should be open to backing up such claims. Otherwise, don't make the claims.

Share this post


Link to post

Ontario has previously been used as a test bed for new ideas/guidelines. So it wouldn't be a bad idea to gauge reception of a significant overhaul in a very active area where it's relevant. I wouldn't be opposed to testing challenge caching changes in Ontario.

But again, this region is very different from other regions. So the results would be a guide at best, not equally applicable everywhere in the world.

 

I don't think the guidelines should be so strict however to actually make that much of a difference between various regions. That's one of the beauty of the local reviewer system; they can make judgment calls that relate to issues beyond the guidelines' reach. So really, the new challenge cache system shouldn't have rules that are too micro-managing where regional differences have a greater effect. They really should focus on the 'spirit' of challenge caches (goal-oriented geocaching), and any technical means of simplifying it, while still keeping it fun for hiders and finders.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota. Everywhere I've studied lists of challenge caches, those that require lots of finds in a single day always have made up a small minority of the available challenges. I'm not the first to explain this to you, but you keep spewing this nonsense. Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

 

Googled and found lots of active challenges that require people to find xx caches in a day, here's a sample:

 

 

XXTREME COE CACHER CHALLENGE - 50 FINDS IN ONE DAY

The 50 caches must be found on a calendar day.

30 in a Day Challenge (with a triple twist) <br style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;">Find 30 caches on one day including 3 different cache types, 3 different size containers and 3 different cache owners.

 

GC3BM35

To be able to meet the requirements to find the cache you need to find 80 caches in one day

25-Puzzles-in-1-Day Challenge

 

The 100-Caches-In-A-Day Challenge Geocache

The 100 Non-Traditional Caches in a day Challenge

 

Your list = California-USA (2), SE England-UK (2), Ontario-CA (1), Florida-USA (1)

 

But, those are not "most" challenges. How about a geographic region where >50% of challenges are find X caches in a day? There are "some" challenges that require a minimum number of finds, but there are also "some" challenges that do not. Trying to paint all challenge caches negatively because of 'some' challenges and 'some' cachers is quite a generalization.

 

Sheesh. What's with the all (or most) or nothing arguments? I can't believe how many are totally missing the point.

 

Back in high school I studied (and participated in) argumentation and debate. One of the most important concepts was the notion of significance, specifically with respect to whether or not some change was warranted to some "system". If one argues that a change is warranted in something, it's not necessary to prove that something is "mostly" responsible for an issue, or that it's the only cause of a problem. Proving that something is a *significant* factor can still be a valid reason for considering a change which mitigates or reduces that cause. If something is a significant factor to the existence of a problem then addressing that factor can lead to a significant reduction of the problem. Is it going to eliminate the problem? No, but isn't a significant reduction of a problem reason enough to consider a change?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not going to spend hours collecting a list of x-number-of-caches in a day active challenge caches in the world. I found 5 in about 5 minutes. You want a concise list, you do the work.

I didn't ask you to prove that x-number-of-caches in a day make up most of the world's challenge caches. I asked you to find just a single jurisdiction where that holds true. I gave you a list of 11 that you shouldn't bother with. Here's another...

 

Alaska has 32 mystery caches with "challenge" in their titles. Two of these aren't challenge caches. Of the remaining 30, exactly three might be described as x-number-of-caches in a day (if you really stretch things). To complete the first, you must find four different types of caches in a day. To qualify for another, you must find 20 caches in a day. For the final, your days' finds' rating stars must total at least 100 (so, about 34 1.5/1.5 caches in a day). Three out of 30 amounts to 10 percent of the challenges...far from "most."

Share this post


Link to post

Back in high school I studied (and participated in) argumentation and debate. One of the most important concepts was the notion of significance, specifically with respect to whether or not some change was warranted to some "system". If one argues that a change is warranted in something, it's not necessary to prove that something is "mostly" responsible for an issue, or that it's the only cause of a problem. Proving that something is a *significant* factor can still be a valid reason for considering a change which mitigates or reduces that cause. If something is a significant factor to the existence of a problem then addressing that factor can lead to a significant reduction of the problem. Is it going to eliminate the problem? No, but isn't a significant reduction of a problem reason enough to consider a change?

I'm guessing your debate opponents would have been quick to point out your nonsense if you simply made up "facts."

 

Nobody has even shown that a few x-finds-in-a-day challenges is a significant factor in the motivation of number hounds. My guess is most number hounds would continue to find lots of caches even if no challenges existed.

 

Even if it is a significant factor, that doesn't prove challenge caches are a problem. Being a numbers hound isn't bad per se.

