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

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

 

Are you honestly trying to suggest that they haven't? If so, how about presenting a convincing argument for how they have not changed the game instead of name calling and characterizing legitimate arguments for how they *have* changed the game as "crying"?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

 

Are you honestly trying to suggest that they haven't? If so, how about presenting a convincing argument for how they have not changed the game instead of name calling and characterizing legitimate arguments for how they *have* changed the game as "crying"?

 

Thanks for making my point more clear.

 

I never said they haven't changed the game, just that I find it funny to listen to a group of adults act like young children.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

 

Are you honestly trying to suggest that they haven't? If so, how about presenting a convincing argument for how they have not changed the game instead of name calling and characterizing legitimate arguments for how they *have* changed the game as "crying"?

 

Thanks for making my point more clear.

 

I never said they haven't changed the game, just that I find it funny to listen to a group of adults act like young children.

 

Is calling a group of geocachers the "Panty Wad Gang" or the "Poopy diaper Clan" acting like an adult? Presumably, the OP started this thread so that we could discuss, as adults, the merits of a moratorium on challenge challenges. Name calling has no place in that discussion, nor does characterizing those that may have an opposing viewpoint as "crying"?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that they haven't? If so, how about presenting a convincing argument for how they have not changed the game instead of name calling and characterizing legitimate arguments for how they *have* changed the game as "crying"?

The burden of proof is on the person claiming something is true, not the person saying it isn't true, but just to counter the arguments I can think of off the top of my head:

 

  • "There are stupid challenge caches." There have always been stupid caches.
  • "There are power trails of challenge caches." There are power trails of all types of other caches, too.
  • "CO's create caches for no other reason than to help satisfy a challenge." CO's have always create caches for silly reasons.
  • "People drop throw-downs to satisfy challenges." People drop throw-downs for other reasons.
  • "Reviewers have to argue with people planting challenge caches." Reviewers have to argue with people planting all kinds of caches.

I'm not seeing the change you're claiming. In fact, of all those points, the only one I'm even concerned about is the reviewer load, but there hasn't been much discussion in this thread about how to solve that other than the suggestion that we eliminate challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

 

Are you honestly trying to suggest that they haven't? If so, how about presenting a convincing argument for how they have not changed the game instead of name calling and characterizing legitimate arguments for how they *have* changed the game as "crying"?

 

Thanks for making my point more clear.

 

I never said they haven't changed the game, just that I find it funny to listen to a group of adults act like young children.

 

Is calling a group of geocachers the "Panty Wad Gang" or the "Poopy diaper Clan" acting like an adult? Presumably, the OP started this thread so that we could discuss, as adults, the merits of a moratorium on challenge challenges. Name calling has no place in that discussion, nor does characterizing those that may have an opposing viewpoint as "crying"?

 

No, despite the accuracy of my description it definitely doesn't add much to the discussion.

 

I think this has obviously been discussed enough already which has resulted in this action by GS. I'd be surprised to see GS eliminate challenges but if they do you won't hear me whining about it.

 

I've detailed to you why I believe your opinion on challenges is astoundingly selfish so I see no need to rehash that here. Things change but you guys can't handle it. It's childish in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

The burden of proof is on the person claiming something is true, not the person saying it isn't true

Technically, burden of proof would need to be on the person attempting to convince someone else of something. Whether that something is or is not true. The person who is fine with what they believe has no need to 'prove' anything, but the person who wants that individual's opinion/belief to change would necessarily have a burden to prove their alternate stance. But anyway...

 

but just to counter the arguments I can think of off the top of my head:

 

  • "There are stupid challenge caches." There have always been stupid caches.
  • "There are power trails of challenge caches." There are power trails of all types of other caches, too.
  • "CO's create caches for no other reason than to help satisfy a challenge." CO's have always create caches for silly reasons.
  • "People drop throw-downs to satisfy challenges." People drop throw-downs for other reasons.
  • "Reviewers have to argue with people planting challenge caches." Reviewers have to argue with people planting all kinds of caches.

I'm not seeing the change you're claiming. In fact, of all those points, the only one I'm even concerned about is the reviewer load, but there hasn't been much discussion in this thread about how to solve that other than the suggestion that we eliminate challenge caches.

