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

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

The problem with removing popularity as a factor completely is that a cache which nobody is interested in finding is taking up real estate.

But a challenge cache with infrequent finders isn't necessarily a cache that people aren't interested in finding. I created a challenge cache that wasn't found for 32 months. Only three people have ever found it, but they all gave it a favorite point. And other people are enjoying their experiences as they continue to work towards completing it.

 

If I listed the best ten caches I have ever found, most would be caches that averaged one or two finds a year at best.

 

Caches that are infrequently found are often geocaches that epitomize the very best that this game has to offer - amazing remote locations, truly difficult challenges, very clever puzzles. It would be really, really upsetting to see them culled because they're "taking up real estate" or because someone is fussed that they'll never be able to reach them.

Edited by narcissa

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can gather, part of the problem involves disputes between cachers and reviewers about the validity of a particular challenge, this getting escalated to the appeals team and the amount of work this causes the appeals team.

 

We don't know that the problem deals with the validity of proposed challenge caches. All we know is that the problem somehow deals with too many appeals being generated.

 

Until Groundspeak chooses to tell us more about the nature of the problem, discussing solutions to the problem is a little silly. How can we solve the problem if we don't know what the problem is?

Share this post


Link to post

I probably need to restate my arguments in a way that makes them more logical, and to re-order the "rules". So...

 

The fundamental idea is to remove the "appeal to" and "achievable by" and "reasonable number" subjective decisions from the reviewer and turn them into objective decisions made by the community. Palmetto said that "If anything, many challenges that are hard to handle are those with a complex set of finds that the CO does have, and wants the seeker to copy." I would suspect that a lot of these cases are the reviewer saying that the cache won't appeal to enough people or that not enough people will qualify for it. This plan is specifically intended to take that burden off the reviewer and hand it to the community.

 

The original rule 2 should have been stated first. It should have been phrased differently as well. When all other guidelines have been satisfied - permission, saturation etc. - then the fact that the owner has satisfied the conditions of the challenge is a necessary and sufficient condition for publication. There may occasionally be a need for the owner to demonstrate that there are enough caches around to allow others to complete it, but that is part of the other conditions.

 

This rule would stop folk from having a sock puppet create a cache for them to find, but it wouldn't stop other issues. I'm sure I could cherry-pick my finds to produce an extremely difficult challenge - easily worth a D5 without getting out of my chair. Then claiming the find on my own cache. The old rules 1 & 3 were intended to stop someone from doing that. Rule 1 meant you couldn't claim your own cache and rule 3 was meant to stop you immediately adopting it out to a friend and then claiming it.

 

Rule 4 was a first attempt, obviously deeply flawed, at handing control to the community. A better approach might be to have a log whereby people could show an expression of interest in the cache - the ability to say "I've already found 150 letterboxes beginning with Q" or "I'm definitely working on this". The cache would then be deemed to appeal to and be achievable by a reasonable number of people provided at least one such log appears within 12 months of the previous log or whenever 3 or more people have found it. If fewer than 3 people have found it and no log has appeared for 12 months it could trigger an automatic NA. If folk are working towards a challenge there's a reasonable assumption that at least one would have it on their watch list. They would get a notification and would be able to override the NA by logging their interest. If no-one is logging it, no-one is watching it and insufficient people have found it, only then would the reviewer get involved. They could then make the final decision. 3 may not be the right number, but fewer than that doesn't necessarily imply that a reasonable number are interested.

 

I hope that this explains my idea a bit better.

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post

This rule would stop folk from having a sock puppet create a cache for them to find

 

I don't see why this is a problem that anybody would worry about.

Share this post


Link to post

Rule 4 was a first attempt, obviously deeply flawed, at handing control to the community. A better approach might be to have a log whereby people could show an expression of interest in the cache - the ability to say "I've already found 150 letterboxes beginning with Q" or "I'm definitely working on this". The cache would then be deemed to appeal to and be achievable by a reasonable number of people provided at least one such log appears within 12 months of the previous log or whenever 3 or more people have found it. If fewer than 3 people have found it and no log has appeared for 12 months it could trigger an automatic NA. If folk are working towards a challenge there's a reasonable assumption that at least one would have it on their watch list. They would get a notification and would be able to override the NA by logging their interest. If no-one is logging it, no-one is watching it and insufficient people have found it, only then would the reviewer get involved. They could then make the final decision. 3 may not be the right number, but fewer than that doesn't necessarily imply that a reasonable number are interested.

If owners were concerned about their challenge caches getting auto-archived, then what would prevent them from creating a sock puppet account and annually logging an interest in any endangered challenges?