 

And challenge caches also motivate people to do things I consider to be good for geocaching: finding a wider variety of cache types; finding caches in different counties, regions, and countries; finding caches on tops of mountains; etc. I believe the good that results from challenge caches far outweighs the bad.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches glorify the numbers game. Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

This is just plain false. It's untrue in Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Minnesota. Everywhere I've studied lists of challenge caches, those that require lots of finds in a single day always have made up a small minority of the available challenges. I'm not the first to explain this to you, but you keep spewing this nonsense. Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

 

Googled and found lots of active challenges that require people to find xx caches in a day, here's a sample:

 

 

XXTREME COE CACHER CHALLENGE - 50 FINDS IN ONE DAY

The 50 caches must be found on a calendar day.

30 in a Day Challenge (with a triple twist) <br style="font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;">Find 30 caches on one day including 3 different cache types, 3 different size containers and 3 different cache owners.

 

GC3BM35

To be able to meet the requirements to find the cache you need to find 80 caches in one day

25-Puzzles-in-1-Day Challenge

 

The 100-Caches-In-A-Day Challenge Geocache

The 100 Non-Traditional Caches in a day Challenge

 

Your list = California-USA (2), SE England-UK (2), Ontario-CA (1), Florida-USA (1)

 

But, those are not "most" challenges. How about a geographic region where >50% of challenges are find X caches in a day? There are "some" challenges that require a minimum number of finds, but there are also "some" challenges that do not. Trying to paint all challenge caches negatively because of 'some' challenges and 'some' cachers is quite a generalization.

 

Sheesh. What's with the all (or most) or nothing arguments? I can't believe how many are totally missing the point.

 

Back in high school I studied (and participated in) argumentation and debate. One of the most important concepts was the notion of significance, specifically with respect to whether or not some change was warranted to some "system". If one argues that a change is warranted in something, it's not necessary to prove that something is "mostly" responsible for an issue, or that it's the only cause of a problem. Proving that something is a *significant* factor can still be a valid reason for considering a change which mitigates or reduces that cause. If something is a significant factor to the existence of a problem then addressing that factor can lead to a significant reduction of the problem. Is it going to eliminate the problem? No, but isn't a significant reduction of a problem reason enough to consider a change?

A particular type of challenge cache was purported to comprise "most" of the challenge caches in existence. That premise is being questioned, and not just by me (see CanadianRockies comments as well). I won't complain if the "find xxx caches in a day" challenges are grandfathered or archived, since those aren't the types of challenges that interest me. However, that doesn't mean I agree that ALL challenge caches should cease to exist because some challenge caches are 'bad' (in whatever way people want to define 'bad').

Share this post


Link to post

Back in high school I studied (and participated in) argumentation and debate. One of the most important concepts was the notion of significance, specifically with respect to whether or not some change was warranted to some "system". If one argues that a change is warranted in something, it's not necessary to prove that something is "mostly" responsible for an issue, or that it's the only cause of a problem. Proving that something is a *significant* factor can still be a valid reason for considering a change which mitigates or reduces that cause. If something is a significant factor to the existence of a problem then addressing that factor can lead to a significant reduction of the problem. Is it going to eliminate the problem? No, but isn't a significant reduction of a problem reason enough to consider a change?

Nobody has even shown that a few x-finds-in-a-day challenges is a significant factor in the motivation of number hounds. My guess is most number hounds would continue to find lots of caches even if no challenges existed.

 

Even if it is a significant factor, that doesn't prove challenge caches are a problem. Being a numbers hound isn't bad per se.

 

+1

I've read some assertions, in other threads, that having a find count on everyone's profiles is the cause of 'number hounds'. However, there are plenty of cachers that are NOT 'number hounds' and they have find counts on their profiles. Does this mean that everyone should lose the found count from their profiles, since it's purported to be the cause of a problem (number hounds) - not to mention, that whether the effect is actually a 'problem' or not could be debated.

 

Having a tighter rules about what types of challenges can be created, assuming new challenges are ever allowed, is fine with me. However, I'll never agree with generalizing all people or all caches a certain way based on anecdotal evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

Back in high school I studied (and participated in) argumentation and debate. One of the most important concepts was the notion of significance, specifically with respect to whether or not some change was warranted to some "system". If one argues that a change is warranted in something, it's not necessary to prove that something is "mostly" responsible for an issue, or that it's the only cause of a problem. Proving that something is a *significant* factor can still be a valid reason for considering a change which mitigates or reduces that cause. If something is a significant factor to the existence of a problem then addressing that factor can lead to a significant reduction of the problem. Is it going to eliminate the problem? No, but isn't a significant reduction of a problem reason enough to consider a change?

I'm guessing your debate opponents would have been quick to point out your nonsense if you simply made up "facts."

