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

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

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

 

But that's the problem - throwdowns aren't policeable (by anyone other than the CO who knows and makes the decisions re their cache). So it becomes a grassroots thing. And since it's up to the CO, then throwdowns can be ok if they allow it.

If the "throwdown" (that is, an immediate container replacement, whether the CO allows it or not) can be a legitimate action, then the "throwdown" (as a general action itself) can't be considered "cheating".

 

If the CO determines there was a throwdown and finds that the finder didn't find the actual cache that was indeed there, the CO reserves the right to delete the log; so in that case, cheating is dealt with - the player didn't find the cache. In that case, the throwdown wasn't the cheating - the cheating was logging a find when the cache wasn't found. That's cheating, because that is what geocaching (for physical containers) comprises. The "throwdown" itself is a neutral action, as it can be allowed or disallowed by the CO.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

 

 

https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=427

 

A throwdown is when a geocacher places a new geocache container when the previous geocache is missing or cannot be found. Throwdowns are placed so the geocacher can log a find on a geocache that they couldn't find and suspect is missing. Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find.

 

Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container. If subsequent find logs indicate multiple or inconsistent containers, it can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place. In these cases, it is reasonable for the geocache owner to allow finds of the throwdown to be logged online as found because the finder generally cannot determine whether they found a throwdown instead of the original container. The original geocacher who placed the throwdown does not have a strong claim to log the geocache online as found.

 

My bold in both cases.

 

I'd say that's about as strong a statement as GS are likely to make about their view on the practice of placing throwdowns in that they consider it as a means of the placer enabling themselves in posting a Found log which they don't have a strong claim to.

 

It does seem though, to me at least, a rather long-winded way of classifying a process which can be summarised in a single word.

 

YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post

Thx! Exactly. So my point about the "cheating" actually being about logging a find on a cache that was not found I think is the key point.

 

"Geocaches should never be replaced without the permission of the geocache owner as this frequently leads to multiple containers at the location and disputes about whether you found the "real" container and are entitled to log a find. Our policy is that geocache owners are responsible for maintenance, so as soon as they are aware of throwdowns, the physical geocache should be checked and if it is still there, the throwdown geocache should be removed. If this is not done, there will be no way for geocachers to be sure they are finding the correct geocache container."

 

...followed up with the decision of whether to remove the find log or not.

 

Anyway, this thread isn't about cheating :) Just wanting to raise the point about using the term in a better context than merely practices we don't like.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

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

"The Jester" was talking about Groundspeak's definition of an online "find," not about signing a challenge cache's physical log. So, yes, there is a "rule" that you must qualify for the challenge before you can log an online "Found it:"

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing.

Groundspeak's filtering system allows you to filter out all your "found" caches, based on Groundspeak's definition of a "find," just like it is supposed to.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway, this thread isn't about cheating :) Just wanting to raise the point about using the term in a better context than merely practices we don't like.

 

No - it isn't - and nor did I see that word mentioned in the post you quoted when you decided to include the subject in the thread - so why you felt compelled to is a bit of a mystery...

Share this post


Link to post

"The Jester" was talking about Groundspeak's definition of an online "find," not about signing a challenge cache's physical log. So, yes, there is a "rule" that you must qualify for the challenge before you can log an online "Found it:"

I got that he was talking about the instances where he physically finds and signs a challenge cache logbook, but has no way of removing that particular cache, which he has physically found, from queries and searches, because he no longer needs to physically find it; without putting it onto the ignore list even though it's not a cache he wants to completely ignore. eg, if I do a powertrail of challenge caches most of which I don't qualify for, I cannot filter them out of future searches until I qualify for each and log the finds online. That's the situation we were addressing. And of course there are people who say that it's your problem if you find before you qualify, but that's a subjective one; the request is to provide a way that one can distinguish that in some way.

 

Personally, it's not as much an issue to me, as my own resolution I described (lists and geosphere highlights and groups, also the ability to filter based on field note / personal note existence, which is hugely beneficial!)

 

I completely agree that you can't log an online Found It log until you both sign the logsheet and qualify for the challenge. I don't think anyone's debating that :P (except people who advocate the find-it-sign-it-log-it-online non-ALR process)

 

Anyway, this thread isn't about cheating :) Just wanting to raise the point about using the term in a better context than merely practices we don't like.

 

No - it isn't - and nor did I see that word mentioned in the post you quoted when you decided to include the subject in the thread - so why you felt compelled to is a bit of a mystery...

... *sigh* that's why I added the separator and "Side note", to distinguish it as a separate thought.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Anyway, this thread isn't about cheating :) Just wanting to raise the point about using the term in a better context than merely practices we don't like.

 

No - it isn't - and nor did I see that word mentioned in the post you quoted when you decided to include the subject in the thread - so why you felt compelled to is a bit of a mystery...

... *sigh* that's why I added the separator and "Side note", to distinguish it as a separate thought.

 

Yes - I sighed too when you tabled your personal agenda point and then retracted it as not part of the thread when someone responded to it.

 

But I'll get over it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Yes - I sighed too when you tabled your personal agenda point and then retracted it as not part of the thread when someone responded to it.

 

But I'll get over it :rolleyes:

Oh my word... I expressed a comment to attempt to help keep the thread away from angst. My bad.

Moving on...

Share this post


Link to post

"The Jester" was talking about Groundspeak's definition of an online "find," not about signing a challenge cache's physical log. So, yes, there is a "rule" that you must qualify for the challenge before you can log an online "Found it:"

I got that he was talking about the instances where he physically finds and signs a challenge cache logbook, but has no way of removing that particular cache, which he has physically found, from queries and searches, because he no longer needs to physically find it; without putting it onto the ignore list even though it's not a cache he wants to completely ignore. eg, if I do a powertrail of challenge caches most of which I don't qualify for, I cannot filter them out of future searches until I qualify for each and log the finds online. That's the situation we were addressing.

The situation we are addressing is L0ne.R's contention that: "Filtering system is no longer designed to do what it's supposed to do - filter out caches you've found." Both I and "The Jester" pointed out that Groundspeak's filtering system does exactly what it is supposed to do: filter out "found" caches based on Groundspeak's definition of "found." It never was designed to filter out partially-found caches like partially completed multi-caches or partially completed challenge caches.

 

And of course there are people who say that it's your problem if you find before you qualify, but that's a subjective one; the request is to provide a way that one can distinguish that in some way.

People can request that there be some way to distinguish partially completed challenge caches, but the absence of such a feature doesn't mean challenge caches have negatively impacted the game, as L0ne.R asserts.

 

Personally, it's not as much an issue to me, as my own resolution I described (lists and geosphere highlights and groups, also the ability to filter based on field note / personal note existence, which is hugely beneficial!)

It's not much of an issue with me, either. I simply solve it by using the Ignore List in combination with a "Challenges Signed But Not Yet Completed" bookmarks list. Personally, I'd prefer that Groundspeak devote its limited resources towards solving issues for which there aren't already simple solutions.