Share this post


Link to post

Rule 4 was a first attempt, obviously deeply flawed, at handing control to the community. A better approach might be to have a log whereby people could show an expression of interest in the cache - the ability to say "I've already found 150 letterboxes beginning with Q" or "I'm definitely working on this". The cache would then be deemed to appeal to and be achievable by a reasonable number of people provided at least one such log appears within 12 months of the previous log or whenever 3 or more people have found it. If fewer than 3 people have found it and no log has appeared for 12 months it could trigger an automatic NA. If folk are working towards a challenge there's a reasonable assumption that at least one would have it on their watch list. They would get a notification and would be able to override the NA by logging their interest. If no-one is logging it, no-one is watching it and insufficient people have found it, only then would the reviewer get involved. They could then make the final decision. 3 may not be the right number, but fewer than that doesn't necessarily imply that a reasonable number are interested.

 

I hope that this explains my idea a bit better.

 

Tony

In reference to the bolded part - that log type exists, it called a "Note".

 

I'm not in favor of any sort of auto-delete/auto-NA system. Every cache needs to be handled individually by a human, as there are not enough general cases to make any auto-system work well (or possibly, at all).

Share this post


Link to post

The fundamental idea is to remove the "appeal to" and "achievable by" and "reasonable number" subjective decisions from the reviewer and turn them into objective decisions made by the community.

I support the idea of removing those decisions from the reviewer, but I see no need to hand them to the community. The community automatically makes those decisions by how many people in the community satisfy the requirements and sign the log. You want the community to make caches go away if it doesn't approve of it, and I see very little advantage to that and plenty of negatives.

 

If silly or otherwise unattainable challenge caches need to be prevented, then the decision has to be made in a way that's consistent. Turning the decision over to the community insures that it will be as inconsistent as possible.

Share this post


Link to post

Tony, thanks for coming back into the thread.

 

The fundamental idea is to remove the "appeal to" and "achievable by" and "reasonable number" subjective decisions from the reviewer and turn them into objective decisions made by the community. Palmetto said that "If anything, many challenges that are hard to handle are those with a complex set of finds that the CO does have, and wants the seeker to copy." I would suspect that a lot of these cases are the reviewer saying that the cache won't appeal to enough people or that not enough people will qualify for it. This plan is specifically intended to take that burden off the reviewer and hand it to the community.

 

Handling challenges, common problems I see are verification, verification,(verification +20x), stating the challenge coherently, challenge based upon cache ownership, challenge based on "my" caches (my friends caches, my event group caches), challenge not based on "geocaching-related qualification" (cache nude, cache with dog, cache when it's very hot/cold, etc.)

 

The "complex set of finds" challenge I'd kick back, not as failing to "appeal to" or be "achievable by", but as failing to be, "succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document".

 

"Achievable, appeal" is one of the issues. From where I sit, not a primary issue. I don't know how much of the appeals load it has been.

 

I'd be surprised if there is more than a modest budget for developer hours for challenges; not enough for coding a new log type, a new cache type, special coding re adoption, and certainly not the complex coding for any automated action on challenge caches post-publication.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I'd be surprised if there is more than a modest budget for developer hours for challenges; not enough for coding a new log type, a new cache type, special coding re adoption, and certainly not the complex coding for any automated action on challenge caches post-publication.

 

If GS doesn't have the developer resources to work on challenges what does that say for the future of challenges considering that their is currently a moratorium on them. My assumption was that if the moratorium was lifted it would be after GS implemented something to deal with the issues that caused them to create the moratorium in the first place.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Palmetto, thanks for the clear explanation of a reviewer's perspective on the problem.

 

One of the issues facing the general community is a lack of knowledge of what are the real problems caused by Challenge Caches. There are a lot of creative problem solvers in this community and, given a clear description of the problem, I'm sure they would come up with good ideas to solve them.

 

It's been some time since Groundspeak promised a survey within a few weeks. Nothing seems to have happened in that time and this is starting to worry me a bit. It is no secret that I'm a great fan of good challenges and puzzles and I would hate to see them morph into something resembling a souvenir. I'd really love the opportunity to contribute to making this work well.

 

Last year, when I visited HQ, two lackeys took me aside, since I'm an Aussie, and spent some time with me seeing a different approach to caching. Apparently the way I do things is a bit different from what they were used to. I think I made a small contribution then and I'd love to make another one here.

Share this post


Link to post

Tossing out ideas is contributing. It's a conversation, toss some stuff out, maybe something sticks or germinates.

 

My perspective is limited, I review one southeastern US state. What I see is not what other reviewers see, even within the US, certainly not what European reviewers see and a tiny part of what the appeals team handles.

 

That I don't think there's much of dev $ budget doesn't make that true, either. I just know that it's easier to create language changes than coding changes.