 

Making up facts wouldn't be very effective, but there are a several different types of evidence which can be used to prove an argument. For example, if one can show that only 1% of challenge caches in Alaska are of the "find N caches in a day" variety, that's a weak form of evidence as it's a single example. If someone else provides and example where 52% of the caches in an area are of the "find N caches in a day" variety that cancels out the evidence from Alaska.

 

Remember, the contention was "Challenge caches glorify the numbers game" (which was just one argument that challenge caches, even if one ignores them, can have a negative impact on the game). Showing that less than 50% of all challenge caches are of the "Find N caches in a day", is not, by itself a strong refutation of that contention.

 

Lone.R listed many reasons for how challenge caches are negatively impacting the game. You chose to latch on to the one "fact" (and I agree that most cache probably aren't Find N caches in a day) that you could disprove.

Share this post


Link to post

Most require a lot of cache finds in a single day.

 

For the 110 unfound challenges in Belgium there are 15 with X in 1 day and 1 with X in one year. Did you say most? 13.6% is not "most" by any means. Most have X in any timeframe.

 

BTW, here's a fun one: GC5F7J8 Frankenstein Challenge. In short: "make" the Monster of Frankenstein with parts of 25 cachenames. i.e a cache bamed "Happy New Year" has one EAR. It will take some time to filter out all necessary caches but wintertime is puzzle/mystery time.

Share this post


Link to post
Lone.R listed many reasons for how challenge caches are negatively impacting the game. You chose to latch on to the one "fact" (and I agree that most cache probably aren't Find N caches in a day) that you could disprove.

 

As a former debater myself, I would point out that Lone.R made a number of assertions about how he thinks challenge caches impact the game. He did not provide "significant" evidence (by your definition) for any of them.

 

Criticizing others for requesting that he provide evidence to support his claim is reversing the appropriate burden of proof. It is upon the original maker of the claims to prove his claims.

 

Counter-examples that illustrate weaknesses in the claims of one who has the burden of proof are completely legitimate tools for argument.

 

Another legitimate form of argument is to point out that, even if the negative effects that Lone.R attributes to challenge caches are correct, they are by far not the greatest offenders. For example, there are easily 100 times as many power-trail caches as there are challenge caches. If these arguments are to be used as motivation to eliminate challenge caches, then consistency would require that power-trail caches also be eliminated.

 

So, from a debate point of view, we have the following situation:

  • Lone.R made a number of claims of negative consequences of challenge caches.
  • He did not provide any "significant" evidence to support his claims.
  • He did not show that the consequences are unique to challenge caches.
  • He did not show that eliminating challenge caches would have an effect on those consequences.
  • Others provided (weak) counter-examples

In this situation, you chose to criticize the counter-examples instead of the glaring lack of evidence supporting the original assertions. In my opinion, that was not helpful.

Share this post


Link to post

Back in high school I studied (and participated in) argumentation and debate. One of the most important concepts was the notion of significance, specifically with respect to whether or not some change was warranted to some "system". If one argues that a change is warranted in something, it's not necessary to prove that something is "mostly" responsible for an issue, or that it's the only cause of a problem. Proving that something is a *significant* factor can still be a valid reason for considering a change which mitigates or reduces that cause. If something is a significant factor to the existence of a problem then addressing that factor can lead to a significant reduction of the problem. Is it going to eliminate the problem? No, but isn't a significant reduction of a problem reason enough to consider a change?

I'm guessing your debate opponents would have been quick to point out your nonsense if you simply made up "facts."

Making up facts wouldn't be very effective, but there are a several different types of evidence which can be used to prove an argument. For example, if one can show that only 1% of challenge caches in Alaska are of the "find N caches in a day" variety, that's a weak form of evidence as it's a single example. If someone else provides and example where 52% of the caches in an area are of the "find N caches in a day" variety that cancels out the evidence from Alaska.

First, my weak Alaska example was one more example than anybody else has provided to back up the assertion that "find N caches in a day" challenges make up most of the challenges out there. I also listed 11 other states/provinces where I have studied challenge caches and am certain would provide additional examples to refute such nonsense. Many other people, who are familiar with their own regions (e.g., on4bam), have said LOne.R's assertion is nonsense. Nobody (not even you) has backed up such an assertion.

 

Remember, the contention was "Challenge caches glorify the numbers game" (which was just one argument that challenge caches, even if one ignores them, can have a negative impact on the game). Showing that less than 50% of all challenge caches are of the "Find N caches in a day", is not, by itself a strong refutation of that contention.

Want to know an even weaker supportive "evidence" for that contention? Making up nonsense and putting it out there as a "fact." In addition to the Alaska example (and 11 other regions), I explained numerous other ways in which LOne.R failed to back up their contention (but you deleted those).

