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

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

A signed log is a cache found.

 

Not if it's a challenge and you don't qualify.

 

People logging finds when they don't have their name in the logbook is lame, but do you really care? The CO should take care of that if they care.

 

I don't care (anymore). People can do whatever they want EXCEPT take away my enjoyment of the game. I will continue logging in an honest way. Not in log = no online logging of a found, not qualifying for a challenges = not going out to log it, no armchair logging on virtuals.

People break locks to get to logbooks instead of using their brains. All this for a lousy point on some gamesite. Human nature I guess.

Edited by on4bam

Share this post


Link to post
Then what's the use of the challenge if people can just log them no matter what.

 

That was why I suggested adding to the stars feature the ability for a CO to tie the qualification to the find. Where the basic is that you can log the physical cache found online for the smiley and 'qualify' later if you want, the CO could make it so you don't get the find stat until you also qualify for the challenge. Effectively, this makes the new setup identical to the current, except that the challenge metric (cache flag and the star rating) is distinct and verifiable. Currently it's up to the CO though to determine if someone who logged it found also qualified.

 

> A signed log is a cache found.

Not if it's a challenge and you don't qualify.

 

Exactly - "AND". So if the find log and qualification log are now separate, then the CO, really, has the choice of also requiring the qualification in order to log the find.

 

So on one hand, you have people who just want to find geocaches and log'em online; ignoring challenges. COs' who offer their challenge caches 'normally' would show on the map; such people could find the physical cache and get their smiley without worrying about the challenges.

- In those cases someone who qualifies can post their qualification, then once they post their find log (earning the smiley), they get the challenge success. Or vice verse; they can find it first and post the log, getting the smiley, then qualify whenever they're able.

 

COs' who want people only to get the smiley and challenge completion together would have that option; and those caches could also be filtered out by those who don't care for challenges (which is not possible now). If they can't see the cache, they won't be tempted to log it and complain that they don't get the smiley because they haven't qualified.

- Others who do like challenges could go and find the cache, post the find, but it wouldn't count (functions the same as posting a note, or having your find log deleted by the CO if you haven't qualified yet) until they post their qualification log. Or vice versa, like above.

 

In short, having the challenge metric universally filterable; makes it also easily ignorable entirely.

 

Qualification not required for the find? Find it, sign it, log it online (hide the challenge stuff).

Qualification required for the find? No smiley until you qualify (or hide the cache entirely from the map with filters).

 

Getting the challenge Success will always require finding the cache as well (otherwise let's worldwide couchlog all the challenges!)

Share this post


Link to post
Then what's the use of the challenge if people can just log them no matter what.

 

That was why I suggested adding to the stars feature the ability for a CO to tie the qualification to the find. Where the basic is that you can log the physical cache found online for the smiley and 'qualify' later if you want, the CO could make it so you don't get the find stat until you also qualify for the challenge. Effectively, this makes the new setup identical to the current, except that the challenge metric (cache flag and the star rating) is distinct and verifiable. Currently it's up to the CO though to determine if someone who logged it found also qualified.

 

> A signed log is a cache found.

Not if it's a challenge and you don't qualify.

 

Exactly - "AND". So if the find log and qualification log are now separate, then the CO, really, has the choice of also requiring the qualification in order to log the find.

 

So on one hand, you have people who just want to find geocaches and log'em online; ignoring challenges. COs' who offer their challenge caches 'normally' would show on the map; such people could find the physical cache and get their smiley without worrying about the challenges.

- In those cases someone who qualifies can post their qualification, then once they post their find log (earning the smiley), they get the challenge success. Or vice verse; they can find it first and post the log, getting the smiley, then qualify whenever they're able.

 

COs' who want people only to get the smiley and challenge completion together would have that option; and those caches could also be filtered out by those who don't care for challenges (which is not possible now). If they can't see the cache, they won't be tempted to log it and complain that they don't get the smiley because they haven't qualified.