Share this post


Link to post

There are a few "oldies but goodies" challenges here in FL that require finding the oldest active cache in each of a subset of counties. I think these are very good examples of challenge caches, even if they sometimes go a year with a Find due to the somewhat remote location of some of the required caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Handling challenges, common problems I see are verification, verification,(verification +20x), stating the challenge coherently, challenge based upon cache ownership, challenge based on "my" caches (my friends caches, my event group caches), challenge not based on "geocaching-related qualification" (cache nude, cache with dog, cache when it's very hot/cold, etc.)

Some of these -- based on ownership, based on specific caches, not based on geocaching -- seem clear cut. What problems do they cause? Is there anything more to it than the reviewer makes a simple, unassailable decision that the CO argues about and appeals?

 

When get get to judging them for clarity and coherence, we're sliding into a quality issue. Sure, I'd like to see COs submitting challenges to get help with clarity, but I'm wondering if once improvements have been suggested, it shouldn't be up to the CO to publish, anyway. Reviewers don't, after all, reject traditional caches because they're bad hides. I feel similarly when we talk about whether the challenges are appealing and even when we talk about whether they're achievable. How many unachievable challenge caches will one CO want to publish?

 

Verification is an important aspect of challenges, but I have to admit I'm having a hard time imagining why it would be a problem +x20. I can't remember if a verification statement is now required in the challenge description, but if not, it should be. For 95% of the challenges, "list the appropriate caches" should cover it, and for most of the others, geocaching.com statistics would do the trick, obviously allowing a screen shot for those that don't want to open their statistics to everyone. So what verifications are left to cause reviewers problems? Can't we allow those 98% to be rubber stamped, then force the 2% that want to do something fancy for verification submit their idea to some kind of Challenge Czar?

Share this post


Link to post
When get get to judging them for clarity and coherence, we're sliding into a quality issue.
I think this relates to the following requirement for challenge caches: "The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document. A lengthy list of 'rules' would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published."

 

How are you supposed to know whether the requirements are "succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document" when the owner's description of the requirements is incoherent and confusing? And down the road, it's a recipe for drama, when someone logs the challenge cache, only to discover that the CO meant something completely different in his incoherent, confusing statement of the requirements.

 

Reviewers don't, after all, reject traditional caches because they're bad hides.
Reviewers don't, after all, publish traditional caches where the CO can delete online logs even though the finder signed the physical log.

 

How many unachievable challenge caches will one CO want to publish?
challenge-accepted.jpg

 

Which is what led to the review/appeal issues that led to the current moratorium.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this relates to the following requirement for challenge caches: "The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document. A lengthy list of 'rules' would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published."

Yes, I'm suggesting those kinds of rules are a big part of what creates a headache for reviewers, at least based on the input we just got.

 

How are you supposed to know whether the requirements are "succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document" when the owner's description of the requirements is incoherent and confusing? And down the road, it's a recipe for drama, when someone logs the challenge cache, only to discover that the CO meant something completely different in his incoherent, confusing statement of the requirements.

I'm fine with a reviewer saying, "I still don't understand what you mean" and explaining why. That's concrete and helpful. The "succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document" rule is aimed at the same idea, but expressed as a judgement. With other cache issues, we leave such quality determinations to the community instead of trying to protect the community from even seeing a bad cache.

 

Admittedly, I don't understand why there's any drama, but I'll take your word for it that there is. For me, if a CO's a jerk about a challenge, the last thing I'd want to do is engage in whatever petty game he wants to play. I'd just shrug and move on. From my point of view, it's his loss if I can't figure out his cache. It's just another DNF to me.

 

Reviewers don't, after all, publish traditional caches where the CO can delete online logs even though the finder signed the physical log.

I don't see that as being any different than a traditional cache that's impossible to find. With traditionals, we treat caches that can't be found as an operational problem after the cache is published, not as something we have to ensure can't possibly happen before the cache can be published.

 

How many unachievable challenge caches will one CO want to publish?
challenge-accepted.jpg

 

Which is what led to the review/appeal issues that led to the current moratorium.

If you're saying someone did this on purpose, then the obvious solution is for GS to stop them from publishing challenges, perhaps by axing their accounts, rather than stopping everyone everywhere from publishing challenges. But perhaps someone can put more data on the table, because this discussion definitely appears to be based on the idea that thousands of COs are going to publish many caches each simply for the joy of being able to say no one can find them. It's hard for me to believe that's true, but if that really is the case, it seems like a much bigger problem all by itself than bad challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

This rule would stop folk from having a sock puppet create a cache for them to find

 

I don't see why this is a problem that anybody would worry about.

This is where Challenge owners get nitpicking about. I am not worrying about it. Its just a major headache for GS to deal with deleted logs.

 

I know one CO that will delete anyone found it log on his challenge caches if he feels the cache size isnt correct. (you know some people list their cache as small instead of mirco) Yes, he got a rule that you cant use mirco size caches on his challenge caches and I dont have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with him getting being the police of deciding whats the correct size. All this little things like this is what GS got to deal with.