 

Lone.R listed many reasons for how challenge caches are negatively impacting the game. You chose to latch on to the one "fact" (and I agree that most cache probably aren't Find N caches in a day) that you could disprove.

I simply pointed out the most glaring weakness on LOne.R's list. There are plenty of others I could challenge (forgive the pun), in ways that are above and beyond what thebruce0 already has pointed out.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

Filtering system is no longer designed to do what it's supposed to do - filter out caches you've found. If you find a challenge cache but don't qualify it still remains on your map of unfound caches, unless you put it on your ignore list. The ignore list for caches you do not wish to find, not for caches you've found.

No. The filtering system doesn't do what you want it to do. Groundspeak's definition of a "find" isn't what you'll see in any dictionary. To "find" a webcam cache, for example, you must go to the location, get a webcam shot of you at that location, and upload that webcam photo to Groundspeak's website. I might consider a selfie photo at that location to be sufficient for a "find," but Groundspeak doesn't. My selfie "find" can be deleted by the webcam cache owner. And if that owner makes a habit of accepting selfies, then Groundspeak can archive that webcam cache.

 

Similarly, to "find" a challenge cache, you must go to the location, get the physical cache, sign the log, and complete all the challenge requirements. Anything less isn't a "find" that meets Groundspeak's definition. Thus, Groundspeak's filtering system allows you to filter out all the caches you've "found" using Groundspeak's definition. We can all have our own individual definitions of what constitutes a "find," but I think it's absurd to expect Groundspeak to create a filtering system that is tailored to match your (or my) definition of a "find."

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

Is it going to eliminate the problem? No, but isn't a significant reduction of a problem reason enough to consider a change?

I doubt it would reduce the problems being cited at all. I see such problems, too, but almost never because of challenge caches.

 

Nobody has even shown that a few x-finds-in-a-day challenges is a significant factor in the motivation of number hounds. My guess is most number hounds would continue to find lots of caches even if no challenges existed.

In fact, I'd claim the causality goes the other way: high numbers cachers came first, and only later did challenge caches that celebrate high numbers come on the scene.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd have to admit that some Challenges might make people cheat to qualify for them, but what's the point in cheating in this game? Deep down inside, you know you cheated and then you just look stupid when others find out. If you don't qualify for a Challenge cache, then too bad. Ignore it. There will be caches that a person can't do. There is no need to be talking trash on Challenge Caches just because you can't do them.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a few ways they have a negative impact on the game:

 

I can't quote all the sections, so I'll just list my thoughts in the same order.

 

The filtering system is working as designed. Your 'find' of a challenge cache isn't a 'find' on the system until you qualify for the challenge, therefore the system is doing exactly what it's suppose to - filtering out finds on the system. The problem you discribe is due to cachers who want to play a different game - any container I find must get me a smilie. Answer - don't hunt challenge caches you don't qualify for.

 

Wrong. They use the find count (sometimes, many (dare I say most?) don't rely on find counts) as a measurement against the goal of the challange.

 

As pointed out "most" challenges do not. But even those that require X for a day, only require that for one single day. They don't have any bearing/affect on all the other days you cache. I'm not a number hound, but by participating in a few events I've gotten (for me) high find counts for a day (twice I've found 56 - much less than others that same day), so now I qualify for any challenge of 50 (or less) in a day. But I didn't do it for a challenge, it happened because of the event. But even if I choose to do a higher one day run, that not pushing me into a numbers hound, it'll be a one day special.

 

I've never understood how any one cache forces anyone to do anything. Just because there is a streak challange (or a hundred) doesn't force me to do streaks. Most cachers who aren't interested in streaks will ignore streak challenges. It's a choice.

 

All of that happens anyhow - as much as I dislike such practices. But I've not, personally, seen any indication of that for challenges, so I don't see a negitive impact on the game.

 

Again, not im my experience. C/P logs happen on many different caches, quality or not, and the reason behind those are rarely stated so blaming challenge caches is long stretch.

 

Facts not in evidence, you Honor. Many of the caches I've found for challenges are quality caches, most challenge caches I've found have been quailty caches. Where's the encouragemnet for non-quality caches?

 

The challenge power trails that I've seen tend to have mostly easy qualifications, so "excluding a majority of caches" is pretty much untrue. Having that trail 'open' (not taken by challenge caches) is no guarantee that 'quality' caches will be placed thare. BTW, aren't "excluding a majority of cachers" and "encourages number hounds" somewhat mutually exclusive?

 

So what? I've seen some great caches that were named so it would fit into a challenge if you wanted, but it's still another cache to be found challenge or no. There are so many caches around now, I can't see where this is a 'problem'.