Share this post


Link to post

I got that he was talking about the instances where he physically finds and signs a challenge cache logbook, but has no way of removing that particular cache, which he has physically found, from queries and searches, because he no longer needs to physically find it; without putting it onto the ignore list even though it's not a cache he wants to completely ignore. eg, if I do a powertrail of challenge caches most of which I don't qualify for, I cannot filter them out of future searches until I qualify for each and log the finds online. That's the situation we were addressing.

The situation we are addressing is L0ne.R's contention that: "Filtering system is no longer designed to do what it's supposed to do - filter out caches you've found." Both I and "The Jester" pointed out that Groundspeak's filtering system does exactly what it is supposed to do: filter out "found" caches based on Groundspeak's definition of "found." It never was designed to filter out partially-found caches like partially completed multi-caches or partially completed challenge caches.

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

 

The argument here goes back to the issue of find-it-sign-it-log-it-online. Yes, you can say the system does what it's supposed to do (by the online Found It log definition), but the argument is that challenge cache exception now implies that finding a cache is not the same as finding it online - so in addressing the situation, not the definitions, we're considering what the actual practical issue is: Locating a physical container, but being unable to distinguish that step as it pertains to challenge caches related to non-challenge caches.

Yes, of course the filtering system does what it's still supposed to do, distinguish caches that do not have a Found It log from caches that do. So the exception is the challenge cache, because now you can "find without finding" them. That is what we were addressing.

 

People can request that there be some way to distinguish partially completed challenge caches, but the absence of such a feature doesn't mean challenge caches have negatively impacted the game, as L0ne.R asserts.

I don't disagree in the slightest, and didn't.

 

It's not much of an issue with me, either. I simply solve it by using the Ignore List in combination with a "Challenges Signed But Not Yet Completed" bookmarks list. Personally, I'd prefer that Groundspeak devote its limited resources towards solving issues for which there aren't already simple solutions.

Again, I don't disagree. But to me that's not a reason to not make (or shut down) suggestions, and attempt to help people through their issues.

Share this post


Link to post

I got that he was talking about the instances where he physically finds and signs a challenge cache logbook, but has no way of removing that particular cache, which he has physically found, from queries and searches, because he no longer needs to physically find it; without putting it onto the ignore list even though it's not a cache he wants to completely ignore. eg, if I do a powertrail of challenge caches most of which I don't qualify for, I cannot filter them out of future searches until I qualify for each and log the finds online. That's the situation we were addressing.

The situation we are addressing is L0ne.R's contention that: "Filtering system is no longer designed to do what it's supposed to do - filter out caches you've found." Both I and "The Jester" pointed out that Groundspeak's filtering system does exactly what it is supposed to do: filter out "found" caches based on Groundspeak's definition of "found." It never was designed to filter out partially-found caches like partially completed multi-caches or partially completed challenge caches.

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

 

The argument here goes back to the issue of find-it-sign-it-log-it-online. Yes, you can say the system does what it's supposed to do (by the online Found It log definition), but the argument is that challenge cache exception now implies that finding a cache is not the same as finding it online - so in addressing the situation, not the definitions, we're considering what the actual practical issue is: Locating a physical container, but being unable to distinguish that step as it pertains to challenge caches related to non-challenge caches.

Yes, of course the filtering system does what it's still supposed to do, distinguish caches that do not have a Found It log from caches that do. So the exception is the challenge cache, because now you can "find without finding" them. That is what we were addressing.

No, that is what you are addressing. L0ne.R contends challenge caches have a negative impact on geocaching because Groundspeak's filtering system no longer does what it is supposed to do - filter out caches you've found. "The Jester" and I explained why that assertion is false. The filtering system does filter out caches that one has found (as Groundspeak defines "found"), just as it always has. Ergo, challenge caches haven't negatively impacted geocaching for the reason she asserts.

 

L0ne.R is not arguing that it would be nice if Groundspeak added some method that allows her to distinguish her partially found challenge caches. She claims she has "found" those challenge caches by her own definition and Groundspeak's filtering system should match her personal definition of "find."

Share this post


Link to post

No, that is what you are addressing. L0ne.R contends challenge caches have a negative impact on geocaching because Groundspeak's filtering system no longer does what it is supposed to do - filter out caches you've found. "The Jester" and I explained why that assertion is false. The filtering system does filter out caches that one has found (as Groundspeak defines "found"), just as it always has. Ergo, challenge caches haven't negatively impacted geocaching for the reason she asserts.

I agreed.

 

L0ne.R is not arguing that it would be nice if Groundspeak added some method that allows her to distinguish her partially found challenge caches. She claims she has "found" those challenge caches by her own definition and Groundspeak's filtering system should match her personal definition of "find."

Ok, so? I was not the only one addressing Lone.R on this matter. I was not advocating the GS change their definition of a find. I was freaking addressing the idea that filtering can potentially allow for this stage. I did not disagree with anything you just said about definitions or current ways around the perceived limitations.

It's like you're just trying to find something to argue about. This is why people come to avoid the forums. WE AGREE, and yet there's an argument over something. :blink:

 

So that I'm clear, I'll requote my initial response, which I still stand by:

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

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

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

I'll make one edit, and scratch out "or expect" so there's no room for confusion and I don't imply the wrong thing.

You chose to focus on the definition of "find".

I chose to skip the definition and focus on the practical and legitimate aspect of locating physical caches (in this case challenge caches one may be working towards qualification), yet not being able to filter them out of unfound cache lists in a natural way that does not make use of the "Ignore" feature, since one may not want to "ignore" such caches in the way they may want to "ignore" other caches.

It's not a big deal for me because I have other methods of accomplishing this; but I can see how it is an issue that can be raised for improvement.

 

Again, yes, completely agreed, the existing system does exactly what it was designed to do, and expected if one understands what a "Find log" is and means.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

No, that is what you are addressing. L0ne.R contends challenge caches have a negative impact on geocaching because Groundspeak's filtering system no longer does what it is supposed to do - filter out caches you've found. "The Jester" and I explained why that assertion is false. The filtering system does filter out caches that one has found (as Groundspeak defines "found"), just as it always has. Ergo, challenge caches haven't negatively impacted geocaching for the reason she asserts.

I agreed.

 

L0ne.R is not arguing that it would be nice if Groundspeak added some method that allows her to distinguish her partially found challenge caches. She claims she has "found" those challenge caches by her own definition and Groundspeak's filtering system should match her personal definition of "find."

Ok, so? I was not the only one addressing Lone.R on this matter. I was not advocating the GS change their definition of a find. I was freaking addressing the idea that filtering can potentially allow for this stage. I did not disagree with anything you just said about definitions or current ways around the perceived limitations.

It's like you're just trying to find something to argue about. This is why people come to avoid the forums. WE AGREE, and yet there's an argument over something. :blink:

The problem is that you want to discuss something that isn't being discussed in this part of the thread. L0ne.R isn't advocating for a method that lets her organize her partially found challenge caches. She's arguing that she has "found" those challenge caches and those challenge caches have broken the filter system since it doesn't match her definition of a "found" challenge cache.