- Others who do like challenges could go and find the cache, post the find, but it wouldn't count (functions the same as posting a note, or having your find log deleted by the CO if you haven't qualified yet) until they post their qualification log. Or vice versa, like above.

 

In short, having the challenge metric universally filterable; makes it also easily ignorable entirely.

 

Qualification not required for the find? Find it, sign it, log it online (hide the challenge stuff).

Qualification required for the find? No smiley until you qualify (or hide the cache entirely from the map with filters).

 

Getting the challenge Success will always require finding the cache as well (otherwise let's worldwide couchlog all the challenges!)

 

I don't believe giving the CO the option to break the challenge and the cache find apart is a very good idea. First, I would argue that the physical cache most often only exists because there has to be one...not necessarily because the COs of challenges feel any particular need to hide one. Second, the fact that they DID have to hide one means - I believe - that more often than not the CO would NOT opt to separate the two and allow a find without qualifying for the challenge.

 

To me, that idea just seems sloppier than the way it's already set up. If they implement something like the 'challenge star' system, they need to go all or nothing. Break the find and the qualifications apart or don't. Require a physical cache or eliminate that requirement. I know virtuals are no longer a thing...but earthcaches came along because they have a strong theme and are a distinct experience. So are challenges. I see no reason why they can't be a second, unique style of virtual. Yes, you can bring up the whole 'armchair logging' argument...but I feel there is nothing wrong with that as long as one can clearly qualify for the challenge in a verifiable way.

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday OS Junior & I found a 5/2 challenge (colours of the rainbow + 3 more colours) & I qualified for another (4 cache types from 10 COs) which will be my 76th D/T combination if I find it. I like challenges and see them as a reward for hard work. Working on a few others without busting a gut.

 

I have a few lists for possible challenge themes, my finds for those themes, on a spreadsheet, and am happy to sit on them for the duration of the moratorium.

 

I've no gripes with really hard challenges (like the one in the UK for 1000 mysteries, I think 8 UK cachers qualify). Just like a ropes-only tree-climb, good luck to those who can do it. I was disappointed when my idea of "find 1 cache from each of these local COs" got turned down as although the current rules preclude it as being too specific, in practice it wasn't. Neither were they my mates, half of them I've never met. So I hope there's a thorough review of that long list of reasons to disallow challenges. I'm happy to be patient, and optimistic that a better system will come from this (OK call me a naïve fool...)

Share this post


Link to post

I've no gripes with really hard challenges (like the one in the UK for 1000 mysteries, I think 8 UK cachers qualify).

 

Ah, 75 to go then... with a 111 streak of mysteries planned in a few weeks we'll qualify :lol:

Only 8 UK cachers qualify? That's strange.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe giving the CO the option to break the challenge and the cache find apart is a very good idea. First, I would argue that the physical cache most often only exists because there has to be one...not necessarily because the COs of challenges feel any particular need to hide one. Second, the fact that they DID have to hide one means - I believe - that more often than not the CO would NOT opt to separate the two and allow a find without qualifying for the challenge.

 

To me, that idea just seems sloppier than the way it's already set up. If they implement something like the 'challenge star' system, they need to go all or nothing. Break the find and the qualifications apart or don't. Require a physical cache or eliminate that requirement. I know virtuals are no longer a thing...but earthcaches came along because they have a strong theme and are a distinct experience. So are challenges. I see no reason why they can't be a second, unique style of virtual. Yes, you can bring up the whole 'armchair logging' argument...but I feel there is nothing wrong with that as long as one can clearly qualify for the challenge in a verifiable way.

 

Oh I don't disagree. I agree that allowing the separation makes things a little more convoluted. That idea really was the only way I could think of to address the "but if it's physical and I can find it then I want to log it online without the ALR".

Without that, the two would always be tied together, which I certainly wouldn't mind. The system just allows for that option to exist if GS would decide to allow it :P

 

If they don't, then it just means that ignoring challenges would hide every cache that has an associated challenge (as opposed to showing caches that may still be found regardless).

