I don't think challenges are the problem

[+KBLAST]

This topic is twofold - I'm going to discuss what I think the REAL problem is and see if others agree, and if you agree, what solution is there that Groundspeak/we as a community could implement?

 

I'm going to start with a recent exchange with a brand new cacher that I had:

 

I have a Quickerington Challenge (http://coord.info/GC2RKXP) and my Ohnocarwashingtexasodakio multicache (http://coord.info/GC2RM0P) logged recently by a newbie with 12 finds (he didn't complete the challenge requirements and only found the first stage of the multi). I wrote the newbie and politely explained the rules for multis and challenges and invited him to come to some local events, and asked him to change his "found it" to a note. He wrote back saying, "Sorry, I'll change it ASAP."

 

Three days later, no change, so I deleted his logs. He almost immediately relogged them. I deleted them again. He relogged them again. I wrote him again and said, "Please stop logging these two caches, you haven't completed them." He responded, "Last I checked geocaching is free to play and I can do what I want. I'm logging them as found so I know which ones I've found and which I haven't." I wrote him back to tell him he didn't find the multi, NOR did he complete the challenge. I deleted his logs again.

 

Nothing since that, but this is why I feel bad for newbies - it's his fault for being a bit of a jerk, but on the flip side, he had no one teach him the rules... he's just playing by his own.

 

This is merely an example of problems I've run into with Earthcaches, puzzles, and even traditionals. Here is what I believe is the greater problem:

 

THERE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO TEACH THE RECENT INFLUX OF NEWBIES ALL OF THE CORRECT RULES, AND SOME OF THE RULES ARE NOT CLEAR.

 

Stick with me for a moment. Let's say we set up an worldwide Scrabble tournament. Everyone is allowed to play, they just have to download the app. They get the general rules, so they jump in. One player plays Kmart, and the game lets it happen, then there's an appeal, the people enforcing the rules have to get involved, and eventually it is deleted. But on another game, guess what? Kmart was played again. A bunch of old time Scrabble players who know the REAL RULES complain that the new players shouldn't be allowed to play Kmart, the new players talk about how it's a word in their house, there's a lot of fights. Meanwhile, in Mexico, "perdedor" is played. No one explained what language this tournament is in!

 

So I guess my example above also brings up another issue - is this just a hobby or a game? If the Scrabble tournament is a hobby, then people can play whatever they want and it doesn't matter! I love Scrabble, and would NEVER play in such a tournament. So what is geocaching? Is it a hobby with a few game-like attributes thrown in? Should those game-like attributes allow players to play however they want and forget the "rules" or "guidelines" of the game because they're just suggestions?

 

I guess I feel like this challenge moratorium is a microcosm of some bigger questions Groundspeak needs to answer. And maybe that's why they're asking for our input - to find out what kind of game/hobby we really want this to be?

 

OK - enough of my ramblings - DISCUSS.

[+AustinMN]

The faact that the original moratorium post stated to the effect that a big part of the problem was reviewer workload, I think there are a lot more issues with challenge hide appeals than with find appeals.

 

That does not preclude education from being a big part of the problem, of course. As in any game, knwing the rules is important. The rules around challenges can get rather involved and subject to widely varying interpretation. Education won't necessarily stop a cache hider from having an emotional investment in a particular type of challenge that is never going to be approved, but it could help them figure out a way to structure it in a way that might get approved.

 

In any case, there are always going to be people who refuse to be educated no matter how hard the rest of us try.

 

Austin

[+KBLAST]

The faact that the original moratorium post stated to the effect that a big part of the problem was reviewer workload, I think there are a lot more issues with challenge hide appeals than with find appeals.

I TOTALLY agree. But I believe that even if challenges are eliminated, reviewer workload will become a problem AGAIN, just with something else, because of the bigger issue (in my mind). It seems like we got rid of locationless caches, then virtuals became the problem. We got rid of virtuals, challenges became the problem. And in all of these scenarios, it seems like what was a good idea at one point became abused either due to human nature, or difficult to articulate rules/guidelines, or both.

Edited April 27, 2015 by KBLAST

[+on4bam]

In any case, there are always going to be people who refuse to be educated no matter how hard the rest of us try.

 

I guess this is the main reason for the problems posted in the challenges thread. Look at this thread, no problem with the cache or rules/guidelines but people not playing by the rules, intentional or not.

[+Brandy-Jack]

What I see is if there is a moritorium, on day one that it is lifted, all of the challenges that people have been writing/saving for a whole year get submitted at once. Which will create an avalanche of a bottleneck.