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches are just another part of this game that I don't take part in.

 

I would like to see something new and better that more geocachers could take part in that is less headache for everyone. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Late last week, I sent a note to Geocaching HQ, asking about what was going on with the "pause". Yesterday, I received a very nice note back from HQ. I'm uncomfortable with quoting it verbatim (since I didn't ask for permission), but the short summary is ... they're working on it.

The long summary is: they got way more feedback in the official "User Insights" thread about challenge caches than they were expecting, and they're still working on compiling that feedback before they proceed with the next step (still scheduled to be a survey).

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can gather, part of the problem involves disputes between cachers and reviewers about the validity of a particular challenge, this getting escalated to the appeals team and the amount of work this causes the appeals team.

 

I've had an idea which could eliminate most of this problem. It won't address any other issues, but...

 

The guidelines include some subjective phrases such as A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. Obviously, my idea of a reasonable number could be different from yours. I think we can get rid of all this subjectivity by applying the following rules..

 

1. Cachers are not allowed to claim a find on their own challenge cache.

2. The submitter of a challenge must demonstrate that they have achieved the challenge

3. If a challenge cache is to be adopted then the adopter mus demonstrate that they have fulfilled the challenge requirements

4. Any challenge cache which has not had a find or a statement of achievement for 12 months is automatically archived.

 

....

Obviously this isn't the ultimate solution to all challenge issues, but I think it would go a long way to reducing the load on the appeals team.

 

1. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

2. agree, but not important to review or appeals issues. If anything, many challenges that are hard to handle are those with a complex set of finds that the CO does have, and wants the seeker to copy.

3. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

4. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues, and strikes me personally as a complete non-starter.

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging. Unless you're on the whining anti-challenge platform, what do any of you care if the hider qualifies or not?

 

My plan is simple.. challenges can ONLY be one dimensional and easily identifiable (not to be mistaken with easily attainable), Simple as that.. no matter how challenging the challenge is. Whiners can add it to their block list or go home.

Edited by bflentje

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can gather, part of the problem involves disputes between cachers and reviewers about the validity of a particular challenge, this getting escalated to the appeals team and the amount of work this causes the appeals team.

 

I've had an idea which could eliminate most of this problem. It won't address any other issues, but...

 

The guidelines include some subjective phrases such as A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. Obviously, my idea of a reasonable number could be different from yours. I think we can get rid of all this subjectivity by applying the following rules..

 

1. Cachers are not allowed to claim a find on their own challenge cache.

2. The submitter of a challenge must demonstrate that they have achieved the challenge

3. If a challenge cache is to be adopted then the adopter mus demonstrate that they have fulfilled the challenge requirements

4. Any challenge cache which has not had a find or a statement of achievement for 12 months is automatically archived.

 

....

Obviously this isn't the ultimate solution to all challenge issues, but I think it would go a long way to reducing the load on the appeals team.

 

1. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

2. agree, but not important to review or appeals issues. If anything, many challenges that are hard to handle are those with a complex set of finds that the CO does have, and wants the seeker to copy.

3. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

4. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues, and strikes me personally as a complete non-starter.

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging.

 

You might want to look again. When I looked I found "a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc." or "invite (someone) to engage in a contest." In the context of a Challenge cache, it is an invitation to engage in a task to be completed as a prerequisite for finding a geocache. There is nothing in the definition about the relative difficulty of the task. Although a "challenge" *might* be challenging there isn't a requirement, by definition, that it is challenging.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

they're working on it.

 

Looks like a standard answer to just about anything that needs to be fixed. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can gather, part of the problem involves disputes between cachers and reviewers about the validity of a particular challenge, this getting escalated to the appeals team and the amount of work this causes the appeals team.

 

I've had an idea which could eliminate most of this problem. It won't address any other issues, but...

 

The guidelines include some subjective phrases such as A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. Obviously, my idea of a reasonable number could be different from yours. I think we can get rid of all this subjectivity by applying the following rules..

 

1. Cachers are not allowed to claim a find on their own challenge cache.

2. The submitter of a challenge must demonstrate that they have achieved the challenge

3. If a challenge cache is to be adopted then the adopter mus demonstrate that they have fulfilled the challenge requirements

4. Any challenge cache which has not had a find or a statement of achievement for 12 months is automatically archived.

 

....

Obviously this isn't the ultimate solution to all challenge issues, but I think it would go a long way to reducing the load on the appeals team.

 

1. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

2. agree, but not important to review or appeals issues. If anything, many challenges that are hard to handle are those with a complex set of finds that the CO does have, and wants the seeker to copy.

3. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

4. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues, and strikes me personally as a complete non-starter.