 

Right, and so I'll re-raise the point and suggestion that GS form a challenge cache reviewer team (or delegate within existing regional teams), much like Earthcaches are reviewed by another team. There one proposal for reducing work load on reviewers. The next step is to make their review/appeal task less annoying :P

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
  • "There are stupid challenge caches." There have always been stupid caches.
  • "There are power trails of challenge caches." There are power trails of all types of other caches, too.
  • "CO's create caches for no other reason than to help satisfy a challenge." CO's have always create caches for silly reasons.
  • "People drop throw-downs to satisfy challenges." People drop throw-downs for other reasons.
  • "Reviewers have to argue with people planting challenge caches." Reviewers have to argue with people planting all kinds of caches.

It may not be a change in the existence of some behavior. It may be a change in the frequency of the behavior.

 

For example, while reviewers do have to argue with people planting all kinds of caches, the frequency with which they have had to argue with people planting challenge caches had become overwhelming. Challenge caches represented less than 1% of the cache submissions, but more than half the "arguing with people planting caches".

 

You may recall that a similar phenomenon is what ended new virtual cache submissions.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

Are you honestly trying to suggest that they haven't? If so, how about presenting a convincing argument for how they have not changed the game instead of name calling and characterizing legitimate arguments for how they *have* changed the game as "crying"?

The burden of proof is on the person claiming something is true, not the person saying it isn't true, but just to counter the arguments I can think of off the top of my head:

 

  • "There are stupid challenge caches." There have always been stupid caches.
  • "There are power trails of challenge caches." There are power trails of all types of other caches, too.
  • "CO's create caches for no other reason than to help satisfy a challenge." CO's have always create caches for silly reasons.
  • "People drop throw-downs to satisfy challenges." People drop throw-downs for other reasons.
  • "Reviewers have to argue with people planting challenge caches." Reviewers have to argue with people planting all kinds of caches.

I'm not seeing the change you're claiming. In fact, of all those points, the only one I'm even concerned about is the reviewer load, but there hasn't been much discussion in this thread about how to solve that other than the suggestion that we eliminate challenge caches.

 

First of all, I believe that those that have supported GS decision to put a pause on new challenge caches *have* attempted to provide evidence, thus meeting the burden of proof to support the contention that challenge caches have changes the game for the worse. Many of the rebuttals, however, have not been to challenge that evidence but have resorted to name calling, or characterizing those making legitimate arguments supported by evidence as "crying" or "whiners" or "haters".

 

As far as your counter arguments go, they all are essentially based on the premise that challenge caches don't cause issues, because there are other causes which contribute to the issue. You don't actually refute the contention that people create "stupid challenges", the absurdity of creating power trails of challenge caches, or that people are creating a lot of caches for no other reason than to satisfy challenges.

 

If one were to make the contention that geocachers should not litter, and then provided examples of litter created by geocachers, claiming that non-geocachers also litter would not refute the contention that geocachers should not litter.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, I believe that those that have supported GS decision to put a pause on new challenge caches *have* attempted to provide evidence, thus meeting the burden of proof to support the contention that challenge caches have changes the game for the worse. Many of the rebuttals, however, have not been to challenge that evidence but have resorted to name calling, or characterizing those making legitimate arguments supported by evidence as "crying" or "whiners" or "haters".

There are good points on either side, but there are also emotional, opinionated, subjective arguments. It's easy to jump all over the opinionated people. From either direction.

Filter out the wheat from the chaff. Objective arguments are far better than subjective ones, and there are plenty of opinions about Challenge Caches. My perception has also been that there are more opinions to get rid of stuff (challenges or other features) because personX doesn't like them or doesn't use them or what have you. That is not an objective argument. It is an opinion GS can take into consideration when surveying for popularity, but to get rid of something because you don't like it isn't a good argument, and positions your opinion above anyone else's who may enjoy said feature, especially if the feature doesn't explicitly affect you.

That of course goes both ways. But I think the perception is that there are more angry 'curmudgeons' waging war against things they don't like than there are objective arguments against them (and of course there are some). And that too goes both ways. And no one should be name-calling, regardless of fence side. I just wish more people would be able to discern opinion from objectivity. :tired: (and not take objective points as a hit to personal pride)

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches change the way some people place caches. A certain '2015 To Do ...Challenge' has a list of caching-related things to do for the Challenge completion find. One of them is to find a certain number of caches with 15 attributes. Cachers in my area who are working on this challenge are now adding 15 attributes to all new cache and event submissions. These cachers did not do that prior to the challenge, and have stated they are doing it so people can easily qualify for that particular challenge.