 

Could they not leave the cache alone, allow people to log it as a typical cache, but they could log it with desired info for the C.O. if they wanted to make it the challange final. Then with it being a challenge would allow them a "Souvenier" of some sort if the c.o. checked their info. Then Alot of the "eccentric" type challenges in my opinion, would not be taking up real estate. That would allow people to play the game the way the want to, and allow the c.o. to have all the challenges they wanted.

[+on4bam]

Could they not leave the cache alone, allow people to log it as a typical cache, but they could log it with desired info for the C.O. if they wanted to make it the challange final.

 

OK, let's all log all Earthcaches then without answering the questions.

[+KBLAST]

Could they not leave the cache alone, allow people to log it as a typical cache, but they could log it with desired info for the C.O. if they wanted to make it the challange final.

 

Sure could. That to me is a changing of the rules. In my Scrabble example, we're partway through the tournament and suddenly everyone can play Spanish words.

 

My point of this post is not to solve the challenge cache problem, it's to hopefully help with clarifying rules and intent once challenges have been updated.

[+cerberus1]

My point of this post is not to solve the challenge cache problem, it's to hopefully help with clarifying rules and intent once challenges have been updated.

I'd think after (maybe) most of a year, and the pages from User Insights, "rules" aren't gonna need much clarifyin'.

[+niraD]

I originally thought that Scrabble was a really bad analogy. Geocaching isn't really a game in the sense that Scrabble is a game.

 

But after some thought, maybe it is. A lot of people play casual games with Scrabble sets. They discuss their tiles and possible words that use those letters. They let people take back incorrect words without penalty, possibly even suggesting possible words that use the same letters. They have some fun and then put the pieces away before the game is finished so they can do something else. These people are playing with basic "rules" that go something like this:

1. draw letter tiles
   
2. arrange your tiles into words
   
3. play your words on the board crossword style
   

This isn't that different from how geocaching is often described to new geocachers:

1. If you take something, then leave something.
   
2. Sign the log.
   
3. Put the container back where you found it.
   

The problem comes when these casual Scrabble players (geocachers) interact with serious Scrabble players (geocachers) who know, follow, and enforce all the rules. Or when they interact with tournament Scrabble players (geocachers) who make the game even more complicated with all their additional tournament rules.

 

But does it make sense to expect casual geocachers (Scrabble players) to play by the full tournament rules? And should they be forced to deal with all the rules that serious geocachers (Scrabble players) know by heart and love and follow dearly?

[+cerberus1]

The faact that the original moratorium post stated to the effect that a big part of the problem was reviewer workload, I think there are a lot more issues with challenge hide appeals than with find appeals.

Since we don't (really) know, I'd say that's my guess too.

- Though it's always a blame game when so many's involved, with quite a few already saying "just ignore 'em", as if they know what the issue is.

 

I couldn't find that statement from Groundspeak though (Reviewer workload) and would sure like to know where I can find that. Thanks.

[+KBLAST]

My point of this post is not to solve the challenge cache problem, it's to hopefully help with clarifying rules and intent once challenges have been updated.

I'd think after (maybe) most of a year, and the pages from User Insights, "rules" aren't gonna need much clarifyin'.

I REALLY hope you're right, cerberus, I guess I'm concerned that this is a slippery slope... will multis be the next to go because new players don't understand the rules and sign the paper in the first container, therefore causing too much of a backlog on reviewers? It seems like 95% (yes, I'm making that number up) of the arguments I'm involved with are over "how to play the game" issues. And I see, "Let everyone play however they want" thrown all over, and "but you're not playing by the rules!" from the other side.

 

Meanwhile, newbies come along and don't read ALL of the rules before playing - they just go and get. Are we as cache owners supposed to manage the game by the rules (since they won't need much clarifyin') or are those just guidelines and let the newbies do whatever they want? I always thought this was a rules-based game, but the arguments I'm seeing make me wonder what this is, REALLY.

[+KBLAST]

But does it make sense to expect casual geocachers (Scrabble players) to play by the full tournament rules? And should they be forced to deal with all the rules that serious geocachers (Scrabble players) know by heart and love and follow dearly?

 

NiraD you very eloquently and succintly summed up EXACTLY why I created this topic. Thank you very much! Now if we can just find some answers.

[Keystone]

The faact that the original moratorium post stated to the effect that a big part of the problem was reviewer workload, I think there are a lot more issues with challenge hide appeals than with find appeals.

Since we don't (really) know, I'd say that's my guess too.

- Though it's always a blame game when so many's involved, with quite a few already saying "just ignore 'em", as if they know what the issue is.

 

I couldn't find that statement from Groundspeak though (Reviewer workload) and would sure like to know where I can find that. Thanks.

I found AustinMN's first post in this thread to be quite accurate and helpful.