Share this post


Link to post

I've no gripes with really hard challenges (like the one in the UK for 1000 mysteries, I think 8 UK cachers qualify).

 

I do not know the challenge and whether it requires that the unknown caches have been found in the UK. In any case there are more than 50 UK cachers with >1000 mystery finds.

There are more 112 such cachers in Austria and many more being very close.

 

It always depends on the region and its cache scene to judge what is hard.

 

In some countries and for cachers who started later reaching 1000 multi caches might be hard (and actually it appears to be harder than 1000 mysteries - in most areas less cachers qualify) - I guess I will reach that number this year without any special effort connected to a challenge cache.

 

The same is true with respect to the often brought up "changing one's caching style/habit". That's very subjective. Someone who prefers drive in caches and goes caching almost every day will not need to adapt his/her caching style that much for a streak or powerday challenge. The same person will have to change the caching style for a challenge that requires 50 10km+ significant hikes coupled to caches. The latter would not require me to change my caching habits while the former would.

Share this post


Link to post
The same is true with respect to the often brought up "changing one's caching style/habit".
Except that the current challenge cache guidelines are more clear, and state specifically:

 

"6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game."

Share this post


Link to post
The same is true with respect to the often brought up "changing one's caching style/habit".
Except that the current challenge cache guidelines are more clear, and state specifically:

 

"6. One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements. To state that "10% of your find count needs to be Attended Logs" would require the geocacher to stop finding other types of geocaches and could affect their overall enjoyment of the game."

 

Yes, I'm aware of that formulation. However, the above argument about having to change one's style of caching comes up very often in discussions as an argument against challenges regardless of what the guidelines say.

Share this post


Link to post

"having to change one's style of caching" is bad wording, IMO.

 

As demonstrated, it's not about any kind of change to a caching style, it's about a negative impact to which caches you can find, as doing so would 'unqualify', or make it harder to qualify. That's the problem with sequential 'streak' challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

"having to change one's style of caching" is bad wording, IMO.

 

As demonstrated, it's not about any kind of change to a caching style, it's about a negative impact to which caches you can find, as doing so would 'unqualify', or make it harder to qualify. That's the problem with sequential 'streak' challenges.

 

I'm trying to do 100 non-traditionals in a row for a challenge cache that belongs to my husband. Grr. I think this is my 4th attempt.

Share this post


Link to post

What you guys think of an in house achievement system thats set by GS only. We can give them ideas.

 

I can see padding/cheating to get those achievements but let them cheat because they will stand out like a sore thumb.

 

The best reward is a smiley count.

Share this post


Link to post

"having to change one's style of caching" is bad wording, IMO.

 

As demonstrated, it's not about any kind of change to a caching style, it's about a negative impact to which caches you can find, as doing so would 'unqualify', or make it harder to qualify. That's the problem with sequential 'streak' challenges.

 

I'm trying to do 100 non-traditionals in a row for a challenge cache that belongs to my husband. Grr. I think this is my 4th attempt.

 

Wouldn't in-a-row challenges affect most cacher's style of caching? How many cachers would forego a perfectly fine nearby traditional (maybe even great highly favoured traditional caches) just so they can qualify for the in-a-row non-trad challenge cache?

 

I think some would circumvent the requirement by finding all types of caches, but only log the non-trads until they've accumulated 100 non-trads in a row. The day after, they then log the trads. That is, if listing the actual date they find caches doesn't matter to them.

Share this post


Link to post

Was Johnny Rango's (sp) post on here moderated, or self deleted?

Share this post


Link to post

How many cachers would forego a perfectly fine nearby traditional (maybe even great highly favoured traditional caches) just so they can qualify for the in-a-row non-trad challenge cache?

 

Not me. <_< I can't see ever wanting to do that.

 

I think some would circumvent the requirement by finding all types of caches, but only log the non-trads until they've accumulated 100 non-trads in a row. The day after, they then log the trads.