 

When I addressed L0ne.R's assertion, I ignored your comments because they weren't relevant to the issue L0ne.R was discussing. The Jester did the same thing, perhaps for the same reason. But you have your own agenda, so you hijacked The Jester's discussion and tried to reinsert your irrelevant (to this part of the discussion) point (then added another irrelevant side comment about throwdowns). This might be helpful to your personal agenda, but it's not helpful to this part of the discussion (about what aspects of challenge caches might or might not negatively impact geocaching).

 

I'm not saying your point is irrelevant to challenge caches. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the issue being discussed by L0ne.R, The Jester, and me.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is that you want to discuss something that isn't being discussed in this part of the thread. L0ne.R isn't advocating for a method that lets her organize her partially found challenge caches. She's arguing that she has "found" those challenge caches and those challenge caches have broken the filter system since it doesn't match her definition of a "found" challenge cache.

And you're just saying "you're wrong". This is a discussion thread. Talking about the issue is allowed, is it not? And do not say I was not talking about the issue, I just explained why it was relevant.

 

When I addressed L0ne.R's assertion, I ignored your comments because they weren't relevant to the issue L0ne.R was discussing.

dry.gif

 

The Jester did the same thing, perhaps for the same reason. But you have your own agenda, so you hijacked The Jester's discussion and tried to reinsert your irrelevant (to this part of the discussion) point (then added another irrelevant side comment about throwdowns). This might be helpful to your personal agenda, but it's not helpful to this part of the discussion (about what aspects of challenge caches might or might not negatively impact geocaching).

...c'mon! The second part of that comment, about throwing around that "cheating" label for something one merely disagrees with, was not related to my response to Jester's, and I made extra effort to make sure of that. You seem to want it to be. Move along.

 

I'm not saying your point is irrelevant to challenge caches. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the issue being discussed by L0ne.R, The Jester, and me.

And cezanne, whom you did not "ignore", but merely said "they can use the Ignore feature". My responses were related that too.

 

Now this meta stuff is, again, ridiculous. I'm done with arguing over arguing. Reply again if you want, whatever. My points have not changed.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

In the context of this thread, GS has essentially presented a resolution that the implementation of Challenge caches should be changed. Lone.R presented several reasons why it should be changed. Rather than address those reasons with logic/evidence we get "don't listen to the hater" suggesting that Lone.R only supports a resolution purely based on emotional reasons, and ignores the (albeit weak) evidence presented.

Lone.R presented reasons why she feels challenges have a negative impact on geocaching. Her statements are not evidence, despite being presented by her as facts. One of her points that can actually be backed up by evidence (most challenges require a lot of cache finds in a single day) was refuted with actual data. Why is it that her 'beliefs' are correct, yet everyone else with a differing opinion is wrong? I'm not seeing where there have been any personal attacks against Lone.R as a person. Not agreeing with someone is very different from not 'liking' them. On the contrary, there have been at least two personal attacks against someone that disagreed with Lone.R.

 

Multiple cachers have addressed Lone.R's statements point-by-point. Not sure why their statements are considered "weak". When did Lone.R's statements become the gold standard?

 

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

Don't want to divert this thread to a discussion of PT's, but just want to note that this is another opinion presented as 'fact' by someone that believes both PT's and CC's are bad for the hobby. While I think 'hater' is strong term, it has been made clear by her multiple times that she 'does not like' challenge caches (or PT's) and has several reasons why. However, other cachers are allowed to 'like' challenge caches and to have beliefs about why they are good (or at least, not bad) for the hobby. Trying to shut down those with opposing beliefs is, at the least, impolite.

 

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

 

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

I'm assuming you meant to include "not" (bolded above) in your original post? If so, then yes -- let's discuss how challenge caches affect the hobby. But how do we do that without including individual likes/dislikes? Don't the likes/dislikes of cachers affect the hobby as a whole? Multiple cachers have expressed how challenge caches have made geocaching more interesting for them, how CC's have kept them interested in geocaching when they'd otherwise get bored with the standard caches, how CC's have motivated them to strive for specific goals and the accomplishment they feel when they reach those goals, how they've enjoyed remembering their prior caching history as they parse through their finds to see if they qualify for certain CC's, etc. I think most of these thoughts are in the other Challenge Cache threads, particularly the locked one in User Insights. Then there are the opposing views, most of which mirror Lone.R's list. Most of the things posted in the forum have been about liking/disliking, and not about good/bad for the hobby.

 

The only thing about CC's that doesn't involve like/dislike is the publication process and how some cachers have trouble understanding the requirements for a particular challenge. When CanadianRockies started a thread to address that specific issue (review/appeals), then people who wanted to see CC's return were labeled as "challenge lovers" that were against any changes - even though the thread was about how to change things. Unfortunately, most of these CC-related threads seem to devolve into 'likers' vs 'dislikers' debates. Maybe CR's other thread is a better place to revive the discussion about how cachers think the system could be changed to make it less of a resource-drain on GS and their volunteers.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The ignore list is not a good solution when someone enjoys finding (physical) cache containers and reading the logs of others.

All approaches that exist are compromises in one or the other regard (as many things in life).

Share this post


Link to post

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

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

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

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

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

The ignore list is not a good solution when someone enjoys finding (physical) cache containers and reading the logs of others.

All approaches that exist are compromises in one or the other regard (as many things in life).

The Ignore List is a reasonable solution to the problem you described (i.e., "a method to filter for caches that she still could go to on gc.com").

 

If L0ne.R also wants to read the logs of some of these challenge caches, then a reasonable solution would be to add the challenge cache containers she has signed to her Ignore List and add the ones she wants to read logs for to a "Challenge Caches I Want To Read Logs For" bookmarks list. Yes, it's a compromise, but it's very simple to do.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is that you want to discuss something that isn't being discussed in this part of the thread. L0ne.R isn't advocating for a method that lets her organize her partially found challenge caches. She's arguing that she has "found" those challenge caches and those challenge caches have broken the filter system since it doesn't match her definition of a "found" challenge cache.

And you're just saying "you're wrong". This is a discussion thread. Talking about the issue is allowed, is it not? And do not say I was not talking about the issue, I just explained why it was relevant.

I not only told L0ne.R (essentially) "you're wrong;" I also explained why I believed she was wrong, directly addressing the assertion she made. Yes, talking about he issue is allowed, which is what L0ne.R, The Jester, and I were doing. You're also allowed to try to side-track the issue and talk about your own irrelevant issues (re-read my earlier posts), but that isn't helpful to the current discussion.

 

I'm not saying your point is irrelevant to challenge caches. I'm saying it's irrelevant to the issue being discussed by L0ne.R, The Jester, and me.

And cezanne, whom you did not "ignore", but merely said "they can use the Ignore feature". My responses were related that too.

I ignored your comment because it was simply irrelevant. I responded to cezanne's comment because it was misleading, and I felt a short reply could help some people who might be misled.

Share this post


Link to post
...

Not biting. Moving along...

 

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

The ignore list is not a good solution when someone enjoys finding (physical) cache containers and reading the logs of others.