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging.

 

You might want to look again. When I looked I found "a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc." or "invite (someone) to engage in a contest." In the context of a Challenge cache, it is an invitation to engage in a task to be completed as a prerequisite for finding a geocache. There is nothing in the definition about the relative difficulty of the task. Although a "challenge" *might* be challenging there isn't a requirement, by definition, that it is challenging.

 

A challenge MUST be attainable by its hider and by a REASONABLE amount of people (which can't be defined) doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, challengingly speaking. So word mince all you want.

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can gather, part of the problem involves disputes between cachers and reviewers about the validity of a particular challenge, this getting escalated to the appeals team and the amount of work this causes the appeals team.

 

I've had an idea which could eliminate most of this problem. It won't address any other issues, but...

 

The guidelines include some subjective phrases such as A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. Obviously, my idea of a reasonable number could be different from yours. I think we can get rid of all this subjectivity by applying the following rules..

 

1. Cachers are not allowed to claim a find on their own challenge cache.

2. The submitter of a challenge must demonstrate that they have achieved the challenge

3. If a challenge cache is to be adopted then the adopter mus demonstrate that they have fulfilled the challenge requirements

4. Any challenge cache which has not had a find or a statement of achievement for 12 months is automatically archived.

 

....

Obviously this isn't the ultimate solution to all challenge issues, but I think it would go a long way to reducing the load on the appeals team.

 

1. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

2. agree, but not important to review or appeals issues. If anything, many challenges that are hard to handle are those with a complex set of finds that the CO does have, and wants the seeker to copy.

3. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

4. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues, and strikes me personally as a complete non-starter.

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging.

 

You might want to look again. When I looked I found "a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc." or "invite (someone) to engage in a contest." In the context of a Challenge cache, it is an invitation to engage in a task to be completed as a prerequisite for finding a geocache. There is nothing in the definition about the relative difficulty of the task. Although a "challenge" *might* be challenging there isn't a requirement, by definition, that it is challenging.

 

A challenge MUST be attainable by its hider and by a REASONABLE amount of people (which can't be defined) doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, challengingly speaking. So word mince all you want.

 

I'm not mincing words. I'm looking at the definition of challenge and there isn't anything in the definition which stipulates that a challenge *must* be challenging.

 

A "challenge" to find one puzzle cache in day is still a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging. Unless you're on the whining anti-challenge platform, what do any of you care if the hider qualifies or not?

 

My plan is simple.. challenges can ONLY be one dimensional and easily identifiable (not to be mistaken with easily attainable), Simple as that.. no matter how challenging the challenge is. Whiners can add it to their block list or go home.

 

Since you don't seem to have read my previous comments on puzzles, challenges etc., let me state clearly

 

I really enjoy challenge caches and don't want to see them go. I really enjoy puzzles and don't want to see them go. I really don't care for high terrain hikes, but I don't want to see them go either. I certainly don't whinge about any type of cache.

 

My suggestions above were an attempt to solve what, at that time, I perceived to be a problem with challenge caches. Palmetto, who knows far more about this than I do, has suggested that I was tackling a relatively insignificant side of the problems. Ah, well, I can't win them all - but at least I am offering constructive suggestions.

 

As to your suggestion, could you please explain what you mean "One Dimensional" and "Easily identifiable"? I see problems where the CO thinks it is easily identifiable but the reviewer does not. Would one dimensional allow challenges such as "Find some number of a given cache type (1st dimension) in Florida (2nd dimension)"?

Edited by Gill & Tony

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can gather, part of the problem involves disputes between cachers and reviewers about the validity of a particular challenge, this getting escalated to the appeals team and the amount of work this causes the appeals team.

 

I've had an idea which could eliminate most of this problem. It won't address any other issues, but...

 

The guidelines include some subjective phrases such as A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. Obviously, my idea of a reasonable number could be different from yours. I think we can get rid of all this subjectivity by applying the following rules..

 

1. Cachers are not allowed to claim a find on their own challenge cache.

2. The submitter of a challenge must demonstrate that they have achieved the challenge

3. If a challenge cache is to be adopted then the adopter mus demonstrate that they have fulfilled the challenge requirements

4. Any challenge cache which has not had a find or a statement of achievement for 12 months is automatically archived.

 

....

Obviously this isn't the ultimate solution to all challenge issues, but I think it would go a long way to reducing the load on the appeals team.

 

1. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

2. agree, but not important to review or appeals issues. If anything, many challenges that are hard to handle are those with a complex set of finds that the CO does have, and wants the seeker to copy.

3. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues

4. has nothing to do with review or appeals issues, and strikes me personally as a complete non-starter.

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging.