 

I, for one, am glad the moratorium was put in place. Now, if only there was a moratorium on carpet-bombing neighborhoods with caches......

Share this post


Link to post

They do change the way people own caches.

A local challenge required scuba attributes. It forced powertrail owners to re-evaluate their use of incorrectly applied 'scuba' attribute to hundreds of roadside caches in their series. Good or a bad thing? YMMV. But it helped make sure cache details were accurate.

Of course challenges alter the game. I don't think anyone would deny that.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone else see the parallel between August Souvenir hunts and challenge caches?

Edited by mikeri

Share this post


Link to post
1430750401[/url]' post='5501374']
1430743992[/url]' post='5501319']

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

 

That's me! I'm part of the Poopy Diaper Clan. laugh.gif So funny.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
1430750836[/url]' post='5501378']
1430750401[/url]' post='5501374']
1430743992[/url]' post='5501319']

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

 

Are you honestly trying to suggest that they haven't? If so, how about presenting a convincing argument for how they have not changed the game instead of name calling and characterizing legitimate arguments for how they *have* changed the game as "crying"?

 

 

Excellent point. I would really like to hear from those who champion challenges. Take the list of how challenges have negatively affected the game and convince us that they have not. Without simply dismissing the negative affects. Provide convincing rebuttal. So far I'm hearing - other cache types also affect the game negatively so it's OK when challenge caches do too.

Share this post


Link to post
I would really like to hear from those who champion challenges. Take the list of how challenges have negatively affected the game and convince us that they have not. Without simply dismissing the negative affects. Provide convincing rebuttal. So far I'm hearing - other cache types also affect the game negatively so it's OK when challenge caches do too.

 

Fallacious argument. Come on, you know better.

 

The issue here is not whether challenge caches have some negative consequences. All cache types have both positive and negative impacts on the game as a whole.

 

The issue, instead, is whether the negative consequences of challenge caches are sufficiently unique and significant that they justify denying them to those who enjoy them.

 

Similar arguments can and have been made about power trail caches, mystery caches, etc. In most of those cases, the negative consequences have not resulted in a ban, even though (e.g. in the case of power trails) the arguments are much stronger.

 

The burden of proof is not on those who enjoy challenge caches; it is, rather, on those who advocate their ban. Show us that the negative consequences are (1) unique to challenge caches, and (2) so significant that they justify a ban. So far, I have seen no arguments I consider even mildly convincing.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The burden of proof is not on those who enjoy challenge caches; it is, rather, on those who advocate their ban. Show us that the negative consequences are (1) unique to challenge caches, and (2) so significant that they justify a ban. So far, I have seen no arguments I consider even mildly convincing.

 

Isn't the only negative consequence required this one, from the OP

 

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

 

which satisfies both 1 and 2 of your requirements.

 

I've seen many discussions on this subject (haven't we all) and all the reviewers I've seen responding have said that they're glad to see the moratorium and don't want to see them back in their current form, due to the mmount of additional work they generate for the reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen many discussions on this subject (haven't we all) and all the reviewers I've seen responding have said that they're glad to see the moratorium and don't want to see them back in their current form, due to the mmount of additional work they generate for the reviewers.

I can completely understand that. But still most of the arguments against challenge caches are not related to that one most significant point.

Also that doesn't mean reviewers are against challenge caches in concept, just their current implementation, which generates far too much work for them. So, there's still no convincing argument to get rid of challenge caching in their entirety. If a solution can be found to better streamline the concept and keep it appealing to the masses while reducing at the very least that one most significant concern, then they'll return, and hopefully be less of a(n objective) controversy. Of course there will always be decriers. dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Similar arguments can and have been made about power trail caches, mystery caches, etc. In most of those cases, the negative consequences have not resulted in a ban, even though (e.g. in the case of power trails) the arguments are much stronger.

 

It's important to keep in mind that challenge caches have not been banned. All current challenges are still loggable and there has been no mention that challenge caches will never be publishable again. TBTB are taking some time to rethink these caches.

 

Given that so many resources are devoted to such a small portion of overall caches, I would think those who love challenges would prefer TBTB take time to rethink them and most likely keep them going rather than throw in the towel and truly ban them as they have other cache types.