All approaches that exist are compromises in one or the other regard (as many things in life).

Yep. There's no perfect solution. In this case, ignore is one option, using bookmark lists is another option, 3rd party apps in another option...

It's like in tech support, if someone wants to do something that's not technically possible, suggesting how it can be done using existing features as a workaround is one way to respond; the other is to do that and take the user's problem into consideration and determine if there's a way to make that easier for them, and whether it's feasible. Some people only want to do the former, some want to also do the latter.

 

Per the survey, I think it would be great to be able to filter, in some way, including or excluding challenge caches; and if/when that's possible, to filter in some way including or excluding challenge caches based on qualification.

Share this post


Link to post

Per the survey, I think it would be great to be able to filter, in some way, including or excluding challenge caches; and if/when that's possible, to filter in some way including or excluding challenge caches based on qualification.

How can the system know what caches you have found (personal definition) that aren't listed as finds on the system? The only way I can see that would be possible, with the current GC system, is if they add the ability to filter against personal cache notes. Then you could put a word/phrase in there that could be filtered in or out.

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

As much as I think it would be 'cool' to have automatic challenge checkers, I don't think it's likely to happen. If the purpose of the moratorium is to reduce workload for GS and its volunteers, then having GS devs work on building challenge checkers doesn't seem to make sense. Even if challenges end up being reduced to generalized ones that are easy to code for (ie, find caches in 2 different states in the same day), then it's likely that such a checker is already built by the community (ie, Project GC).

 

Personally, I'm against the requirement of accompanying challenge checkers for all challenges. First, it would prohibit non-coding cachers from creating challenge caches. Second, it would restrict the types of challenges that could be created. For example, a relatively easy challenge of "find 10 caches with animals in the cache name" would be difficult to code for and could result in controversy if the CO forgets to include some animal in their checker, and a cacher finds a cache with that animal in its name. Add in the variation of animal names across different languages and dialects, and that checker would need to be quite complex.

 

Some might think that requiring a challenge checker would result in simpler, more straightforward challenges. I'm not sure that would be correct. A code-savvy CO could still create a very difficult challenge. It's much easier to code for "find 10 caches where the cache name starts with the same letter as the cache owner" than it is to code for "find 10 caches that have an animal in their name".

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post

Fair comments noncentric. I guess I'm just lazy and sometimes can't be bothered seeing whether I've qualified for some of them. My bad!

Edited by Titus Adduxas

Share this post


Link to post

Fair comments noncentric. I guess I'm just lazy and sometimes can't be bothered seeing whether I've qualified for some of them. My bad!

 

Indeed, good points noncentric. Made me think of a challenge cache I saw where you have to find caches spelling out your name - 2499 finds and I still don't have an X!

 

I'd be happy, both as a finder and a CO, with a system whereby the actual cache coords are not at the icon, and you can only get them by sending your qualification credentials in advance to the CO who sends you coords and maybe a hint. The CO can give the list a cursory glance or go through it with a fine tooth-comb, up to them. Would that work? I can think of one scenario (12 letterboxes to qualify and I got the 12th en route to the challenge) where it wouldn't. Actually even there I would send the CO my list of 11 and details of the plan for the 12th. Next pitfall - I message them the day before my trip and they're offline for the week... dadgum, no such thing as a perfect system is there?

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be happy, both as a finder and a CO, with a system whereby the actual cache coords are not at the icon, and you can only get them by sending your qualification credentials in advance to the CO who sends you coords and maybe a hint.

 

Those details would soon be handed out like sweets anyway so there'd be little point handing them out piecemeal to those who qualify.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be happy, both as a finder and a CO, with a system whereby the actual cache coords are not at the icon, and you can only get them by sending your qualification credentials in advance to the CO who sends you coords and maybe a hint.

 

How is this for an idea? Separate icon for a challenge (bogus coords), send credentials to the CO, get a calculated unique code to unlock the real coordinates + use this code for your online log.

That way it's no use to share coordinates as the unique code is for your name only and others can't go find/log if they don't have their own code.

 

(I know, not practical but it would take away some of the issues).

Share this post


Link to post

How is this for an idea? Separate icon for a challenge (bogus coords), send credentials to the CO, get a calculated unique code to unlock the real coordinates + use this code for your online log.

That way it's no use to share coordinates as the unique code is for your name only and others can't go find/log if they don't have their own code.

 

(I know, not practical but it would take away some of the issues).

 

I doubt that would fly.

 

With EarthCaches it used to be that you had to wait for an OK from the CO that your logging task responses were acceptable before you could log the find.

 

GS changed things around so that finders were allowed to log the EC as soon as they had submitted their responses because, I think, too many CO's weren't responding in a timely manner.

 

Based on this I doubt GS would see applying the reverse change to challenge caches as a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post

In the context of this thread, GS has essentially presented a resolution that the implementation of Challenge caches should be changed. Lone.R presented several reasons why it should be changed. Rather than address those reasons with logic/evidence we get "don't listen to the hater" suggesting that Lone.R only supports a resolution purely based on emotional reasons, and ignores the (albeit weak) evidence presented.

Lone.R presented reasons why she feels challenges have a negative impact on geocaching. Her statements are not evidence, despite being presented by her as facts. One of her points that can actually be backed up by evidence (most challenges require a lot of cache finds in a single day) was refuted with actual data. Why is it that her 'beliefs' are correct, yet everyone else with a differing opinion is wrong? I'm not seeing where there have been any personal attacks against Lone.R as a person. Not agreeing with someone is very different from not 'liking' them. On the contrary, there have been at least two personal attacks against someone that disagreed with Lone.R.

 

Multiple cachers have addressed Lone.R's statements point-by-point. Not sure why their statements are considered "weak". When did Lone.R's statements become the gold standard?

 

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

Don't want to divert this thread to a discussion of PT's, but just want to note that this is another opinion presented as 'fact' by someone that believes both PT's and CC's are bad for the hobby. While I think 'hater' is strong term, it has been made clear by her multiple times that she 'does not like' challenge caches (or PT's) and has several reasons why. However, other cachers are allowed to 'like' challenge caches and to have beliefs about why they are good (or at least, not bad) for the hobby. Trying to shut down those with opposing beliefs is, at the least, impolite.

 

 

Those people who are focussing on the word "most" seem to be using it to dangle the keys, to distract from the overall negative effects that CCs have on the game.

 

I'm happy that Groundspeak is addressing some of those issues and may hopefully come up with something that is more inclusive, doesn't exalt the numbers game, and has a lower impact on reviewers.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Per the survey, I think it would be great to be able to filter, in some way, including or excluding challenge caches; and if/when that's possible, to filter in some way including or excluding challenge caches based on qualification.

How can the system know what caches you have found (personal definition) that aren't listed as finds on the system? The only way I can see that would be possible, with the current GC system, is if they add the ability to filter against personal cache notes. Then you could put a word/phrase in there that could be filtered in or out.