 

How does having a cache used to qualify for a challenge affect the cache owner? Very few logs state one way or another what the reason for finding the cache is (aside from 'we were in the area...' type comments). If it gets your knickers in a twist that your cache is used for a challenge, change the name, ratings or what ever causes it to be used, or archive if it's that much of a burden. But that reaction is on the CO not the challenge cache.

 

There is such a small percentage of trackable challenges that the false logging of trackables for that reason is hardly an impact.

 

As the owner of the first History Challenge Cache, I agree that keeping a "rotten pile of pulp" around isn't good. But in my experience that doesn't happen often enough to be a negitive impact. I love to find the old caches, when I was traveling this year I was trying to find the oldest cache in each state (no challenge - that I know of - it's just my own goal) and I've yet to see a 'rotten pile of pulp' for any of the oldies. Other caches, yeah, but not the oldies. I only have 5 (6 if you count DC) of the lower 48 to go, and I've filled the Jasmer grid three times, so I've seen a lot of the oldies.

 

As we don't know much about this, but the little that's been shared by TPTB, we, as a community, can't really judge how much impact that has on the game as a whole.

 

"Commodities"? There's trading of these things? :P Again I don't see a true 'negitive impact' from this. Sure a few may complain briefly, but I don't see any uprising about having accurate info for a cache.

 

So the most I see is some very minor negitive impacts from some of these, overall I've seen more positive impact from challenge caches. Reading the logs on the Washington Delorme Challenge or the Washington History Challenge (for example), and listening to people talk about these (and others) seems to encourage others to cache more and explore the state - a good thing I think. The challenge caches that don't have the same universal appeal are mentioned but mostly ignored by the group, not a negitive impact as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Lone.R listed many reasons for how challenge caches are negatively impacting the game. You chose to latch on to the one "fact" (and I agree that most cache probably aren't Find N caches in a day) that you could disprove.

 

As a former debater myself, I would point out that Lone.R made a number of assertions about how he thinks challenge caches impact the game. He did not provide "significant" evidence (by your definition) for any of them.

 

Criticizing others for requesting that he provide evidence to support his claim is reversing the appropriate burden of proof. It is upon the original maker of the claims to prove his claims.

 

Counter-examples that illustrate weaknesses in the claims of one who has the burden of proof are completely legitimate tools for argument.

 

Another legitimate form of argument is to point out that, even if the negative effects that Lone.R attributes to challenge caches are correct, they are by far not the greatest offenders. For example, there are easily 100 times as many power-trail caches as there are challenge caches. If these arguments are to be used as motivation to eliminate challenge caches, then consistency would require that power-trail caches also be eliminated.

 

So, from a debate point of view, we have the following situation:

  • Lone.R made a number of claims of negative consequences of challenge caches.
  • He did not provide any "significant" evidence to support his claims.
  • He did not show that the consequences are unique to challenge caches.
  • He did not show that eliminating challenge caches would have an effect on those consequences.
  • Others provided (weak) counter-examples

In this situation, you chose to criticize the counter-examples instead of the glaring lack of evidence supporting the original assertions. In my opinion, that was not helpful.

You arent so great yourself...will you just stop pushing people into the ground? All I see from you is negative over and over and over. I feel bad for you that see thing so negative. Are you ever happy? Dont you have any friends?

Share this post


Link to post

I am always surprised by the level of frustration that some people feel over challenges.

 

X number in one day? I have found over 250 challenge caches. One required a particular number in a day (50). Four required either 6, 7, or 8 icons in a day. Perhaps I just ignored caches with higher x numbers in a day than what I have already done. I no longer use the ignore list so I do not know - preferring a list of caches I might want to find. Some challenges make it to the latter list. Some do not.

 

Taking up valuable space? I have never seen a challenge trail that left me sorry I could not place another type of cache if it weren't for the challenges. With one exception, I never would have come to that location except for the challenges. And I never have thought about placing a cache where there are already a number of caches of any type. But that is just me.

 

Throwdowns? I did have somebody leave a throwdown on one of my caches, but it had nothing to do with a challenge. I ended up archiving the cache because I did not want to deal with people's litter . . . another story.

 

Cut and paste logs? Mostly I get these from people who want to tell me about their exciting day or their vacation. But I have never cut and pasted so it's hard for me to think that they are related to challenges in any meaningful way. Getting a cut and paste log (or an acronym) has never diminished my experience as a CO. If people find any of my caches because of a challenge, it does not diminish my fun. It got someone to go to a location I found interesting.

 

Numbers? I have gone out of my way to complete a challenge requiring a particular number of cryptid caches or one involving marvel/doc comic superheroes. But people who are motivated by numbers will be motivated by numbers. As for me, I am motivated by cryptids and the chance to write a log containing a cartoon graphic of my own superhero.