 

They are requesting feedback from their user base. I don't think they would bother if they were planning to ban them.

Share this post


Link to post

Similar arguments can and have been made about power trail caches, mystery caches, etc. In most of those cases, the negative consequences have not resulted in a ban, even though (e.g. in the case of power trails) the arguments are much stronger.

 

It's important to keep in mind that challenge caches have not been banned.

 

That's correct; I was merely characterizing the arguments of those who wish to ban them. I do not anticipate that Groundspeak will ban them, though I do anticipate that there will be much forum argument for a ban (or an effective ban, which is what most of the so-called "constructive ideas" entail).

Edited by fizzymagic

Share this post


Link to post
They are requesting feedback from their user base.
I like the idea of asking for feedback and hope it continues, but asking a question in User Insights is a fraction of a percent of their "user base".

Most I talk to at events or on trail don't know what a User Insights is, didn't know Groundspeak had a blog (though most know about facebook) and have never lurked, much less posted in the forums.

They cache. :)

It seems (to me) the majority responding in User Insights on this challenge "pause" are people who like 'em and believe they're gonna lose something (restricted or ban), and/or feel the few who don't like challenges somehow created this moratorium.

- If it's still true that less than 10% ever enter the forums in the first place, aren't those results in feedback then skewed/biased anyway?

Share this post


Link to post

The burden of proof is on the person claiming something is true, not the person saying it isn't true

Technically, burden of proof would need to be on the person attempting to convince someone else of something. Whether that something is or is not true. The person who is fine with what they believe has no need to 'prove' anything, but the person who wants that individual's opinion/belief to change would necessarily have a burden to prove their alternate stance. But anyway...

Well, no, it doesn't really work that way. It's literally impossible for me to prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, I can only counter arguments aimed at proving Santa Clause exists.

 

And I don't see the point in bringing up people not participating in the discussion.

 

Right, and so I'll re-raise the point and suggestion that GS form a challenge cache reviewer team (or delegate within existing regional teams), much like Earthcaches are reviewed by another team. There one proposal for reducing work load on reviewers. The next step is to make their review/appeal task less annoying :P

I'm attracted by that idea, so I'd like to see a thread focused on it. But my initial reaction is that whatever you do to make that team work you can do to make a reviewer's approach work, too. The approach works for EarthCaches because the reviewers are actual experts in the field of geology, but your team would merely experts anointed in the field of challenge cache review.

 

As far as your counter arguments go, they all are essentially based on the premise that challenge caches don't cause issues, because there are other causes which contribute to the issue.

The way I'd put it is that these problems have other causes: they can't be blamed on challenge caches. Furthermore, we put up with these effects in other cases, so I fail to see why we shouldn't put up with them for challenge caches, too.

 

You don't actually refute the contention that people create "stupid challenges", the absurdity of creating power trails of challenge caches, or that people are creating a lot of caches for no other reason than to satisfy challenges.

Correct. What I ask is why are we more worried about stupid challenges than we are about any other stupid cache?

 

If one were to make the contention that geocachers should not litter, and then provided examples of litter created by geocachers, claiming that non-geocachers also litter would not refute the contention that geocachers should not litter.

The better observation to draw from that analogy is that the fact that geocachers litter is not a good argument for banning geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
They are requesting feedback from their user base.
I like the idea of asking for feedback and hope it continues, but asking a question in User Insights is a fraction of a percent of their "user base".

Most I talk to at events or on trail don't know what a User Insights is, didn't know Groundspeak had a blog (though most know about facebook) and have never lurked, much less posted in the forums.

They cache. :)

It seems (to me) the majority responding in User Insights on this challenge "pause" are people who like 'em and believe they're gonna lose something (restricted or ban), and/or feel the few who don't like challenges somehow created this moratorium.

- If it's still true that less than 10% ever enter the forums in the first place, aren't those results in feedback then skewed/biased anyway?

 

The most far-reaching communication mechanism we have is the weekly e-mail. News of the moratorium was included in the e-mail, which directed people to the User Insights forum. The e-mail will again be used to direct people to a survey, when it happens. How do you propose we could have better solicited feedback?

Share this post


Link to post

The most far-reaching communication mechanism we have is the weekly e-mail. News of the moratorium was included in the e-mail, which directed people to the User Insights forum. The e-mail will again be used to direct people to a survey, when it happens. How do you propose we could have better solicited feedback?