I like to try to use the term 'located', precisely for that reason of clearing up confusion. Really, I use that in my challenge cache notes as well. (and I'll start using it more in here)

As for solution, with the current system, sure they could allow a filter based on personal notes, but that's as effective as searching for cache types - it would return both challenge caches and non-. Per the survey, one suggestion was decoupling the Find [Log] from challenge qualification (which also addresses numerous other issues). I don't want another wrist-slap so I won't point out an existing proposal that addresses all these points again. :ph34r:

 

I'd be happy, both as a finder and a CO, with a system whereby the actual cache coords are not at the icon, and you can only get them by sending your qualification credentials in advance to the CO who sends you coords and maybe a hint. The CO can give the list a cursory glance or go through it with a fine tooth-comb, up to them. Would that work? I can think of one scenario (12 letterboxes to qualify and I got the 12th en route to the challenge) where it wouldn't. Actually even there I would send the CO my list of 11 and details of the plan for the 12th. Next pitfall - I message them the day before my trip and they're offline for the week... dadgum, no such thing as a perfect system is there?

That's interesting. In a sense, that I think would remove the issue of locating-before-qualifying, since if the CO has given you coordinates, it's effective an all clear to log it Found. But Team Microdot makes the good point, like puzzle caches those coordinates would be passed alnog willy nilly; at least, there's no guarantee that only those who qualify and have contacted the CO will know where to find the cache. Alternatively, they could give the CO the right to delete logs of people who have not contacted.

But then, it may also generate appeals about inactive/nonresponsive COs... at least with Earthcaches and Virtuals you can send the info and log even if the CO is gone. If cachers have to wait for coordinates, it could get messy.

Share this post


Link to post

Those people who are focussing on the word "most" seem to be using it to dangle the keys, to distract from the overall negative effects that CCs have on the game.

 

People focus on "most" because it was used to describe "a fraction" or "some". Looking at facts your "most" were hardly 10-15%. If it snows 2 months every year you can't claim it snows "most" of the time :lol:

As much as you dislike (hate?) CC's 'most" (no, not really).. many like them and have good arguments in favor of them.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

Share this post


Link to post

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

As I understand your argument, you believe "most" challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day. And many of these power cachers will copy and paste their logs for all the caches they find that day, including quality caches.

 

First, you've done nothing to show that a significant portion of (and certainly not "most") challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day. Based on my own experience (and the experiences of several others), such caches almost certainly make up a small minority of challenge caches.

 

Second, even if challenge caches do cause a significant number of people to find more caches in a day and write more cookie-cutter logs, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Personally, while I enjoy individualized logs more than copy-and-paste logs, I still get pleasure from any kind of log. I'm glad people enjoy finding my caches, even if they don't write logs specifically about those experiences. If challenge caches cause more people to find more caches and write more logs (of any sort), that could well be a positive impact that results from challenge caches rather than a negative one.

 

We own several puzzle-oriented challenge caches. From the logs I receive from those and from comments made to me at events, I know our challenges have encouraged people to try more puzzle caches, which they were surprised they enjoyed. These challenges have opened a whole new dimension of geocaching for them, and puzzle cache owners now receive more logs than they would have if challenge caches did not exist. So, challenge caches have a positive impact on puzzle cache owners.

 

Other challenge caches encourage people to try more multi-caches, letterbox caches, EarthCaches, etc. And that's a good thing, too. Other challenge caches encourage people to hike up mountains, visit foreign countries, get outside in the winter, move travel bugs, take and share photographs, visit parks, and attend events. And those are good things, too. If challenge caches get people to find more caches, they will write more logs and give more pleasure to more cache owners.

 

There even are challenge caches (I own one of them) that encourage people to find highly favorited caches. Many of those favorited caches are quality caches. And I suspect many of the people doing these types of challenge caches write individualized logs when they find those quality caches. So, challenge caches also have positive impacts on quality cache owners.

 

Third, when power cachers want to rake up big numbers in a single day, they often will do so by visiting power trails rather than large numbers of quality caches. I suspect many power trail cache owners couldn't care less if they receive lots of copy-and-paste logs.

 

Fourth, once a power cacher has raked up a large number of caches in a single day, that day will qualify them for numerous "find X number of caches in a day" type challenge caches. They don't have to find more large numbers of caches on other days to qualify for each new "find X number of caches in a day" challenge. Of course, many power cachers will continue to power cache, but that's not because of challenge caches.

 

Finally, I suspect many power cachers would power cache even if there were no challenge caches. It's something they enjoy doing. Being able to log a challenge cache because of that is just icing on the cake.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly. The thing is, every aspect of the game has [objective] benefits, and any aspect of the game taken to extremes can have [objectively] problematic effects (presumably they wouldn't adopt any feature that generally has negative effects). To say any one aspect of the game is universally "a problem" is erroneous. Some aspects can certainly allow for more more positive or negative effects, but that doesn't make it bad for the game in and of itself. So the question is, is that aspect of the game worth having around? That's something only Groundspeak has to decide as the game (per geocaching.com) is their baby. Debating that highly subjective question in the forum seems fruitless :P (but does at least give a sense to any GS readers what the forum's opinions are, hopefully well-reasoned any direction). So it'll be very enlightening to find out the results of this Challenge Caching survey.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

So the question is, is that aspect of the game worth having around? That's something only Groundspeak has to decide as the game (per geocaching.com) is their baby. Debating that highly subjective question in the forum seems fruitless :P

 

Does that mean that you think that all the people taking part in these discussions are completely wasting their time? I confess I sometimes I do wonder if my time would be better spent doing something more useful.

 

Either way - I disagree that only Groundspeak has to decide anything. Cachers hide and maintain caches for other cachers to find. Cachers find caches. Groundspeak on the other hand provides a website which can be used as a hub for geocaching and that site is their baby - but geoaching itself isn't. Cachers can decide what they want to do at any point in time and change their mind any time they like - regardless of how Groundspeak chooses to operate its services. Ultimately geocachers will only do what they enjoy doing and if the forums provide a means for Groundspeak to maintain awareness of enjoyment levels and directions in the game their website supports then I'd say that debating any question here - highly subjective or otherwise - is far from fruitless. At least I do hope that's the case.

Share this post


Link to post

Fair comments noncentric. I guess I'm just lazy and sometimes can't be bothered seeing whether I've qualified for some of them. My bad!

I understand the feeling. I've seen some challenge caches where I was pretty sure I'd qualify, but the thought of checking my caches seemed daunting. That motivated me to finally learn about 3rd party programs (API partners) that could help me get my finds into a more usable format, like Excel. I also learned more about Project-GC and found that there are some cool checkers out there. I haven't gotten around to learning how to create checkers. I know some coding, but not the language that the checkers are built with.

 

Maybe GS could partner with PGC to host classes, maybe online, that provides instruction in how to build checkers. The class might be too difficult for people that don't already know some coding, but it might help people that know other coding languages to become capable of creating checkers. An increased pool of PGC checker-builders might relieve the frustration some cachers feel about challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

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

As I understand your argument, you believe "most" challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day.

<snip>

 

Nice post, thanks some reasoned rebuttal. I must say I agree 100% with you, I always felt the sky was not falling.