 

I don't usually go looking for the dark side of the force explanations but it does seem that the 100 consecutive-of-type challenge would really bring people to that line and very much tempt them to cross it.

Share this post


Link to post

How many cachers would forego a perfectly fine nearby traditional (maybe even great highly favoured traditional caches) just so they can qualify for the in-a-row non-trad challenge cache?

 

Not me...Telling me what cache type to find isn't geocaching. Its a game that the CO wants me to play. (if I decided to do that challenge) What I dont like that they sit around for years with very little finds.

 

I can see alot of cacher find all the caches they want and only log the caches for the challenge and once the challenge is over, they back log all the other caches. :ph34r:

 

Plus, it open the door for padding the system. Some group of cachers will places caches out just for those challenge. See the picture here? Why have a challenge thats hard to do when someone is going to find a loophole around it? Some CO get so upset about it and they get very "bossy" and set a lot of rules for their challenges. This is where the fun is stuck right out of it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm trying to do 100 non-traditionals in a row for a challenge cache that belongs to my husband. Grr. I think this is my 4th attempt.

You need to make a trip to Saskatchewan and do the Wood Tick Trail (106 multi-caches).

Share this post


Link to post
I think some would circumvent the requirement by finding all types of caches, but only log the non-trads until they've accumulated 100 non-trads in a row. The day after, they then log the trads.
I don't usually go looking for the dark side of the force explanations but it does seem that the 100 consecutive-of-type challenge would really bring people to that line and very much tempt them to cross it.
And that's probably part of why the current guidelines don't allow new consecutive-of-type challenges. But existing ones are grandfathered. [ignoring the current moratorium, of course.]

 

Technically, streak challenges don't require you to 'give up' finding other geocaches, in the sense that logging another Find won't disqualify you from the challenge. But practically, you have to restrict how many caches you find in your regular geocaching area(s), so those caches remain available to find later. Otherwise, you'll clear out your regular geocaching area(s) prematurely, and then you'll have to travel even further to continue your streak at some later date.

 

But technically, you could continue the streak by traveling even further, so streak challenges end up being like Fizzy or Jasmer challenges, where you have to travel further and further for some of the rare combinations/dates.

Share this post


Link to post
I think some would circumvent the requirement by finding all types of caches, but only log the non-trads until they've accumulated 100 non-trads in a row. The day after, they then log the trads.
I don't usually go looking for the dark side of the force explanations but it does seem that the 100 consecutive-of-type challenge would really bring people to that line and very much tempt them to cross it.
And that's probably part of why the current guidelines don't allow new consecutive-of-type challenges. But existing ones are grandfathered. [ignoring the current moratorium, of course.]

 

However that sort of cheating will happen even much more likely if challenge caches are not any longer tied to physical caches but end up as a kind of achievement badge.

 

As consecutive-challenges are regarded, it always depends on the area. 100 non traditionals in a row would be an easy thing to do in my area and could be done within a weekend if someone wants to do that.

Share this post


Link to post

Technically, streak challenges don't require you to 'give up' finding other geocaches, in the sense that logging another Find won't disqualify you from the challenge. But practically, you have to restrict how many caches you find in your regular geocaching area(s), so those caches remain available to find later. Otherwise, you'll clear out your regular geocaching area(s) prematurely, and then you'll have to travel even further to continue your streak at some later date.

 

Well what they mean by 'give up' isn't that you can never log those caches, but rather just as you say - hold off on finding them until later. Which is exactly the issue. I don't think there's any challenge that bids you to not find a certain cache property ever lest you de-qualify yourself.

 

Instead I looked at it instead like you were actually putting more effort into geocaching by planning your cache outings to find specific caches rather than not find other types. :P But that's splitting hairs.