 

See the moratorium announcement about how challenge caches constitute a disproportionate percentage of appeals volume. Most of the harder appeals work is on the new cache submission side and not on the deleted find side. Bear in mind that the challenge cache typically doesn't reach the appeals desk at Geocaching HQ until after several rounds of discussion with the local reviewer. As a group, the reviewers were finding that challenges represented a disproportionate percentage of "hard reviews." This is true regardless of whether an individual reviewer "likes" or "hates" challenge caches as a player. I don't like five-star math puzzles, but they tend not to be very difficult for me to review, so there is no problem I've needed to escalate.

[+cerberus1]

The faact that the original moratorium post stated to the effect that a big part of the problem was reviewer workload, I think there are a lot more issues with challenge hide appeals than with find appeals.

Since we don't (really) know, I'd say that's my guess too.

- Though it's always a blame game when so many's involved, with quite a few already saying "just ignore 'em", as if they know what the issue is.

 

I couldn't find that statement from Groundspeak though (Reviewer workload) and would sure like to know where I can find that. Thanks.

I found AustinMN's first post in this thread to be quite accurate and helpful.

 

See the moratorium announcement about how challenge caches constitute a disproportionate percentage of appeals volume. Most of the harder appeals work is on the new cache submission side and not on the deleted find side. Bear in mind that the challenge cache typically doesn't reach the appeals desk at Geocaching HQ until after several rounds of discussion with the local reviewer. As a group, the reviewers were finding that challenges represented a disproportionate percentage of "hard reviews." This is true regardless of whether an individual reviewer "likes" or "hates" challenge caches as a player. I don't like five-star math puzzles, but they tend not to be very difficult for me to review, so there is no problem I've needed to escalate.

Thanks ! I didn't click on the appeals link to notice.

[+KBLAST]

The faact that the original moratorium post stated to the effect that a big part of the problem was reviewer workload, I think there are a lot more issues with challenge hide appeals than with find appeals.

Since we don't (really) know, I'd say that's my guess too.

- Though it's always a blame game when so many's involved, with quite a few already saying "just ignore 'em", as if they know what the issue is.

 

I couldn't find that statement from Groundspeak though (Reviewer workload) and would sure like to know where I can find that. Thanks.

I found AustinMN's first post in this thread to be quite accurate and helpful.

 

See the moratorium announcement about how challenge caches constitute a disproportionate percentage of appeals volume. Most of the harder appeals work is on the new cache submission side and not on the deleted find side. Bear in mind that the challenge cache typically doesn't reach the appeals desk at Geocaching HQ until after several rounds of discussion with the local reviewer. As a group, the reviewers were finding that challenges represented a disproportionate percentage of "hard reviews." This is true regardless of whether an individual reviewer "likes" or "hates" challenge caches as a player. I don't like five-star math puzzles, but they tend not to be very difficult for me to review, so there is no problem I've needed to escalate.

Thank you Keystone! I know I, like a number of others, saw another recent challenge cache topic and thought that was the "straw that broke the camel's back." From what you're saying, the lack of education for players wanting to find a cache is not the greater issue, but more the lack of education for people wanting to place challenges and, to a lesser extent, the subjectivity involved with approving those challenges.

 

Then in that case, maybe my entire title is a bit of a misnomer. I'm more concerned in this topic with how to prevent watering down the game while still allowing it to be fun for both the seasoned competitors and the casual players.

[+DragonsWest]

Ah, the CO and Reviewer Side of the problem are now clearly brought to light.

 

The problem for players can be trying to figure out what the CO means and whether they qualify.

 

As to the unreasonable player, they are going to exist for all cache types, going further, this includes the arm chair cachers who will never visit the cache, never solve the puzzle, never see the geology, but claim finds anyway. Hopefully Groundspeak keeps a list of these people as they are reported.

[+narcissa]

I think the problems feed into each other. People are, in some cases, hiding challenge caches because they want to limit their caches to experienced cachers, and because it's the only way they can do any sort of quality control on find logs without physically auditing a logbook and/or possibly getting into a drawn-out fight with cachers/TPTB.

 

I think we all appreciate that Groundspeak is trying to make the game accessible to more people, but there are so many cache owners feeling frustrated that their efforts are treated with disrespect. It's just not surprising that some cache owners look for work-arounds to weed out the problems in any way they can.

[Keystone]

Thank you Keystone! I know I, like a number of others, saw another recent challenge cache topic and thought that was the "straw that broke the camel's back."