 

Dependency on old caches? I suspect people would like old caches to remain even if no challenges were involved. I don't know. I drove by an opportunity to get Potters Pond because a petroglyph site (and a nearby cache to the petroglyphs) was far more interesting to me. But if an old cache or a challenge encourages someone to go someplace different, it seems fine to me.

 

Caches named in order to meet a challenge? The one challenge I have specifies that I am looking for caches based on particular themes, so that a cache that is named simply to meet a challenge will not count. But I have seen a number of caches with strange names. Sometimes I will find one just because it gives rise to a stream of consciousness that makes me want to log it. Otherwise I treat it the same as any other cache.

 

Find count? Challenges are not the problem. Not when there is a stat page out there.

 

Commodities of cache features? I never set out to complete a grid but some evidently do. But you can make a commodity out of anything. I once stopped to get a cache with a Groundspeak partnership attribute so I could have one of everything - only to have that attribute disappear a few months later. It did not upset me, but it was not part of a challenge. In any event, I think grids would be a factor regardless of a challenge because some people like to have up public stats in their profile.

 

There are a lot of challenges out there that I have no interest in doing. For that matter, there are a lot of puzzles and traditionals that hold no interest for me. if I do not want to qualify for a challenge, I just don't do it. I don't feel like I am missing out on anything if I do not stop to find a container that would require me to find six western states in one day. And if I decide to look for a challenge cache that I will never complete, I know what I am doing and it does not bother me.

 

So the only thing is whether Groundspeak can provide ways to make the reviewing process more objective. Regardless of the solution that is adopted, I wish they would have spent the time to make virtuals work. But again, that is another subject . . .

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post
Lone.R listed many reasons for how challenge caches are negatively impacting the game. You chose to latch on to the one "fact" (and I agree that most cache probably aren't Find N caches in a day) that you could disprove.

 

As a former debater myself

 

Ahhhh!! That explains a LOT, for me, at least.

 

Despite the term "forum", this is NOT a formal debate. Nor is it even an informal debate. People have opinions and should be able to express them here without others telling them they are wrong. Formal debaters such as yourself seldom understand emotions and certainly hate to validate them, yet they are very real. You would do well to try to get in touch with your feelings one of these days. Seems your logical muscles are very well developed at the expense of your emotional ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Lone.R listed many reasons for how challenge caches are negatively impacting the game. You chose to latch on to the one "fact" (and I agree that most cache probably aren't Find N caches in a day) that you could disprove.

 

As a former debater myself

 

Ahhhh!! That explains a LOT, for me, at least.

 

Despite the term "forum", this is NOT a formal debate. Nor is it even an informal debate. People have opinions and should be able to express them here without others telling them they are wrong. Formal debaters such as yourself seldom understand emotions and certainly hate to validate them, yet they are very real. You would do well to try to get in touch with your feelings one of these days. Seems your logical muscles are very well developed at the expense of your emotional ones.

Then maybe a list that is presented as fact should begin with "in my opinion" or "I feel that these are the reasons..." I don't see any supression, just people giving their "opinion" and trying to refute a list presented as if it was absolute fact (rather than presented as an opinion).

Share this post


Link to post

Despite the term "forum", this is NOT a formal debate. Nor is it even an informal debate. People have opinions and should be able to express them here without others telling them they are wrong.

 

It is not, in my opinion, a difficult thing to expect adults to qualify their opinions with words like "In my opinion..."

 

Sorry, but if you come into any public forum and assert things as facts, you need to be prepared to support them.

 

Formal debaters such as yourself seldom understand emotions and certainly hate to validate them, yet they are very real. You would do well to try to get in touch with your feelings one of these days. Seems your logical muscles are very well developed at the expense of your emotional ones.

 

Wow, was THAT offensive, or what? As a very personal attack, it most certainly violated the forum guidelines. I may skate close to the edge sometimes, but I am VERY careful not to engage in personal attacks like this.

Share this post


Link to post
You arent so great yourself...will you just stop pushing people into the ground? All I see from you is negative over and over and over. I feel bad for you that see thing so negative. Are you ever happy? Dont you have any friends?

 

Did that little attack make you feel better? I certainly hope it did.

 

I guess I don't understand why attempting to bring clarity to the discussion is perceived by you as "negative." Maybe it's because I resist the agenda of ruining challenge caches? It puzzles me.

 

I will confess that I am more than a little annoyed by the group of forum regulars who are doing their best to deprive me of geocaches that I enjoy. As a result, I am not likely to respond to their posts and their ideas for "improvements" with warm fuzzies and smiley faces.