 

Technically speaking, they don't want any cacher to feel "I can't log this cache or it will mean I have to do extra or repeat work to qualify for a challenge" (whether it's starting over or just taking a step backwards). That is of course presuming legitimate chronological logging, as opposed to finding them and backlogging them out of order :P

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't in-a-row challenges affect most cacher's style of caching? How many cachers would forego a perfectly fine nearby traditional (maybe even great highly favoured traditional caches) just so they can qualify for the in-a-row non-trad challenge cache?

 

I would and I have and it wasn't even for a challenge. I'm not going out of my way for a micro behind a lamppost.

Share this post


Link to post

On the question of whether challenge caches cause me to change the ol' geocaching rut I find myself in from time to time ... yes, they do, but that's a positive side of challenges, they cause me to go consider finding more multis, or higher rating caches, or travel bugs. It's a question of how you look at it -- if you want to cache the same way every time you go out, then just overlook the challenge caches that would cause you to do otherwise.

 

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

It all boils down to this game can be enjoyed by many people in many different ways. It's up to the individual to choose how he/she are going to play the game on a given day, week, year, etc. Some cachers log a cache online if they see the container, and that's good enough for them ... others log a find if they visit the coordinates ... others (I fall in this category) won't log a find until my name is on the log book.

 

Ultimately, cache owners of challenge caches need to be as dedicated and persevering as the owners of traditionals ... unfortunately, there's a growing number of those as well who aren't checking on a string of DNFs, full log books, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Something that hasn't yet been pointed out (and really doesn't bother me... just tossing this out there) is that most, if not all, challenge caches are biased against the new geocachers. Most have been created for cachers with thousands of finds. (stopping short of saying that challenge caches are elitist :P)

 

 

this is not true. When I made a challenge cache a few years ago I was NOT allowed to exclude previous finds. I wanted to to make it a challenge and an adventurefor the forest to find. They said it would be to hard and nobody would find it. So hours after it was published someone came along and found it so what big deal just another cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't in-a-row challenges affect most cacher's style of caching? How many cachers would forego a perfectly fine nearby traditional (maybe even great highly favoured traditional caches) just so they can qualify for the in-a-row non-trad challenge cache?

 

I would and I have and it wasn't even for a challenge. I'm not going out of my way for a micro behind a lamppost.

 

I was suggesting a very good traditional cache that is highly favored, perhaps with great logs like "Clever", "Made my day", "Fun find". Would you skip it, even if you're walking right past it, to continue your non-trad in-a-row streak?

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, the only true requirement of a puzzle, multi or traditional cache is to sign the logbook (CO's intentions have no value). But I'd like to see the same logic applied to Challenge caches as well.

 

Yes, this is why the suggestion of separating the Found It log from the Qualified log. You can get the Find count without qualifying (for those who don't care about challenges), but you only get the challenge completion recognition if you post the Qualified log/requirement and the Found It. (to keep challenge caches as they are currently for challenges, and not allow couch logging the challenge of challenge caches all over the world without finding the container).

 

See Challenge Stars for more.

 

Hate challenges, and want ignore them entirely? Then all those Challenge Caches on the map become physical caches you can still find and log, even with relevant D/T ratings.

 

Again, I like this idea.

 

The only problem is that it won't fix the problem of 1% of caches causing the majority of appeals, will it? That's the stated reason for the moratorium, not whether we love or hate challenge caches. How does your solution address that?

 

I think the high number of appeals happens because of the fact these are physical geocaches and people can't log them (that includes the normal geocacher who doesn't care/understand the challenge part and the hardcore geocachers when the requirements are not clear). If the "challenge" part would become virtual, people would still get their find and most would be happy with that. The pool of potential appeals would lower for sure.

 

Well, actually, Groundspeak hasn't said if the majority of the appeals are from finders that get their smiley deleted because they haven't met the challenge, or if it is from cache submissions that are rejected by the reviewers. I am guessing that both types contributed to the moratorium.