Share this post


Link to post

So the question is, is that aspect of the game worth having around? That's something only Groundspeak has to decide as the game (per geocaching.com) is their baby. Debating that highly subjective question in the forum seems fruitless :P

Does that mean that you think that all the people taking part in these discussions are completely wasting their time? I confess I sometimes I do wonder if my time would be better spent doing something more useful.

As do I. So why do we keep coming back? :P (others have no problem staying away, lol)

 

Either way - I disagree that only Groundspeak has to decide anything. Cachers hide and maintain caches for other cachers to find. Cachers find caches. Groundspeak on the other hand provides a website which can be used as a hub for geocaching and that site is their baby - but geoaching itself isn't.

Yes, and I occasionally specifically make contextual reference to the website geocaching.com for clarity (as I did above, see bold), since one may not presume that by geocaching we are talking about the primary and most significant, if not now the only, online provider of geocache listings... But all of this discussion here has been in relation to geocaching practices as it pertains to gc.com (how the system can be improved), so I don't think it was far fetched to presume that's our context. So yes, that's something only Groundspeak has to decide as the game (per geocaching.com) is their baby.

Share this post


Link to post

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

As I understand your argument, you believe "most" challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day. And many of these power cachers will copy and paste their logs for all the caches they find that day, including quality caches.

 

As I saw it, her argument was not that most challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day, but some chose to focus on that statement because, A) it's most likely not true, and B) it would be nearly impossible to prove if it was without access to the entire GS database and some text mining algorithms. The argument that *I* think she was trying to present is that there is a strong correlation between challenge caches and the numbers mentality.

 

 

First, you've done nothing to show that a significant portion of (and certainly not "most") challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day. Based on my own experience (and the experiences of several others), such caches almost certainly make up a small minority of challenge caches.

 

In my experience, most, or even a significant portion, of the caches I find do not contain a log sheet that's turned into unsignable pulpy mess. Does that mean that it doesn't matter if the containers we use leak when they're put out into a place in which it rains? A problem can still be a problem even when it doesn't occur with most caches.

 

Second, even if challenge caches do cause a significant number of people to find more caches in a day and write more cookie-cutter lgs, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Personally, while I enjoy individualized logs more than copy-and-paste logs, I still get pleasure from aony kind of log. I'm glad people enjoy finding my caches, even if they don't write logs specifically about those experiences. If challenge caches cause more people to find more caches and write more logs (of any sort), that could well be a positive impact that results from challenge caches rather than a negative one.

 

Once again we get the "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem" argument. Of *course*, the numbers caching mentality isn't necessarily a bad thing...especially for those that are indiscriminate about the types of caches they find (as long as it provides a bump in the find count, it's all good).

 

 

We own several puzzle-oriented challenge caches. From the logs I receive from those and from comments made to me at events, I know our challenges have encouraged people to try more puzzle caches, which they were surprised they enjoyed. These challenges have opened a whole new dimension of geocaching for them, and puzzle cache owners now receive more logs than they would have if challenge caches did not exist. So, challenge caches have a positive impact on puzzle cache owners.

 

Other challenge caches encourage people to try more multi-caches, letterbox caches, EarthCaches, etc. And that's a good thing, too. Other challenge caches encourage people to hike up mountains, visit foreign countries, get outside in the winter, move travel bugs, take and share photographs, visit parks, and attend events. And those are good things, too. If challenge caches get people to find more caches, they will write more logs and give more pleasure to more cache owners.

 

There even are challenge caches (I own one of them) that encourage people to find highly favorited caches. Many of those favorited caches are quality caches. And I suspect many of the people doing these types of challenge caches write individualized logs when they find those quality caches. So, challenge caches also have positive impacts on quality cache owners.

 

 

I don't think anyone is going to deny that there aren't a lot of good challenges and those challenge can provide an incentive to find a variety of cache types. If we're going to discuss what GS should do regarding challenge caches we should weight the good verses the bad. Lone.R and others have pointed out that more logs is not necessarily better. There have been examples posted of logs that were basically nothing more than a statement that the reason they found the cache is because it helped satisfy the criteria for a challenge.

 

Third, when power cachers want to rake up big numbers in a single day, they often will do so by visiting power trails rather than large numbers of quality caches. I suspect many power trail cache owners couldn't care less if they receive lots of copy-and-paste logs.

 

 

I don't think that the intended audience for those that complain about cut-n-paste logs are cache owners that could care less about the quality of logs posted on their caches. Once again, we see the "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem" argument.

 

 

Fourth, once a power cacher has raked up a large number of caches in a single day, that day will qualify them for numerous "find X number of caches in a day" type challenge caches. They don't have to find more large numbers of caches on other days to qualify for each new "find X number of caches in a day" challenge. Of course, many power cachers will continue to power cache, but that's not because of challenge caches.

 

Finally, I suspect many power cachers would power cache even if there were no challenge caches. It's something they enjoy doing. Being able to log a challenge cache because of that is just icing on the cake.

 

And there's the correlation between power caching and challenge caches. Although I don't have access to the entire GS database, thus can't provide a statistical analysis, it's only logical that racking up a large number of caches (not just in a single day) qualifies one to find a lot of challenge caches (as you point out above). Someone with 100 finds would qualify for very few challenge caches, while someone with 10,000 will qualify for many (including a lot based on the same criteria). Maybe for some, being able to log a challenge cache is just icing on the cake, but for others being able to log many challenge caches is an incentive to finding as many caches as possible.

 

One of the observations that I have made after 8 years playing the game is that the types of caches found in different areas is very regional. One does not need to do a statistical analysis of all hides in the GS database to see evidence of this. Merely taking a look at the map in some regions and it becomes apparent where unknown/mult's have become popular and where power trails or large cache series have proliferated. The notion of the power trail more or less started with the Trail of the Gods trail (800 caches, now archived) in Nevada. Look at a map south east of Reno today and you'll see dozens of "small" trails, some with 50-80 caches, and some with 800+. It's not just in areas which have roads conducive to power trails. Look at a map of Seoul, Korea and it's pretty obvious that the power caching mentality is rampant there. By contrast, look at a map of New York State. You don't see lots of squiggly lines with hundreds of caches in a "series". The power trail mentality just hasn't caught on like it has in other places.

 

Look at areas on the map where a large geo-art exists and you'll see other geo-art. Check out the map of El Mirage, California and you'll find many of them. Not soo surprising, the area also seems to be heavily saturated with small power trails, including a "series" of challenge caches. Whether it's a general power caching mentality, geo-art, challenge caches, or puzzle/multi caches there is a lot of copy-cat-ism going one. Maybe some of the problems associated with challenge caches haven't manifested in your area, or in the Amador valley in California, or in Belgium but it just be a matter of time.

 

Share this post


Link to post

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

It's hard to debunk this claim because it's hard to know what exactly you're getting at.

 

Asserting that challenge caches turn find counts into scores seems to imply that they turn geocaching into a competition. Of course there's often a competition to see who will be the first to find a given challenge cache, but that's no different than the FTF races for traditionals, multis, letterboxes, etc. Eliminate challenge caches, and the FTF competitions will continue unabated.