 

You might want to look again. When I looked I found "a call or summons to engage in any contest, as of skill, strength, etc." or "invite (someone) to engage in a contest." In the context of a Challenge cache, it is an invitation to engage in a task to be completed as a prerequisite for finding a geocache. There is nothing in the definition about the relative difficulty of the task. Although a "challenge" *might* be challenging there isn't a requirement, by definition, that it is challenging.

 

A challenge MUST be attainable by its hider and by a REASONABLE amount of people (which can't be defined) doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, challengingly speaking. So word mince all you want.

 

I'm not mincing words. I'm looking at the definition of challenge and there isn't anything in the definition which stipulates that a challenge *must* be challenging.

 

A "challenge" to find one puzzle cache in day is still a challenge.

Of course, you are looking at only one definition out of several. I saw the same definition you used as the first (by not only) one. But down the list was "difficulty in a job or undertaking that is stimulating to one engaged in it" - so using that definition, it *must* be difficult. So you're "not mincing words" you are mincing definition of words - about the same thing, but different.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Of course, you are looking at only one definition out of several. I saw the same definition you used as the first (by not only) one. But down the list was "difficulty in a job or undertaking that is stimulating to one engaged in it" - so using that definition, it *must* be difficult. So you're "not mincing words" you are mincing definition of words - about the same thing, but different.

 

Yes, I understand that "challenge" *can* imply difficulty when used in a sentence such as "That was quite a challenge". However, I'm not convinced that in the context of a "Challenge cache" that the use of the term implies that the challenge *must* be difficult. There are certainly plenty of Challenge caches that wouldn't be difficult, especially for those that have 10K+ finds.

 

The problem with using dictionary definitions is that they don't always fit into the context in which the term is being used. Look of the definition of "cache" and see how it fits with our notion of an event cache or earthcache or webcam cache...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I understand that "challenge" *can* imply difficulty when used in a sentence such as "That was quite a challenge".

I'm not sure how this came up, but I'm sure NYPaddleCacher shouldn't need to defend his position. In the first dictionary I looked at, there were 4 definitions of challenge that involved an arbitrary contest before the fifth definition that finally said anything about difficulty, thus confirming my casual feeling that generally challenges could be anything and it's only in specific contexts where we use the term to imply that something is inherently difficult. And that's the noun. I don't see any implication of difficulty at all in the verb definitions, and one might reasonably say that "challenge cache" is the verb form, since a challenge cache is the CO challenging you.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging. Unless you're on the whining anti-challenge platform, what do any of you care if the hider qualifies or not?

 

My plan is simple.. challenges can ONLY be one dimensional and easily identifiable (not to be mistaken with easily attainable), Simple as that.. no matter how challenging the challenge is. Whiners can add it to their block list or go home.

 

Since you don't seem to have read my previous comments on puzzles, challenges etc., let me state clearly

 

I really enjoy challenge caches and don't want to see them go. I really enjoy puzzles and don't want to see them go. I really don't care for high terrain hikes, but I don't want to see them go either. I certainly don't whinge about any type of cache.

 

My suggestions above were an attempt to solve what, at that time, I perceived to be a problem with challenge caches. Palmetto, who knows far more about this than I do, has suggested that I was tackling a relatively insignificant side of the problems. Ah, well, I can't win them all - but at least I am offering constructive suggestions.

 

As to your suggestion, could you please explain what you mean "One Dimensional" and "Easily identifiable"? I see problems where the CO thinks it is easily identifiable but the reviewer does not. Would one dimensional allow challenges such as "Find some number of a given cache type (1st dimension) in Florida (2nd dimension)"?

 

I am pretty sure I was not responding directly to you but to the audience as a collective.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging. Unless you're on the whining anti-challenge platform, what do any of you care if the hider qualifies or not?

 

My plan is simple.. challenges can ONLY be one dimensional and easily identifiable (not to be mistaken with easily attainable), Simple as that.. no matter how challenging the challenge is. Whiners can add it to their block list or go home.

As to your suggestion, could you please explain what you mean "One Dimensional" and "Easily identifiable"? I see problems where the CO thinks it is easily identifiable but the reviewer does not. Would one dimensional allow challenges such as "Find some number of a given cache type (1st dimension) in Florida (2nd dimension)"?

 

Yep, my plan would allow..

 

- Find some number of a given cache type.

OR

- Find some number in Florida.

 

But not (as you suggest)..

 

"Find some number of a given cache type (1st dimension) in Florida (2nd dimension)"

 

 

And remember, it's just my opinion if I were in charge and I am not in charge. So flame away.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think having the proposed challenge hider qualify for said challenge, and defining what "reasonable" means, are both lame concepts. Last I looked up the term challenge in the dictionary, a challenge is supposed to be challenging. Unless you're on the whining anti-challenge platform, what do any of you care if the hider qualifies or not?