Share this post


Link to post

Another thought, all of this may end up just being Groundspeak allowing challenge caches to be marked as 'found' by anyone who signs the log and a separate 'challenge completed' mark for those who meet the criteria. If challenges are to remain as caches then this is what probably should have happened all along. You find a cache, you sign a log, you found it.

 

I hope the goal is more along the lines of what I have already posted.

 

Now, there is an idea that I can sink my teeth into! And the "Challenge Completed" flag gets counted on a separate counter (or with badges or whatever). I like it, and it seems like a simple, workable solution. I wonder if the challenge cache devotees would agree with something like that.

 

Wouldn't do the challenges and wouldn't publish challenges, last thing we need is a second scoreboard, haven't we learnt anything from the last time?

 

Don't worry... my opinion doesn't matter anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

 

I think the LPC haters have an easier time ignoring them because, usually, it's not like they're taking up space where a better cache could go.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps a new rule could be that Challenges must be LPC. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps a new rule could be that Challenges must be LPC. :ph34r:

 

I could get behind this initiative. :santa:

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

 

I think the LPC haters have an easier time ignoring them because, usually, it's not like they're taking up space where a better cache could go.

Depend... if a LPC is blocking a good location of a city park behind wal mart.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

 

I think the LPC haters have an easier time ignoring them because, usually, it's not like they're taking up space where a better cache could go.

Depend... if a LPC is blocking a good location of a city park behind wal mart.

 

If a park is blocked by an LPC in a walmart parking lot, I'm guessing it's not a good location or a big park. 527 feet from the wal mart? Probably not much of a park.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

 

I think the LPC haters have an easier time ignoring them because, usually, it's not like they're taking up space where a better cache could go.

Depend... if a LPC is blocking a good location of a city park behind wal mart.

 

If a park is blocked by an LPC in a walmart parking lot, I'm guessing it's not a good location or a big park. 527 feet from the wal mart? Probably not much of a park.

How many caches you can placed in a wal mart parking lot? Plenty. I had see a good spot that was blocked because of a LPC or a GRC.

Share this post


Link to post

I was suggesting a very good traditional cache that is highly favored, perhaps with great logs like "Clever", "Made my day", "Fun find". Would you skip it, even if you're walking right past it, to continue your non-trad in-a-row streak?

 

I'm not the person you directed the question to and I have never worked on such a streak. It could easily happen however that I skip such a traditional when I'm in the area for a longer cache that fits my preferences much better.

Highly favourited caches with logs of the type you mention typically do not fit at all into the class of my preferred caches. What makes a good cache is something subjective. An umbrella as cache might be funny for many cachers, but it's not the sort of thing that is behind my interest into geocaching.

 

I have done multi caches involving several days of hiking and have skipped many caches that directly have been on the way and did not even have the coordinates with me. My goal was a different one. Similarly, for someone who really wants to achieve a certain non-trad streak there is a goal that is important. Of course if someone is going for such a streak just to qualify for a challenge, the situation is a different one.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

 

I think the LPC haters have an easier time ignoring them because, usually, it's not like they're taking up space where a better cache could go.

Depend... if a LPC is blocking a good location of a city park behind wal mart.

 

Note the word "usually."

Share this post


Link to post

"having to change one's style of caching" is bad wording, IMO.

 

As demonstrated, it's not about any kind of change to a caching style, it's about a negative impact to which caches you can find, as doing so would 'unqualify', or make it harder to qualify. That's the problem with sequential 'streak' challenges.

 

I'm trying to do 100 non-traditionals in a row for a challenge cache that belongs to my husband. Grr. I think this is my 4th attempt.

 

Wouldn't in-a-row challenges affect most cacher's style of caching? How many cachers would forego a perfectly fine nearby traditional (maybe even great highly favoured traditional caches) just so they can qualify for the in-a-row non-trad challenge cache?

 

I think some would circumvent the requirement by finding all types of caches, but only log the non-trads until they've accumulated 100 non-trads in a row. The day after, they then log the trads. That is, if listing the actual date they find caches doesn't matter to them.