Everyone should consider that recent topic, about requiring GSAK as the verification proof, as nothing more than one symptom/example of a much larger problem. Something as major as a one-year moratorium wouldn't be imposed over just one "straw." Reviewers and HQ Lackeys have been discussing larger concerns about the challenge cache review and appeals process for many many months. The moratorium resulted from that bigger discussion, though I do want to note that the move came as just as big a surprise to reviewers as it did to the rest of the community. We weren't conspiring for weeks or months, knowing what was going to happen in April.

[+theLadyBee]

The problem with those who claim to "let people play by their own rules" is that they are not allowing the COs to play by their own rules.

 

Sure, you can play by your own rules and log a multi after only finding stage 1. But if the CO then wants to delete your log, then you have to accept that, because that's letting the CO "play by their own rules."

 

Back to the scrabble example with "serious" and "casual" players. I'm not a serious "scrabbler," so if I were playing with casual scrabblers, I might be okay with using "KMART" (not really, but for the sake of argument, go with it). But if I were then to go to my friend's house, who is a serious scrabbler and play KMART and they say "That's not an acceptable word" I should accept that and take back my word "KMART," because it's their house/game so their rules and KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary.

 

Sure, I may think that no one should be allowed to play "KMART" (even the casual players), and someone may call me a "stickler" for claiming so, but if you tell me at my house/my game that you can play an unacceptable word, that's bogus.

 

(Note that this works because KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary, so it's "reasonable" to not accept KMART as a word, whereas not accepting a word like "ambiguous" doesn't make sense because it is actually a word. Analogously, it's acceptable to delete a log on a multi for only finding stage 1, whereas deleting a log on a multi because the person did it with two other people and so they did not find every stage independently is unacceptable.)

[+KBLAST]

The problem with those who claim to "let people play by their own rules" is that they are not allowing the COs to play by their own rules.

 

Sure, you can play by your own rules and log a multi after only finding stage 1. But if the CO then wants to delete your log, then you have to accept that, because that's letting the CO "play by their own rules."

 

Back to the scrabble example with "serious" and "casual" players. I'm not a serious "scrabbler," so if I were playing with casual scrabblers, I might be okay with using "KMART" (not really, but for the sake of argument, go with it). But if I were then to go to my friend's house, who is a serious scrabbler and play KMART and they say "That's not an acceptable word" I should accept that and take back my word "KMART," because it's their house/game so their rules and KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary.

 

Sure, I may think that no one should be allowed to play "KMART" (even the casual players), and someone may call me a "stickler" for claiming so, but if you tell me at my house/my game that you can play an unacceptable word, that's bogus.

 

(Note that this works because KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary, so it's "reasonable" to not accept KMART as a word, whereas not accepting a word like "ambiguous" doesn't make sense because it is actually a word. Analogously, it's acceptable to delete a log on a multi for only finding stage 1, whereas deleting a log on a multi because the person did it with two other people and so they did not find every stage independently is unacceptable.)

 

I 100% agree with everything in here. If you agree with this, as well, the question becomes, "whose house are we playing at, Groundspeak?" If it's on a cache by cache basis (whoever the CO is will determine the "house rules") then it's no wonder we have issues with new players, and this should be expected. But we shouldn't get mad when one CO plays the game this way when another one plays it this way. Would that remove any need for ANY rules arbitration?

 

I think the reason there are arbitrations currently is because Groundspeak believes this is a game with hard and fast rules. But it's hard to get through them all without either A) someone guiding you or B ) a willingness by the player to seek out the rules pertinent to the portion of the game you are playing.

 

I wish there were a good "quickstart" guide or something for geocaching, but that'd be like trying to throw all the rules of something like "Settlers of Catan" into a paragraph.

 

On second thought, chances are there would be a number of players who wouldn't even read the paragraph if it WERE available.

Edited April 27, 2015 by KBLAST

[+L0ne.R]

The problem with those who claim to "let people play by their own rules" is that they are not allowing the COs to play by their own rules.

 

Sure, you can play by your own rules and log a multi after only finding stage 1. But if the CO then wants to delete your log, then you have to accept that, because that's letting the CO "play by their own rules."

 

Back to the scrabble example with "serious" and "casual" players. I'm not a serious "scrabbler," so if I were playing with casual scrabblers, I might be okay with using "KMART" (not really, but for the sake of argument, go with it). But if I were then to go to my friend's house, who is a serious scrabbler and play KMART and they say "That's not an acceptable word" I should accept that and take back my word "KMART," because it's their house/game so their rules and KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary.

 

Sure, I may think that no one should be allowed to play "KMART" (even the casual players), and someone may call me a "stickler" for claiming so, but if you tell me at my house/my game that you can play an unacceptable word, that's bogus.