 

I can imagine that a group of geocachers occasionally might have a friendly competition among themselves to see who can complete a particular challenge first. And if that increases their enjoyment of geocaching, then I don't see what the problem is. But most challenge caches simply don't lend themselves to such competitions because everybody usually starts at a different position. If completing a challenge cache requires one to find 25 EarthCaches and I currently have 22 while my brother has 11, then I have a huge head start.

 

Asserting that challenge caches turn find counts into commodities, in the negative sense of that word, seems to suggest that they make geocaching finds interchangeable with one another. I think they do just the opposite. The wide variety of challenges encourage geocachers to appreciate the many wonderful differences there are among geocaches. Puzzle-oriented challenges encourage people to try their hands at puzzle caches. EarthCache-oriented challenges encourage people to learn about geology. CITO-oriented challenges encourage people to help clean up the environment. December-oriented challenge caches might cause people to better appreciate winter-friendly caches.

 

Maybe you meant "commodity" as "something useful or valuable." A challenge cache to find 100 multi-caches might cause some people to treat multi-cache finds as desirable. And I suppose they do, if a geocacher wants to accomplish that challenge. But I think that can be a good thing. Challenge caches can inspire some people to do things they ordinarily wouldn't do, and they'll often enjoy doing it. That's certainly been the case for me. Challenge caches have made me more interested in finding older caches (Jasmer), pushing my mental and physical limits (Fizzy), exploring our vast province (counties), and visiting national parks (four Utah N.P.s). They even got me to try out the power trail experience (fun occasionally...very occasionally). Just when geocaching was starting to get a little monotonous for me, challenge caches revived my interest in this activity, and I'm glad they did.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post
Asserting that challenge caches turn find counts into scores seems to imply that they turn geocaching into a competition. Of course there's often a competition to see who will be the first to find a given challenge cache, but that's no different than the FTF races for traditionals, multis, letterboxes, etc. Eliminate challenge caches, and the FTF competitions will continue unabated.
Yeah, but the "Woo-hoo I'm FTF" logs generally die down after the first day or so.

 

In contrast, the "Woo-hoo I got another smiley for some challenge" logs continue.

 

Asserting that challenge caches turn find counts into commodities, in the negative sense of that word, seems to suggest that geocaching finds are interchangeable with one another.
Yes it does. And so do the "Woo-hoo I got another smiley for some challenge" logs.

Share this post


Link to post

The argument that *I* think she was trying to present is that there is a strong correlation between challenge caches and the numbers mentality.

And how well do *you* think she established that "strong correlation?"

 

First, you've done nothing to show that a significant portion of (and certainly not "most") challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day. Based on my own experience (and the experiences of several others), such caches almost certainly make up a small minority of challenge caches.

In my experience, most, or even a significant portion, of the caches I find do not contain a log sheet that's turned into unsignable pulpy mess. Does that mean that it doesn't matter if the containers we use leak when they're put out into a place in which it rains?

If an insignificant number of containers leak, then I'd say it's an insignificant problem. Few things are perfect in this world. Leaks happen.

 

Second, even if challenge caches do cause a significant number of people to find more caches in a day and write more cookie-cutter logs, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Personally, while I enjoy individualized logs more than copy-and-paste logs, I still get pleasure from any kind of log. I'm glad people enjoy finding my caches, even if they don't write logs specifically about those experiences. If challenge caches cause more people to find more caches and write more logs (of any sort), that could well be a positive impact that results from challenge caches rather than a negative one.

Once again we get the "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem" argument. Of *course*, the numbers caching mentality isn't necessarily a bad thing...especially for those that are indiscriminate about the types of caches they find (as long as it provides a bump in the find count, it's all good).

Just because it's a problem for one person doesn't mean it's a significant problem. I showed that different people have different attitudes about cut-and-paste logs. Personally, I get pleasure from geocachers finding my caches, whether or not they write unique logs describing those experiences. Of course, I prefer unique logs, but I don't feel I'm entitled to receive them, and I don't get upset if they aren't sent to me. I hope most geocachers share my attitude. If they do, then more finders writing more logs and giving pleasure to more cache owners might be a good thing - not a bad thing. But if others feel a sense of entitlement, then maybe that's more of a problem with those individuals rather than with challenge caches.

 

Third, when power cachers want to rake up big numbers in a single day, they often will do so by visiting power trails rather than large numbers of quality caches. I suspect many power trail cache owners couldn't care less if they receive lots of copy-and-paste logs.

I don't think that the intended audience for those that complain about cut-n-paste logs are cache owners that could care less about the quality of logs posted on their caches. Once again, we see the "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem" argument.

No. Nobody has shown it's a problem for a significant number of people. If few cut-n-paste logs appear on caches whose owners feel entitled to unique logs and lots more logs appear on caches whose owners appreciate any logs, then that might be a net positive.

 

Fourth, once a power cacher has raked up a large number of caches in a single day, that day will qualify them for numerous "find X number of caches in a day" type challenge caches. They don't have to find more large numbers of caches on other days to qualify for each new "find X number of caches in a day" challenge. Of course, many power cachers will continue to power cache, but that's not because of challenge caches.

 

Finally, I suspect many power cachers would power cache even if there were no challenge caches. It's something they enjoy doing. Being able to log a challenge cache because of that is just icing on the cake.

And there's the correlation between power caching and challenge caches. Although I don't have access to the entire GS database, thus can't provide a statistical analysis, it's only logical that racking up a large number of caches (not just in a single day) qualifies one to find a lot of challenge caches (as you point out above). Someone with 100 finds would qualify for very few challenge caches, while someone with 10,000 will qualify for many (including a lot based on the same criteria). Maybe for some, being able to log a challenge cache is just icing on the cake, but for others being able to log many challenge caches is an incentive to finding as many caches as possible.

As you well know, correlation isn't causation. People who eat in fancy restaurants are more likely to have high incomes, but that doesn't mean eating in fancy restaurants increases your income. The more caches you find, the more likely you are to qualify for many kinds of challenge caches. But that doesn't mean challenge caches cause people to find lots of caches.

 

When I attend events, people sometimes ask me how many total caches I've found (it's an ice-breaker); nobody has ever asked me how many challenge caches I've found. I know several geocachers who like to rack up big total find numbers; I'm not aware of anyone whose goal is to rack up big challenge cache numbers. Groundspeak prominently displays a geocacher's total find numbers; I don't know of any way to determine a specified person's challenge cache count (other than go through their entire list of individual finds).

 

One of the observations that I have made after 8 years playing the game is that the types of caches found in different areas is very regional. One does not need to do a statistical analysis of all hides in the GS database to see evidence of this. Merely taking a look at the map in some regions and it becomes apparent where unknown/mult's have become popular and where power trails or large cache series have proliferated. The notion of the power trail more or less started with the Trail of the Gods trail (800 caches, now archived) in Nevada. Look at a map south east of Reno today and you'll see dozens of "small" trails, some with 50-80 caches, and some with 800+. It's not just in areas which have roads conducive to power trails. Look at a map of Seoul, Korea and it's pretty obvious that the power caching mentality is rampant there. By contrast, look at a map of New York State. You don't see lots of squiggly lines with hundreds of caches in a "series". The power trail mentality just hasn't caught on like it has in other places.