 

My plan is simple.. challenges can ONLY be one dimensional and easily identifiable (not to be mistaken with easily attainable), Simple as that.. no matter how challenging the challenge is. Whiners can add it to their block list or go home.

As to your suggestion, could you please explain what you mean "One Dimensional" and "Easily identifiable"? I see problems where the CO thinks it is easily identifiable but the reviewer does not. Would one dimensional allow challenges such as "Find some number of a given cache type (1st dimension) in Florida (2nd dimension)"?

 

Yep, my plan would allow..

 

- Find some number of a given cache type.

OR

- Find some number in Florida.

 

But not (as you suggest)..

 

"Find some number of a given cache type (1st dimension) in Florida (2nd dimension)"

 

 

And remember, it's just my opinion if I were in charge and I am not in charge. So flame away.

To your previous post, I read it as directed at my ideas. As it was directed at the general tone of the thread, I apologise for misreading it.

 

One-dimensional seems too restrictive to me, but as I'm not in charge either we will both have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post

Five months now, and still no real word on this moratorium ... anyone on the inside care to comment on where we are in this process?

Share this post


Link to post

Five months now, and still no real word on this moratorium ... anyone on the inside care to comment on where we are in this process?

 

As "bones" would say "it's dead, Jim"

Share this post


Link to post

Five months now, and still no real word on this moratorium ... anyone on the inside care to comment on where we are in this process?

Wondering myself. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Five months now, and still no real word on this moratorium ... anyone on the inside care to comment on where we are in this process?

 

As "bones" would say "it's dead, Jim"

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Five months now, and still no real word on this moratorium ... anyone on the inside care to comment on where we are in this process?

 

As "bones" would say "it's dead, Jim"

 

Thought Bones said "He's dead, Jim." But that's what I'm suspecting. "It's dead, Jim."

A lot of challenges were interesting. I've done "New Jersey Counties", and "New Jersey DeLorme", "Finds on caches hidden on 366 days of the year", "Cache names starting wit 0-9 and A-Z", "Noah's Ark" (26 pairs of cache names with animals; not sure that dolphins were ever on Noah's Ark...) But many have become quite inane. And I think that's the problem. "Caches in 200 contiguous counties in twenty states." "Thirteen of the fifteen most favorited caches in your state."

So many are inane and obtuse. And that's the problem, as I see it.

Share this post


Link to post

Five months now, and still no real word on this moratorium ... anyone on the inside care to comment on where we are in this process?

 

As "bones" would say "it's dead, Jim"

 

Thought Bones said "He's dead, Jim." But that's what I'm suspecting. "It's dead, Jim."

A lot of challenges were interesting. I've done "New Jersey Counties", and "New Jersey DeLorme", "Finds on caches hidden on 366 days of the year", "Cache names starting wit 0-9 and A-Z", "Noah's Ark" (26 pairs of cache names with animals; not sure that dolphins were ever on Noah's Ark...) But many have become quite inane. And I think that's the problem. "Caches in 200 contiguous counties in twenty states." "Thirteen of the fifteen most favorited caches in your state."

So many are inane and obtuse. And that's the problem, as I see it.

 

Well it has been five months since the moratorium. That is a long time to work on a project such as this.

Edited by cheech gang

Share this post


Link to post

Five months now, and still no real word on this moratorium ... anyone on the inside care to comment on where we are in this process?

 

Correct, it has been 5 months. But considering they gave themselves 12 months to work on it i'd say don't expect too much for another 7 months. Many complaints about "half-baked" projects like the message centre and the search system so give them a chance to finish.

Share this post


Link to post

Thought Bones said "He's dead, Jim." But that's what I'm suspecting. "It's dead, Jim."

 

Yes, but the challenges topic is not a "he"

 

Correct, it has been 5 months. But considering they gave themselves 12 months to work on it i'd say don't expect too much for another 7 months. Many complaints about "half-baked" projects like the message centre and the search system so give them a chance to finish.

 

They expect us to forget about it. My guess is the decision has been made a long time ago and "challenges will be the new virtuals". :(

Share this post


Link to post
They expect us to forget about it. My guess is the decision has been made a long time ago and "challenges will be the new virtuals". :(

You say that like it's a sad thing. :laughing:

I'm just glad the "If you didn't like 'em, you didn't have to complain about 'em" crowd finally realized who really shut it down and clammed up, maybe hoping for some semblance of the original...

Share this post


Link to post

From the relevant Help Center article:

 

Please note: Beginning April 21, 2015, a one-year moratorium is in effect on all new "challenge cache" submissions. This includes cache submissions that contain optional challenges. It does not impact previously published challenge cache listings.