 

On the other hand, I try very hard not to engage in personal insults such as yours above. Read my post carefully. I addressed the content of their arguments, not their personal lives. Perhaps you would do well to emulate me in that regard.

 

ETA: I know I have been somewhat abrasive in the forums this week, although I have been careful to engage ideas, not peoples' characters. As a result, I won't report the abusive post, but consider this your one warning.

Edited by fizzymagic

Share this post


Link to post

I thoroughly enjoy challenge caches, have a spreadsheet with some ongoing and ideas for my own*. I don't think I have any on my ignore list though there are some I'm never going to do (10 chirps by 10 different COs for example) - if all caches were for everybody geocaching would be a bit boring and there would be no, erm, challenge.

Beyond some purely numerical (streak / grid-fill / FPs on finds) I've particularly enjoyed collecting the 7 colours of the rainbow; trads beginning with T-R-A-D-I-T-I-O-N-A-L C-H-R-I-S-T-M-A-S; non-trads beginning with A-L-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-V-E C-H-R-I-S-T-M-A-S (that took a lot of effort but very fulfilling) and X squares in local 1:25000 map number X. I think I'm only working on one now (caches in all 5-mile increments from home up to 250 [which in my case is Paris!])

*thematic ideas from cache names I might use if the moratorium is lifted - my current numbers in brackets: animals including hidden ones like OX-ford (101); flora (49); food not found in last two categories [maybe too complicated] (36); first names beginning with 20 letters of the alphabet (21/26); counties [you could do states instead] (10) - all mean you have to trawl through your finds list, rather than click on a "Qualify?" button. Mind you when some kind soul makes a website like this http://www.cgtk.co.uk/geocaching I don't ignore it!

I've just done the survey and found myself only to be anti over-complicated ones and those to be done in a specific timeframe - the 250-mile one above I've been chipping away at for about 2 1/2 years and that's how it should be.

Edited by Oxford Stone

Share this post


Link to post

The filtering system is working as designed. Your 'find' of a challenge cache isn't a 'find' on the system until you qualify for the challenge, therefore the system is doing exactly what it's suppose to - filtering out finds on the system. The problem you discribe is due to cachers who want to play a different game - any container I find must get me a smilie. Answer - don't hunt challenge caches you don't qualify for.

 

If I understood correctly the issue of Lone.R is a different one which is not fixed by not going for challenge caches she does not qualify for.

She likes to find cache containers (well maintained, with swag etc) and so given the situation that her area has a very high density of challenge caches would go for the challenge caches because she does not have enough unfound caches that she likes in her area. Lone.R does not care about smilies, but would like to have a method to filter for caches that she still could go to on gc.com.

That's esentially neither about smilies nor a philosophical debate about the meaning of the term "find". Unless someone is able and willing to use a program like GSAK, there is no reasonable solution for the dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not, in my opinion, a difficult thing to expect adults to qualify their opinions with words like "In my opinion..."

 

But is it really necessary?

 

I think it's fairly safe to assume that people posting here are indeed expressing opinions and actually stating that's the case offers little in terms of qualification.

Share this post


Link to post
Lone.R listed many reasons for how challenge caches are negatively impacting the game. You chose to latch on to the one "fact" (and I agree that most cache probably aren't Find N caches in a day) that you could disprove.

 

As a former debater myself

 

Ahhhh!! That explains a LOT, for me, at least.

 

Despite the term "forum", this is NOT a formal debate. Nor is it even an informal debate. People have opinions and should be able to express them here without others telling them they are wrong. Formal debaters such as yourself seldom understand emotions and certainly hate to validate them, yet they are very real. You would do well to try to get in touch with your feelings one of these days. Seems your logical muscles are very well developed at the expense of your emotional ones.

 

Your point about logic vs. emotion is what prompted me to bring up the debate topic in the first place. I have seen many posts from Lone.R and others which attempted to use logic (and I agree that the evidence in this case could have been better presented) to show *why* they feel something is a problem. In the context of this thread, GS has essentially presented a resolution that the implementation of Challenge caches should be changed. Lone.R presented several reasons why it should be changed. Rather than address those reasons with logic/evidence we get "don't listen to the hater" suggesting that Lone.R only supports a resolution purely based on emotional reasons, and ignores the (albeit weak) evidence presented.

 

In my opinion, the survey and this discussion should be about whether each person likes or dislikes challenge caches, but whether or not challenge caches are good for the game as a whole. Whether we're discussing challenge caches, power trails, certain ways of hiding caches (aka buried caches, fake bird houses) or other aspects to the game, I feel that looking at the issue from the perspective of what it brings to or degrades from the game as a whole is more important that the personal opinion of each of use based on an emotional like/dislike response.