Yes, Nevada has many thousands of caches along power trails, and it has only 122 challenge caches*. Seoul has all of 11 challenge caches* within 50 kilometres. New York state has 165 challenge caches*, so the region with the fewest power trail caches has the most challenge caches. I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time seeing your big link between power caching and challenge caches.

 

Edit to Add: Of Seoul's 11 challenge caches*, the maximum number of caches any of them require you to find to qualify is 26. So, I have my doubts that any of these challenge caches spurred on the creation of power trails or encouraged power caching in that region. Maybe we should look elsewhere for those motivations.

 

------------

 

* Mystery caches that include "challenge" in their title - a good, but not perfect, indicator of how many challenge caches are in that region.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post
Asserting that challenge caches turn find counts into scores seems to imply that they turn geocaching into a competition. Of course there's often a competition to see who will be the first to find a given challenge cache, but that's no different than the FTF races for traditionals, multis, letterboxes, etc. Eliminate challenge caches, and the FTF competitions will continue unabated.

Yeah, but the "Woo-hoo I'm FTF" logs generally die down after the first day or so.

 

In contrast, the "Woo-hoo I got another smiley for some challenge" logs continue.

We own 27 challenge caches, and I can't remember a single instance of a "Woo-hoo I got another smiley for some challenge" log. I do remember plenty of "Woo-hoo, I really enjoyed completing that challenge. Thanks so much for creating it."-type logs. I'm glad people enjoy these challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

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

As I understand your argument, you believe "most" challenge caches require people to find lots of caches in a single day. And many of these power cachers will copy and paste their logs for all the caches they find that day, including quality caches.

 

The argument that *I* think she was trying to present is that there is a strong correlation between challenge caches and the numbers mentality.

 

 

Yes. Thank you NYPaddleCacher. The correlation between CCs and the numbers mentality. And between the numbers mentality and cache quality.

 

Based on experience with my own cache hides, there is a strong correlation between challenge caches and the numbers mentality. The numbers mentality effects quality cache ownership because quality caches get treated like their worth is as a stepping stone to qualify for a more covetted challenge cache.

Often the covetted challenge cache, at least the CCs I've found, is a bison tube with a moldy scrap of paper. The cache part of geocache is becoming meaningless. The important part is the smiley, the D/T rate, the cache type, the attributes. The emphasis is on numbers and not on cache quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Asserting that challenge caches turn find counts into scores seems to imply that they turn geocaching into a competition. Of course there's often a competition to see who will be the first to find a given challenge cache, but that's no different than the FTF races for traditionals, multis, letterboxes, etc. Eliminate challenge caches, and the FTF competitions will continue unabated.
Yeah, but the "Woo-hoo I'm FTF" logs generally die down after the first day or so.

 

In contrast, the "Woo-hoo I got another smiley for some challenge" logs continue.

 

Asserting that challenge caches turn find counts into commodities, in the negative sense of that word, seems to suggest that geocaching finds are interchangeable with one another.
Yes it does. And so do the "Woo-hoo I got another smiley for some challenge" logs.

Why is "Woo-hoo I got another smiley for a some challenge" log so much worse for the game than "Woo-hoo I got another smiley" log?

 

From what I've seen over the last 14 years in this game, is the number game spawned the 'x in a time frame' challenges, not the challenge spawning the number game. Very early on, there were a number threads about the most caches found in a day. But there weren't any challenge caches then (or none related to high finds per day).

Share this post


Link to post

Based on experience with my own cache hides, there is a strong correlation between challenge caches and the numbers mentality. The numbers mentality effects quality cache ownership because quality caches get treated like their worth is as a stepping stone to qualify for a more covetted challenge cache.

Often the covetted challenge cache, at least the CCs I've found, is a bison tube with a moldy scrap of paper. The cache part of geocache is becoming meaningless. The important part is the smiley, the D/T rate, the cache type, the attributes. The emphasis is on numbers and not on cache quality.

 

This fits closely with my own experience.

 

Many of the challenge caches I've found were a massive anti-climax given the effort that went into qualifying to be allowed to log them.

Share this post


Link to post

Once again we get the "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem" argument. Of *course*, the numbers caching mentality isn't necessarily a bad thing...especially for those that are indiscriminate about the types of caches they find (as long as it provides a bump in the find count, it's all good).

Wow! Agreeing that the number game isn't a bad thing, and sarcastically slamming it in the same sentence. Well done! Lousy argument, but well done.

 

Once again, we see the "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem" argument.

As opposed to the "I see something I don't like, so it's a big problem" argument? I will agree LOne.R has problems with challenge caches, but that doesn't mean those's are system wide problems. You could pretty much take that whole list of 'negitive impacts' and apply them to just about any type of cache that you don't like. So the people that have problem with puzzle caches should try and get them removed from the game? Or SCUBA caches? Or climbing caches? GC.com is a listing service, if people like a type of cache it should be listed (IMO), those who don't like those caches need to learn how to deal with them without spoiling it for those who do like them.

Share this post


Link to post

The notion of the power trail more or less started with the Trail of the Gods trail (800 caches, now archived) in Nevada.

 

If your going to use this in an argument, at least get your facts straight.. Trail of Gods was in California, not Nevada.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Here's a challenge for you: Find one region where your statement is true.

Don't bother with South Korea, which has a total of 11 mystery caches with "challenge" in their names. If you consider six caches to be "a lot," then one of those challenges requires "a lot of cache finds in a single day." That's about 9 percent of the challenge caches in that country.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Many of the challenge caches I've found were a massive anti-climax given the effort that went into qualifying to be allowed to log them.

 

With a slight change in language (substituting qualifying for solving, finding, or other words), this is equally true with many of the puzzles, many of the multis, many of the traditionals, many of the wherigos, and many of the letterboxes. But there are many reasons why that is so, and why it may be true with some challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

<aside>

Seoul's "power trails" are of the hiking variety, so finding a couple dozen in a day would be an athletic accomplishment.

 

Not sure if that illuminates this conversation or not. TLDR.
:lol:

</aside>

Share this post


Link to post

 

Many of the challenge caches I've found were a massive anti-climax given the effort that went into qualifying to be allowed to log them.

 

With a slight change in language (substituting qualifying for solving, finding, or other words), this is equally true with many of the puzzles, many of the multis, many of the traditionals, many of the wherigos, and many of the letterboxes. But there are many reasons why that is so, and why it may be true with some challenges.

 

It's worth remembering of course that I was talking about my experience so I don't really understand where your comment fits in that context :unsure:

 

On that basis, the slight change of language you suggest would make no difference at all - of the caches I've found that I felt were a poor reward for the effort required in order to be allowed to log them, the vast majority of them / the ones with the greatest imbalance were challenge caches.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...