 

Link for reference:

 

Challenge Caches

Share this post


Link to post

Post #1 in this thread

 

Challenge Cache Submissions Moratorium Visit the User Insights forum to tell us what you like and don't like about challenge caches currently. We'll use your feedback to create a survey that will be available later this spring. Once we've gathered data from the community, we'll get to work on building a better framework for challenge caches.

 

Now the current Help Center Article states

 

Geocachers had the opportunity to share what they like and don't like about challenge caches in a User Insights forum, which was open through May 12. We'll use that feedback to create a survey that will be available later this year. Once we've gathered data from the community, we'll get to work on building a better framework for challenge caches.

 

I read this as stating they so far have taken 4 months to develop the as yet unfinished survey, after which they will start on the actual project.

Share this post


Link to post
They expect us to forget about it. My guess is the decision has been made a long time ago and "challenges will be the new virtuals". :(

You say that like it's a sad thing. :laughing:

 

Yes, it's sad.

I like challenges but not to the extreme. I don't change my caching habits although I might sometimes go for a cache I might otherwise not have chosen if not for a challenge. I just look at available challenges and see if I qualify, I "tag" these in GSAK and look for them when we are in the area. After a while I take a look again to see if I qualify for some more.

 

I'm just glad the "If you didn't like 'em, you didn't have to complain about 'em" crowd finally realized who really shut it down and clammed up, maybe hoping for some semblance of the original...

 

It seems the "I don't like them and want to see them gone" crowd is still complaining :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

...but not to the extreme.

 

Ironically, that's a complaint right there, and perhaps the most often cited problem with Challenge Listings.

Share this post


Link to post

...but not to the extreme.

 

Ironically, that's a complaint right there, and perhaps the most often cited problem with Challenge Listings.

 

Selective quoting..

 

"I" don't go to the extreme but don't mind that there are extreme challenges. I don't "want them all". I think tree climbing/diving/mountainclimbing caches are extreme but they don't bother me. If there should be discussions about a moratorium on such caches I'm not going to jump in and say I want them gone as I'm not interested in them. In the challenges discussion people who are not interested in challenges came out of the woodwork saying they hated them and wanted them gone.

And yes, I know it's about the workload on "appeals" but we still don't know why there is extra workload. Maybe it's people hating challenges complaining that there are to many "extreme" challenges. As said, we don't know...

Share this post


Link to post

Selective quoting, but I think it illustrates my point well. If you don't mind them, then simply stating you want no restrictions and to leave the current process in place should be sufficient. When you put the "but" in the statement, it comes across that you're really in the "haters" camp on this issue and appears to contradict much of what follows. If you love Challeges, great. Don't qualify the statement.

Edited by Touchstone

Share this post


Link to post

When you put the "except for" in the statement

 

You lost me there..

Share this post


Link to post

Selective quoting, but I think it illustrates my point well. If you don't mind them, then simply stating you want no restrictions and to leave the current process in place should be sufficient. When you put the "but" in the statement, it comes across that you're really in the "haters" camp on this issue and appears to contradict much of what follows. If you love Challeges, great. Don't qualify the statement.

 

Looks like you're seeing thing that are not there.

Let's make it clear. Any kind of cache has it's merits and is liked by many. I have no problems with caches "I" am not interested in and to be clear again, I don't "hate" anything (except haters, that is).

Share this post


Link to post

Well, Groundspeak will be the judge of that, but I do see quite a few responses in the survey thread remarkably similar to yours, and when the Lackey collating all this information together sees things like that, it wouldn't surprise me if they make a little check next to the box saying, "doesn't like extreme".

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion the regulations for upcoming challenge caches should be quite strict, trying to preserve as well as refresh the spirit of geocaching.

 

Two examples:

A fellow cacher in Austria posted a challenge cache, 800 caches in 24 hours. A s***storm broke loose, as in the opinions of many cachers this can only done by cheating (placing a prepared box in the 1st cache, taking it with you, logging. exchanging it with the 2nd, ...), by air pollution (car) and trespassing laws plus risking injuries (open sliding door & no seatbelt). So it was retracted, and put out again with 400 caches in 24 hrs (Challenge: Powercachen).

 

Same story from another cacher in Austria, 3 Types of Caches in all 9 counties of Austria within 48 hrs. Also just reachable by car or motorbike, a log speaks of +1800 kilometers, another log of just 1077 kms (Challenge: "Österreich Rundfahrt" 3x9x48).

 

In my opinion, this has not much to do with enjoying being outdoors.

When I started geocaching in February 2004 (with a lot of free weekends, due to my marriage being in shreds) almost all geocaches in ans around my beloved hometown Vienna where multistage caches. Vienna is surrounded by mellow hills on three sides, and all of them where peppered with great caches, giving me a lot of new places to visit and new impressions to get. The overall amount of caches within the city limits Vienna was 103, published between 2000 and 2004. And most of them are still worth to remember.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...