 

Yes, emotion does play a role, but suggesting that a personal opinion is based on an emotional response (don't listen to the haters) when it's presented as logic does nothing to contribute to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Your point about logic vs. emotion is what prompted me to bring up the debate topic in the first place. I have seen many posts from Lone.R and others which attempted to use logic (and I agree that the evidence in this case could have been better presented) to show *why* they feel something is a problem. In the context of this thread, GS has essentially presented a resolution that the implementation of Challenge caches should be changed. Lone.R presented several reasons why it should be changed. Rather than address those reasons with logic/evidence we get "don't listen to the hater" suggesting that Lone.R only supports a resolution purely based on emotional reasons, and ignores the (albeit weak) evidence presented.

The problem with this analysis is that plenty of us have addressed LOne.R's reasons with logic and evidence (and have been criticized for doing so). I initially noted that LOne.R's assertion that "most" challenges are the "find lots of caches in a single day" variety completely lacked evidence, that this had been pointed out to her in the past, and that she continues to spew it out as if repetition might make it a fact.

 

In response to my challenge to name even a single region where her assertion was true (i.e., provide even a small amount of evidence to support her claim), she offered five U.S. instances of "find X caches in a single day." It was logically pointed out to her that those five U.S. examples weren't "most" of the U.S. challenge caches. She replied that she wasn't going to review and categorize every challenge in the world, even though nobody had asked her to do so. I then gave her an example of how "find X caches in a single day" made up only 10 percent of Alaska's challenges and noted that these kinds of minorities also existed in 11 other jurisdictions where I have reviewed challenge caches.

 

None of these are emotional "don't listen to the hater" responses. They are "don't believe made-up facts" logic and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

The filtering system is working as designed. Your 'find' of a challenge cache isn't a 'find' on the system until you qualify for the challenge, therefore the system is doing exactly what it's suppose to - filtering out finds on the system. The problem you discribe is due to cachers who want to play a different game - any container I find must get me a smilie. Answer - don't hunt challenge caches you don't qualify for.

 

If I understood correctly the issue of Lone.R is a different one which is not fixed by not going for challenge caches she does not qualify for.

She likes to find cache containers (well maintained, with swag etc) and so given the situation that her area has a very high density of challenge caches would go for the challenge caches because she does not have enough unfound caches that she likes in her area. Lone.R does not care about smilies, but would like to have a method to filter for caches that she still could go to on gc.com.

That's esentially neither about smilies nor a philosophical debate about the meaning of the term "find". Unless someone is able and willing to use a program like GSAK, there is no reasonable solution for the dilemma.

The Ignore List is a reasonable solution, but LOne.R doesn't want to use it for this purpose.

Share this post


Link to post

The filtering system is working as designed. Your 'find' of a challenge cache isn't a 'find' on the system until you qualify for the challenge, therefore the system is doing exactly what it's suppose to - filtering out finds on the system. The problem you discribe is due to cachers who want to play a different game - any container I find must get me a smilie. Answer - don't hunt challenge caches you don't qualify for.

However there is no 'rule' that you must qualify before finding. Some COs state that in their listing, others really do not care. So it is a legitimate concern that there is no way to consider a physical container that's found without qualifying for the challenge as something to filter out from search results - apart from ignoring the cache (which you really don't want to do, you just want to go and physicall sign the logsheet at some point).

Even if the 'answer' is not to find caches until you qualify, there's no rule that says that is a requirement, so the suggestion to make such a filtering ability a feature is feasible.

 

---

Side note: Can we avoid the use of the term "cheater" when it's not in direct reference to breaking explicit rules? Someone doing something you don't like isn't "cheating". I don't believe throwdowns are even "cheating", unless there is a guideline against that, I could be wrong.

What many people call "cheating" is actually just highly contested, controversial practices that many employ and many do not. At the very least, when calling something cheating, it should come with an explanation of what rule/ethical standard is being broken, knowing that that standard may not exist depending on who you talk to. "Cheating" is an inflammatory term, really, that doesn't help to keep discussion civil.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe throwdowns are even "cheating", unless there is a guideline against that, I could be wrong.

What many people call "cheating" is actually just highly contested, controversial practices that many employ and many do not. At the very least, when calling something cheating, it should come with an explanation of what rule/ethical standard is being broken, knowing that that standard may not exist depending on who you talk to. "Cheating" is an inflammatory term, really, that doesn't help to keep discussion civil.

 

Keep in mind that typically throwdowns come along with "found it" logs by the person leaving the throwdown. That certainly does not meet anything described in the guidelines and the help center about finding a cache. You can call it whatever you want. We all could bring along our own containers and sign a piece of paper in them and in this way log a "find" for whichever cache we want regardless of whether a container is at the place or not.

Share this post


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

×