 

This challenge wouldn't be published today. It's grandfathered.

Share this post


Link to post

I was suggesting a very good traditional cache that is highly favored, perhaps with great logs like "Clever", "Made my day", "Fun find". Would you skip it, even if you're walking right past it, to continue your non-trad in-a-row streak?

 

I wouldn't even see it because I'm filtering trads out of my PQs right now, and I don't look to see if caches are popular before I find them. I'm doing this challenge close to home (I only need 100 in a row). It's okay, I can go back for a traditional later if I feel I must.

Share this post


Link to post

They don't affect you. But yet you want them gone. Thanks for managing to upset the game for the rest of us.

 

You are so wrong on that point. Bad balanced challenge caches affect the whole community in numerous very negative ways. Virtual discovering on everything found on private groups is the one example. Constant quarrels about logging own caches published on sockpuppet accounts are another. Grid challenges are even worse, because D/T rating is already very broken and setting arbitrary values only for grids make it even more broken. And those are just a few examples.

 

No, I don't think I am wrong. Your example happens but not nearly as much as you'd like to claim. After 9900 some odd finds I can clearly say that the nearly 99.999% of the rating issues I see are due to lack of experience.. yes, new cachers, for better or for worse.

Share this post


Link to post

Something that hasn't yet been pointed out (and really doesn't bother me... just tossing this out there) is that most, if not all, challenge caches are biased against the new geocachers. Most have been created for cachers with thousands of finds. (stopping short of saying that challenge caches are elitist :P)

 

 

this is not true. When I made a challenge cache a few years ago I was NOT allowed to exclude previous finds. I wanted to to make it a challenge and an adventurefor the forest to find. They said it would be to hard and nobody would find it. So hours after it was published someone came along and found it so what big deal just another cache.

 

You kind of just contradicted yourself.

I think knowschad was saying long-time cachers have an easier time qualifying immediately, thus biasing many of the challenges against people who haven't found that many. Someone with 5000 finds is far more likely to immediately qualify for an A to Z cache challenge than someone with only 50.

 

Not that they shouldn't be this way. Just pointing out the fact that you stated what he said was not true, then proceeded to give an example which illustrated his point.

Share this post


Link to post

They don't affect you. But yet you want them gone. Thanks for managing to upset the game for the rest of us.

 

You are so wrong on that point. Bad balanced challenge caches affect the whole community in numerous very negative ways. Virtual discovering on everything found on private groups is the one example. Constant quarrels about logging own caches published on sockpuppet accounts are another. Grid challenges are even worse, because D/T rating is already very broken and setting arbitrary values only for grids make it even more broken. And those are just a few examples.

 

No, I don't think I am wrong. Your example happens but not nearly as much as you'd like to claim. After 9900 some odd finds I can clearly say that the nearly 99.999% of the rating issues I see are due to lack of experience.. yes, new cachers, for better or for worse.

 

I think you both have a point. You come from the US while Geolog81's experiences are mainly from Poland and Germany where I'd say caching is more competitive and where there are certainly more cases where rules are twisted to arrive at certain goals. Challenge caches are however only small aspect in the larger picture.

Share this post


Link to post

What you guys think of an in house achievement system thats set by GS only. We can give them ideas.

 

I can see padding/cheating to get those achievements but let them cheat because they will stand out like a sore thumb.

 

The best reward is a smiley count.

 

I've suggested this in the past.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

 

I think the LPC haters have an easier time ignoring them because, usually, it's not like they're taking up space where a better cache could go.

 

I don't "hate" LPCs. That would imply that I hold a strong emotional reaction about the location and containers used for an LPC cache. I can list several reason, why I don't think they're a good choice for a hide and to imply that the reason that I think there should be fewer of them is due to "hate" completely dismisses what I feel are valid reason based on logic, not emotion.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of power trails of challenge caches ... how are those any better than a surge of pill bottles under light poles in every parking lot up and down the main drag through town? Some cachers love LPCs, other cachers loathe them, but LPCs aren't under as much scrutiny as challenges.