 

(Note that this works because KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary, so it's "reasonable" to not accept KMART as a word, whereas not accepting a word like "ambiguous" doesn't make sense because it is actually a word. Analogously, it's acceptable to delete a log on a multi for only finding stage 1, whereas deleting a log on a multi because the person did it with two other people and so they did not find every stage independently is unacceptable.)

 

If we allowed each CO to set the rules on their own cache, it could become a real mess. I wouldn't enjoy geocaching if I'm never sure that I can add a cache to my list of found caches. Or if I'm going to end up with a heated dispute. Imagine the overload on reviewers handling conflicts over deleted logs.

 

I'm the owner of a couple of active puzzles and a multi. I know that many cachers circumvent the puzzle or the first stage of the multi. Most are cachers trying to do dozens of non-trads in a day with a group of cachers who share the final coords. I don't like it but it's better for the game as a whole to allow those finds.

 

It's not that I mind that they get a smiley out of it. It's that I would like them to experience the creativity of our caches from beginning to end. But c'est la vie.

Unless it effects future finders, we would not delete a find, never have. Even then, I'd write a note instead of deleting the find, explaining the bogus log.

[+theLadyBee]

Continuing with the Scrabble analogy; think of it this way: The "official" scrabble rules are "Groundspeak's rules." The "house rules," such as accepting "KMART" as a word, are the "CO rules."

 

Now, there are some "house rules" that just can't accepted, for example, as mentioned above: rejecting "ambiguous" as a word because it actually is a word in the dictionary. Whereas, I can see why accepting "KMART" as a word might be considered okay because while it isn't in the dictionary, a lot of people are familiar with it (I personally don't think that allowing "KMART" should happen, but again, for the sake of argument).

 

Similarly, an "unacceptable house rule" in GC is a CO requiring that a cacher do their multi entirely alone (not with a group) to force them to find every stage. It's just unreasonable; people cache together, and, in fact, many people cache as a "team," so one caching name might even be more than one person.

 

It's hard for me to come up with an "acceptable house rule" analogy for GC because I am one of those "serious" cachers who thinks that everyone should play by the rules even if the CO doesn't care. Take the example that started all of this; if the CO didn't care that someone logged their multi but only found the first stage, then obviously the "newbie" is going to "get away with" claiming that as a find. You could say the CO's "house rule" (which is really decided by the newbie and simply "accepted" by the CO) is that you can log the multi with only finding one stage. Should Groundspeak come in and delete the log even though the CO hasn't? While I personally would LOVE to see that happen, I understand that there's probably too much "manpower" and time and whatnot that would go into policing that for us to reasonably expect Groundspeak to do that. But a girl can dream...

[+theLadyBee]

The problem with those who claim to "let people play by their own rules" is that they are not allowing the COs to play by their own rules.

 

Sure, you can play by your own rules and log a multi after only finding stage 1. But if the CO then wants to delete your log, then you have to accept that, because that's letting the CO "play by their own rules."

 

Back to the scrabble example with "serious" and "casual" players. I'm not a serious "scrabbler," so if I were playing with casual scrabblers, I might be okay with using "KMART" (not really, but for the sake of argument, go with it). But if I were then to go to my friend's house, who is a serious scrabbler and play KMART and they say "That's not an acceptable word" I should accept that and take back my word "KMART," because it's their house/game so their rules and KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary.

 

Sure, I may think that no one should be allowed to play "KMART" (even the casual players), and someone may call me a "stickler" for claiming so, but if you tell me at my house/my game that you can play an unacceptable word, that's bogus.

 

(Note that this works because KMART is not actually a word in the dictionary, so it's "reasonable" to not accept KMART as a word, whereas not accepting a word like "ambiguous" doesn't make sense because it is actually a word. Analogously, it's acceptable to delete a log on a multi for only finding stage 1, whereas deleting a log on a multi because the person did it with two other people and so they did not find every stage independently is unacceptable.)

 

If we allowed each CO to set the rules on their own cache, it could become a real mess. I wouldn't enjoy geocaching if I'm never sure that I can add a cache to my list of found caches. Or if I'm going to end up with a heated dispute. Imagine the overload on reviewers handling conflicts over deleted logs.

 

I'm the owner of a couple of active puzzles and a multi. I know that many cachers circumvent the puzzle or the first stage of the multi. Most are cachers trying to do dozens of non-trads in a day with a group of cachers who share the final coords. I don't like it but it's better for the game as a whole to allow those finds.

 

It's not that I mind that they get a smiley out of it. It's that I would like them to experience the creativity of our caches from beginning to end. But c'est la vie.

Unless it effects future finders, we would not delete a find, never have. Even then, I'd write a note instead of deleting the find, explaining the bogus log.