 

Although I agree with cerberus1, I think Groundspeak made everything in their power to reach the most people. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the topic, there's a great chance the majority of feedback will be from people that are aware of the moratorium, and in much greater proportion from those that are upset about it (they're emotional as they fear they could be loosing something).

 

As long as it is known and taken into account, Groundspeak can collect good information on how to make challenge caches better for everyone playing the game (the hardcore, the regular, the newbie). Just don't let the ones making more noise influence your decisions...

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone else see the parallel between August Souvenir hunts and challenge caches?

 

I did in a previous post, but nobody else seemed to ....

Share this post


Link to post
They are requesting feedback from their user base.
I like the idea of asking for feedback and hope it continues, but asking a question in User Insights is a fraction of a percent of their "user base".

Most I talk to at events or on trail don't know what a User Insights is, didn't know Groundspeak had a blog (though most know about facebook) and have never lurked, much less posted in the forums.

They cache. :)

It seems (to me) the majority responding in User Insights on this challenge "pause" are people who like 'em and believe they're gonna lose something (restricted or ban), and/or feel the few who don't like challenges somehow created this moratorium.

- If it's still true that less than 10% ever enter the forums in the first place, aren't those results in feedback then skewed/biased anyway?

 

The most far-reaching communication mechanism we have is the weekly e-mail. News of the moratorium was included in the e-mail, which directed people to the User Insights forum. The e-mail will again be used to direct people to a survey, when it happens. How do you propose we could have better solicited feedback?

I usually read the weekly mails too, and believed that might have the most viewers, but know a bunch (my other 2/3rds is one) who don't look at 'em anymore, though they checked the box to recieve it.

I'd think you guys keep track of the newsletters out/UI posts in numbers.

Guess short of making a brief announcement, "Stop in at User Insights. We need your feedback!" above profiles, like the last downtime announcements, the weekly mails (and facebook) are the best bet. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the topic, there's a great chance the majority of feedback will be from people that are aware of the moratorium, and in much greater proportion from those that are upset about it (they're emotional as they fear they could be loosing something).
Unfortunately, there also seem to be a few who don't seem to understand the distinction between challenge caches, bonus caches, field puzzles, solve-at-home puzzles, and other subtypes of the mystery/puzzle type.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone has just shown me the summer souvenir things they are doing. One of the things quoted to me from the reviewer is that challenge caches are a bit of a no no because they change a cachers habits and they shouldn't have to do this.

Surely to gain a souvenir by doing a specific type of cache on a specific date is changing a cachers habits....?

Am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

The most far-reaching communication mechanism we have is the weekly e-mail.

 

I'm not subscribed to (nor interested in) a weekly e-mail. Most of the time I come to the forum because I read something elsewhere and, if it affects me, want to know what's up.

 

Someone has just shown me the summer souvenir things they are doing. One of the things quoted to me from the reviewer is that challenge caches are a bit of a no no because they change a cachers habits and they shouldn't have to do this.

Surely to gain a souvenir by doing a specific type of cache on a specific date is changing a cachers habits....?

Am I wrong?

 

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate that term. It is so inflammatory!

 

I can understand that. If I'd taken more time to think it through, I would have said 'Diaper Wad Gang' or 'Poopy Diaper Clan' instead.

 

But in any case... which "Panty Wad Gang" are you referring to... those that are upset because of the moratorium, or those that are upset about challenge caches?

 

I'm talking about those crying about how challenge caches have changed the game.

 

Ah, I see. So, those that disagree with you are the ones you are calling childish names. Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
I would really like to hear from those who champion challenges. Take the list of how challenges have negatively affected the game and convince us that they have not. Without simply dismissing the negative affects. Provide convincing rebuttal. So far I'm hearing - other cache types also affect the game negatively so it's OK when challenge caches do too.

 

Fallacious argument. Come on, you know better.

 

The issue here is not whether challenge caches have some negative consequences. All cache types have both positive and negative impacts on the game as a whole.

 

The issue, instead, is whether the negative consequences of challenge caches are sufficiently unique and significant that they justify denying them to those who enjoy them.

 

Similar arguments can and have been made about power trail caches, mystery caches, etc. In most of those cases, the negative consequences have not resulted in a ban, even though (e.g. in the case of power trails) the arguments are much stronger.