 

They're both bad in different ways. In fact I would say the LPCs are more loathed and have had more years of scrutiny. It's just that ccs are a hot topic right now.

 

I think the LPC haters have an easier time ignoring them because, usually, it's not like they're taking up space where a better cache could go.

 

I don't "hate" LPCs. That would imply that I hold a strong emotional reaction about the location and containers used for an LPC cache. I can list several reason, why I don't think they're a good choice for a hide and to imply that the reason that I think there should be fewer of them is due to "hate" completely dismisses what I feel are valid reason based on logic, not emotion.

 

I wasn't intending to dismiss the many good reasons for thinking that LPCs are less than stellar. It was just shorthand for describing people who don't like them.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe a solution would be to allow two finds per challenge cache. Those that are finding the physical cache and signing the logbook can claim a find (everyone) and those that are demonstrating they met the "requirements" can log a second find (or be attributed a second find by the CO if Groundspeak would implement such a feature).

 

There would probably still be some appeals, but it would most likely be limited by the fact everyone would be able to log a find on all physical caches. Back to the basics of geocaching.

 

It would also please the challenge aficionados who could get an extra find for the challenge itself. No harm for finders/COs.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe a solution would be to allow two finds per challenge cache. Those that are finding the physical cache and signing the logbook can claim a find (everyone) and those that are demonstrating they met the "requirements" can log a second find (or be attributed a second find by the CO if Groundspeak would implement such a feature).

See Challenge stars

(#brokenrecord :ph34r:)

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe a solution would be to allow two finds per challenge cache. Those that are finding the physical cache and signing the logbook can claim a find (everyone) and those that are demonstrating they met the "requirements" can log a second find (or be attributed a second find by the CO if Groundspeak would implement such a feature).

See Challenge stars

(#brokenrecord :ph34r:)

 

Yes, that makes sense, as long as all physical caches can always be found without any ALR (let those who want to play the sidegame play it, but not enforce it on all the other players).

 

Unfortunately, it seems the challenge lovers are not fond of the virtual gift for meeting the requirements of a challenge. They'd prefer a find. Or is it an exclusive find? Anyway, trying to find solutions to primarily meet my goal (having the possibility to find any physical cache by signing the log), while trying to not remove a feature a part of the community likes. This challenge moratorium is the best opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately, it seems the challenge lovers are not fond of the virtual gift for meeting the requirements of a challenge. They'd prefer a find. Or is it an exclusive find?

 

The idea would be to maintain the current concept - the CO can delete your Find (currently) if you don't qualify. So there, you don't get the Find-and-qualification if you don't qualify.

In the case that the CO has locked the two, it would effectively be as the process is currently.

In the case that the CO has them unlocked, you can find it without qualifying (the only difference).

 

In both cases, having the challenge as a separate metric means that the challenge itself, or the entire challenge cache, can be filtered in/out or hidden.

 

But this is an additional option that really would only exist to 'appease' those who want to find physical caches without having to qualify for the "ALR". So, just exploring the options.

Share this post


Link to post

cron may have hit on why some love the challenge cache, and others hate them. The exclusivity of the find. I qualify and others don't. You can't log my cache because you don't qualify.

Share this post


Link to post

cron may have hit on why some love the challenge cache, and others hate them. The exclusivity of the find. I qualify and others don't. You can't log my cache because you don't qualify.

 

Different people like them for different reasons and different people hate them for different reasons and some people are indifferent.

 

Some may like them because all those entitled people who think they don't have to work for anything can't log them.

Edited by Roman!

Share this post


Link to post

As long as the proper cords are given, one can go find it. If you don't care about the numbers, go find it. You'll get the thrill of finding a cache. You just don't get to log a find online.

 

If you do care about the numbers, then you should want to earn the find and do it the way it was intended.

Share this post


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

×