 

It would become "real mess" if we literally let each CO decide all of their own rules, but that's not what I'm suggesting. As I think about it, what I'm actually suggesting is that each CO should be allowed to enforce the actual rules of the game if they wish to (official rules). If they don't wish to, then so be it (house rules). But, they also should not be allowed to enforce their own personal unofficial rules (unacceptable house rules, e.g. requiring someone to do a multi without anyone else).

 

Unfortunately, you can't delete those logs of people who haven't solved the puzzle but found the cache, because the official rule is that the cacher needs to have signed the log (not solved the puzzle and then signed the log). However, I personally wish that a CO would be allowed to delete a log like that if they wanted to. But, if a CO wants to delete someone's log because they only found stage 1 of a multi and not the final stage, they should definitely be allowed to do so.

Edited April 27, 2015 by theLadyBee

[jholly]

We weren't conspiring for weeks or months, knowing what was going to happen in April.

 

I personally don't care one way or the other, but IMHO HQ was 20 days late on their announcement.

[+redsox_mark]

Interesting post, KBLAST.

 

The more complex the rules are, the more likely they will be interpreted differently (or some just won't bother to try and understand them).

 

So I agree that:

 

1. More complex caches are harder for cachers to understand.

2. Some cachers don't want to be bothered learning complex rules

 

So yes, you will get the situation where a newbie logs a find on a challenge cache they do not qualify for as they don't know any better. Or worse, like in your example, even when you point it out to them they ignore it. It is like they started with Traditional caches, and they are trying to treat non-Trads the same way.

 

But I believe challenges are a specific problem, in that they are particularly complex to understand - especially when it comes to what is allowed to be published or not.

 

So yes, there is a general problem with cacher education.

But there is also a specific problem with challenge caches.

 

And I say that even though I generally like challenge caches in their current form.

[+on4bam]

The more complex the rules are, the more likely they will be interpreted differently (or some just won't bother to try and understand them).

 

So I agree that:

 

1. More complex caches are harder for cachers to understand.

2. Some cachers don't want to be bothered learning complex rules

 

But, do we need to dumb down caches (mysteries, challenges, multis) in order for those who are not able or just won't understand way you "solve" a cache.

 

It seems that people (the few on this forum, not the majority that doesn't read/post here) have a problem with challenges that are "to complex" or "to hard". If you do away with challenges for that reason, then what about D5 mysteries? What about multi stage caches with 20+ waypoints and hard to find tags and fieldpuzzles in hard to crack codes (enigma, DNA, Pig latin...).

The argument "to difficult" should never be used.

 

I don't understand the rules of cricket but won't walk onto a field, throw a ball and claim a point/win because I can't be bothered to learn the rules.

[+redsox_mark]

 

But, do we need to dumb down caches (mysteries, challenges, multis) in order for those who are not able or just won't understand way you "solve" a cache.

 

 

In my opinion, no.

 

But, we are told that challenges are a special case. Less than 1% of caches but the majority of appeals. We don't know the breakdown of appeals by cache owners refused placement vs. by finders having their logs deleted; it seems it is the appeals of placement which are the main issue.

 

That means that the rules for challenge caches, as they are, are not clear or well understood. So that needs fixing.

[+palmetto]

We don't know the breakdown of appeals by cache owners refused placement vs. by finders having their logs deleted;

 

Appeals handles unpublished caches. The "breakdown of appeals..by finders having their logs deleted" would be zero.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Appeals handles unpublished caches. The "breakdown of appeals..by finders having their logs deleted" would be zero.

 

Ahh - thanks.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I think the reason there are arbitrations currently is because Groundspeak believes this is a game with hard and fast rules

 

If this game has hard and fast rules then let's start calling them RULES instead of Guidelines, at least for the parts not open for debate or discretion!

Edited April 28, 2015 by Joshism

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think the reason there are arbitrations currently is because Groundspeak believes this is a game with hard and fast rules

 

If this game has hard and fast rules then let's start calling them RULES instead of Guidelines, at least for the parts not open for debate or discretion!

 

I think that there *is* a difference between "guidelines" and "rules". However, I'd contend that "rules" and "requirements" are semantically the same, which means that GS could call them "Requirements and Guidelines".. Oh wait, they already do:

 

 

[+cron]

The more complex the rules are, the more likely they will be interpreted differently (or some just won't bother to try and understand them).

 

So I agree that:

 

1. More complex caches are harder for cachers to understand.

2. Some cachers don't want to be bothered learning complex rules

 

But, do we need to dumb down caches (mysteries, challenges, multis) in order for those who are not able or just won't understand way you "solve" a cache.