 

The burden of proof is not on those who enjoy challenge caches; it is, rather, on those who advocate their ban. Show us that the negative consequences are (1) unique to challenge caches, and (2) so significant that they justify a ban. So far, I have seen no arguments I consider even mildly convincing.

 

Actually, no. That is not true at all. That may be what the current conversation is, but the issue is the number of appeals to Groundspeak, and what changes Groundspeak will make to ease the burden on their reviewers. THAT is the discussion that we should be having, not some silly debate that nobody will win about the merits or lack thereof of challenge caches as we know them today.

Share this post


Link to post

... the issue is the number of appeals to Groundspeak, and what changes Groundspeak will make to ease the burden on their reviewers. THAT is the discussion that we should be having, not some silly debate that nobody will win about the merits or lack thereof of challenge caches as we know them today.

 

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post
I would really like to hear from those who champion challenges. Take the list of how challenges have negatively affected the game and convince us that they have not. Without simply dismissing the negative affects. Provide convincing rebuttal. So far I'm hearing - other cache types also affect the game negatively so it's OK when challenge caches do too.

 

Fallacious argument. Come on, you know better.

 

The issue here is not whether challenge caches have some negative consequences. All cache types have both positive and negative impacts on the game as a whole.

 

The issue, instead, is whether the negative consequences of challenge caches are sufficiently unique and significant that they justify denying them to those who enjoy them.

 

Similar arguments can and have been made about power trail caches, mystery caches, etc. In most of those cases, the negative consequences have not resulted in a ban, even though (e.g. in the case of power trails) the arguments are much stronger.

 

The burden of proof is not on those who enjoy challenge caches; it is, rather, on those who advocate their ban. Show us that the negative consequences are (1) unique to challenge caches, and (2) so significant that they justify a ban. So far, I have seen no arguments I consider even mildly convincing.

 

Actually, no. That is not true at all. That may be what the current conversation is, but the issue is the number of appeals to Groundspeak, and what changes Groundspeak will make to ease the burden on their reviewers. THAT is the discussion that we should be having, not some silly debate that nobody will win about the merits or lack thereof of challenge caches as we know them today.

It is true, but from a side that most of us don't get to see. Some negative consequences are things already discussed like silly/inane challenges, caches placed in order to meet a challenge, power trails of challenges, etc..., and those are the things that we get to see in front of the curtain as members of the site. The MAIN negative consequence of challenge caches is the workload that challenge caches provide for reviewers. and that's what is behind the curtain, out of sight and sound for the users of this site. For those that operate behind the scenes, it's the largest negative consequence.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

Edited by on4bam

Share this post


Link to post

double post.

Edited by on4bam

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

Exactly. Are the majority of the appeals from geocachers that want to put out a challenge cache that their reviewer will not allow, or are they from geocachers that found and logged the challenge cache log but either didn't meet the challenge, or did, but can't prove it and had their log deleted? Or both.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

 

It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

 

It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

 

That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage.

 

The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement.

 

At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post

The main problem we "should" be discussing indeed is the issue of reviewer workload.

 

BUT

 

They put out a survey to ask what people like/dislike about challenge caches. Because they're consider overhauling the system.

So discussing the merits and drawbacks of the concept I would say certainly is on the table, as it were.

 

ETA: Objective discussions being more fruitful than arguing opinions, though taking opinions into consideration is still something that should be done in context of popularity. But that's about it... play nice :P

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
I think the fact that there is a one year moratorium on challenge caches is a good indication that a lot of people aren't interested in challenge caches as they exist today.

 

That makes exactly zero sense. I can't even imagine a semi-logical argument that would get you from A (moratorium) to B (people don't like them).

 

Methinks perhaps you are letting your dislike of other people having fun cloud your judgment here.

 

I think the fact that there is a one year moratorium on challenge caches is a good indication that a lot of forum curmudgeons aren't interested in challenge caches as they exist today.

 

Fixed it, guess you haven't read the feedback thread, impression I get is geocachers seem to like them.