 

It seems that people (the few on this forum, not the majority that doesn't read/post here) have a problem with challenges that are "to complex" or "to hard". If you do away with challenges for that reason, then what about D5 mysteries? What about multi stage caches with 20+ waypoints and hard to find tags and fieldpuzzles in hard to crack codes (enigma, DNA, Pig latin...).

The argument "to difficult" should never be used.

 

I don't understand the rules of cricket but won't walk onto a field, throw a ball and claim a point/win because I can't be bothered to learn the rules.

 

An issue with geocaching is the long time players found all the caches around their home and they now have more time to make the hobby become something else that would fit their needs. It's not anymore about finding a cache, but it's about going through a complex range of requirements to occupy themselves (e.g. "set a goal") in order to make a find. And as they consider it's demanding, they wouldn't like to share the find with newcomers that are not meeting the requirements, but that are just looking for a new cache to find (which is essentially the basic of the hobby).

 

You don't like and play cricket, that's good for you. People who want to play geocaching are just playing it (find a physical cache, put your name in the logbook and claim a find). The "challenges" didn't come from Groundspeak, they came from the community and were later "regulated" to a certain extent by Groundspeak because of all the abuse (put humans in the equation and it will often derail). I mentioned it before and I'll do again: it doesn't matter how difficult to "reach" the cache is (hard puzzle, climbing a tree, etc.) as anyone can ask any friend to do it for them. Is it "legit"? Is it "acceptable"? Really, it's just a hobby and everyone are claiming their finds as long as their name is in the logbook. Let's go back to the basics.

 

Maybe Groundspeak should create "Geocaching 2.0" and allow for things like challenges in it. The hobby will attract more and more people, probably exponentially. These people will all start with the simple concept of "finding a cache". When you think you need to "educate" all the players, it's because the "rules" are becoming too complex.

[+KBLAST]

I think the reason there are arbitrations currently is because Groundspeak believes this is a game with hard and fast rules

 

If this game has hard and fast rules then let's start calling them RULES instead of Guidelines, at least for the parts not open for debate or discretion!

I think that might be part of Groundspeak's challenge, as well... with games like Scrabble and Settlers of Catan it's a lot easier to make hard and fast rules. In an ever evolving game like this one, there are some rules you DON'T want to make because it would hinder the creativity of the CO's and prevent excellent geocaches being published.

 

Here comes my third game reference in this thread - I think there are some parts of geocaching that remind me of Dungeons and Dragons (NERDS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!) There ARE some hard and fast rules in D&D, but then players are allowed to make decisions that are outside of the box to make things interesting - and that's part of why every game I've been in has evolved as the game moved along. There is a person in charge, however, who decides if the decisions made by the players is within the SPIRIT/BOUNDS of the game. I see the reviewers as this person, this dungeon master. Funny, we get into arguments over decisions the dungeon master makes, as well, and every dungeon master is a little bit different.

 

If this is the case, then maybe we need to stop complaining so much and creating such headaches and recognize it's not about the rules, it's about the spirit of the game. But that would mean we are wrong and the reviewer is right, which a lot of us can't handle.

 

And getting back to one of the other issues - we're bringing tons of newbies in to play who know NOTHING about the game, and then expect them to understand this concept. Again - there needs to be a better way to help get this across, but no newbie in D&D is going to read the entire version 4.5 rulebook, they're going to get some help and learn from others. I can't even IMAGINE someone downloading an app and jumping into a Dungeons and Dragons game with seasoned players and no one to guide them - it'd be overwhelming!!! I guess it seems like that's a large part of the problem I see around here, and I'm not sure what can be done to make it better.

[+KBLAST]

The more complex the rules are, the more likely they will be interpreted differently (or some just won't bother to try and understand them).

 

So I agree that:

 

1. More complex caches are harder for cachers to understand.

2. Some cachers don't want to be bothered learning complex rules

 

But, do we need to dumb down caches (mysteries, challenges, multis) in order for those who are not able or just won't understand way you "solve" a cache.

 

It seems that people (the few on this forum, not the majority that doesn't read/post here) have a problem with challenges that are "to complex" or "to hard". If you do away with challenges for that reason, then what about D5 mysteries? What about multi stage caches with 20+ waypoints and hard to find tags and fieldpuzzles in hard to crack codes (enigma, DNA, Pig latin...).

The argument "to difficult" should never be used.

 

I don't understand the rules of cricket but won't walk onto a field, throw a ball and claim a point/win because I can't be bothered to learn the rules.

 

Maybe Groundspeak should create "Geocaching 2.0" and allow for things like challenges in it. The hobby will attract more and more people, probably exponentially. These people will all start with the simple concept of "finding a cache". When you think you need to "educate" all the players, it's because the "rules" are becoming too complex.