 

I read the feedback thread as well as the several other threads related to geocaching challenges. The impression that I got is that some people that like them are coming out of the woodwork to express their displeasure that the moratorium was put in place. I am also seeing a lot of people supporting GS for enacting the moratorium because they feel that geocaching challenges have numerous issues that should be resolved. Some reviewers certainly have some issues with how geocaching challenges are impacting their workload there have been more than a few posts from geocachers that do *not* seem to like how they're implemented today, but I guess we can just dismiss their opinions because, after all, they're just forum curmudgeons.

 

 

I have no problems with other people having their fun up to the point that how other people are having fun begins to negatively influence the game as a whole.

 

When I was a kid we played street hockey in our cul-de-sac and there was a grumpy old man who always sat on his front lawn and yelled at us whenever we shot the ball onto his yard. All my friends were scared to go retrieve it so I always did, in fact sometimes I even purposely shot the ball onto his lawn.

 

Deep down I know he liked me because I gave him something to do, a purpose in life and I truly believe he lived longer and happier.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

 

It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

 

That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage.

 

The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement.

 

At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently.

 

 

Hmmmmm:

 

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

 

Seems the issue is appeals to HQ.

Share this post


Link to post

The main problem we "should" be discussing indeed is the issue of reviewer workload.

 

BUT

 

They put out a survey to ask what people like/dislike about challenge caches. Because they're consider overhauling the system.

So discussing the merits and drawbacks of the concept I would say certainly is on the table, as it were.

 

ETA: Objective discussions being more fruitful than arguing opinions, though taking opinions into consideration is still something that should be done in context of popularity. But that's about it... play nice :P

 

True, but it has gotten to the point of each side trying to convince the other side that they are wrong. That is not helpful discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

 

It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

 

That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage.

 

The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement.

 

At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently.

 

 

Hmmmmm:

 

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

 

Seems the issue is appeals to HQ.

 

So reviewers take a quick glance, say NOPE, and pass it on to Groundspeak?

 

Really?

Share this post


Link to post

When I was a kid we played street hockey in our cul-de-sac and there was a grumpy old man who always sat on his front lawn and yelled at us whenever we shot the ball onto his yard. All my friends were scared to go retrieve it so I always did, in fact sometimes I even purposely shot the ball onto his lawn.

 

Deep down I know he liked me because I gave him something to do, a purpose in life and I truly believe he lived longer and happier.

That explains a lot about you, Roman! You are still purposely shooting the ball onto other's lawns, aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

 

It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

 

That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage.

 

The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement.

 

At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently.

 

 

Hmmmmm:

 

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

 

Seems the issue is appeals to HQ.

 

So reviewers take a quick glance, say NOPE, and pass it on to Groundspeak?

 

Really?

 

That straight from the horses mouth in post #1.

Edited by Roman!

Share this post


Link to post

When I was a kid we played street hockey in our cul-de-sac and there was a grumpy old man who always sat on his front lawn and yelled at us whenever we shot the ball onto his yard. All my friends were scared to go retrieve it so I always did, in fact sometimes I even purposely shot the ball onto his lawn.

 

Deep down I know he liked me because I gave him something to do, a purpose in life and I truly believe he lived longer and happier.

That explains a lot about you, Roman! You are still purposely shooting the ball onto other's lawns, aren't you?

 

:anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

 

It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

 

That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage.

 

The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement.

 

At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently.

 

 

Hmmmmm:

 

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

 

Seems the issue is appeals to HQ.

 

So reviewers take a quick glance, say NOPE, and pass it on to Groundspeak?

 

Really?

 

That straight from the horses mouth in post #1.

 

To be clear: your assertion is that reviewers do not, in fact, make any attempt to work with cache owners and that challenge caches have not noticeably increased the burden of their volunteer workload.

Share this post


Link to post

And yet none of us know exactly what the problems are that appeals has to deal with except that if affects their workload.

 

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

 

Reviewers are volunteers, bud.

 

It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

 

That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage.

 

The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement.

 

At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently.

 

 

Hmmmmm:

 

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

 

Seems the issue is appeals to HQ.

 

So reviewers take a quick glance, say NOPE, and pass it on to Groundspeak?

 

Really?

 

That straight from the horses mouth in post #1.

 

To be clear: your assertion is that reviewers do not, in fact, make any attempt to work with cache owners and that challenge caches have not noticeably increased the burden of their volunteer workload.

 

I'm sure they do but the moratorium is the result of the excessive workload placed on HQ according the the first post in this thread which was made by HQ.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...