 

cron, I really like this idea. It'd be a major change in Groundspeak's philosophy, but may solve a LOT of the issues I see over and over. What if there were a "basic version" of geocaching, one that is purely traditionals, or some simple puzzles - what if there were a way to at some point "unlock" the higher complexities of the game instead of just throwing everyone into the same pool and saying, "have fun!" I think Groundspeak tried to do that in a few different ways - premium membership caches, the "beginner cache" attribute, and some other things, but I think that making a stronger divider might help resolve a lot of the conflict we see every day.

 

The biggest problem I see would be those casual cachers who just want to go out and find good hides. NOTHING is wrong with those people, they just don't want to get into complexities, and they have a legitimate complaint that the more difficult caches would be taking up premium caching space and taking away from their fun. "What do you mean I can't place a cache here - I don't SEE anything within 528 feet! Oh - ANOTHER one of those stupid (insert nifty new name here) caches!"

 

I think this also was attempted with some other spin-off geocaching sites, but it never got the traction because of the organization and QC Groundspeak brought to the game. That and the sheer numbers of geocaches.

 

Now I'm just rambling. Would love to hear other thoughts on this.

[+on4bam]

An issue with geocaching is the long time players found all the caches around their home and they now have more time to make the hobby become something else that would fit their needs. It's not anymore about finding a cache, but it's about going through a complex range of requirements to occupy themselves (e.g. "set a goal") in order to make a find. And as they consider it's demanding, they wouldn't like to share the find with newcomers that are not meeting the requirements, but that are just looking for a new cache to find (which is essentially the basic of the hobby).

 

Again.. not me.

I have 5 caches less than 1 Km from home, I have 446 in a 10 Km radius. I don't clean up an area, I go out doing caches I like to do and challenges are part of that. If someone publishes a challenge that requires me to have all caches withing a radius of xx Km found I would never qualify as many of these unfound caches I have no interest in.

 

Maybe Groundspeak should create "Geocaching 2.0" and allow for things like challenges in it. The hobby will attract more and more people, probably exponentially. These people will all start with the simple concept of "finding a cache". When you think you need to "educate" all the players, it's because the "rules" are becoming too complex.

 

When you take an interest in something learning the rules, guidelines, habbits (call it what you want) will come natural. Most of it is common sense (distance between caches, challenge requirements, whatever). If you don't (or wont) care about a challenge's requirements then you might just not care about cache separation and put a cache 50m from another one. It would not get published of course (appeals anyone )

[+narcissa]

I don't think the game is nearly as broken as we make it out to be in the forum.

[+KBLAST]

I don't think the game is nearly as broken as we make it out to be in the forum.

I think you're probably right, Narcissa, but there are some things that made me want to at least have the discussion.

 

The game is evolving and I see a lot of new players in our large city being confused. Maybe that's part of my interest - I see it all over the greater Columbus Ohio area where we see dozens of new players each week. Everyone who knows me will tell you that I spend WAY too much time trying to make people happy, and when I see people getting upset, I go out of my way to help. Call it a flaw, I'm OK with that. I just want to see new players enjoy the game and fewer older players ticked off because the rules change or things are taken away because of conflicts.

 

It hurts my heart when I see the obviously strong feelings going back and forth about challenges - "GET RID OF THEM ALL OR I QUIT!", "IF YOU GET RID OF CHALLENGES I QUIT!" - and other things - "LET ME LOG THIS FIND OR I QUIT!" "DELETE THEIR LOG OR I QUIT!" I just want to help bring out ideas that may not have been considered before to help make this game better.

 

BTW - on a side note - I've been pleasantly surprised by the intelligent discussion happening in this thread as opposed to some others I've seen.

[+on4bam]

BTW - on a side note - I've been pleasantly surprised by the intelligent discussion happening in this thread as opposed to some others I've seen.

 

De reason discussions are fierce are mostly because people CARE about their hobby. There would be no discussion if no one cared, they would just let it go.

[+thebruce0]

It would become "real mess" if we literally let each CO decide all of their own rules, but that's not what I'm suggesting. As I think about it, what I'm actually suggesting is that each CO should be allowed to enforce the actual rules of the game if they wish to (official rules). If they don't wish to, then so be it (house rules). But, they also should not be allowed to enforce their own personal unofficial rules (unacceptable house rules, e.g. requiring someone to do a multi without anyone else).

I think this is pretty much the way it is now. COs can't add their own logging rules to their caches, but whether they choose to enforce rules (such as 'name in the log book' by checking the log book) is entirely up to them. Same with checking challenge qualifications. A CO could be entirely hands-off their cache if they really want (ugh). Publish, then walk away. It'll eventually get archived when it needs maintenance and it's deemed abandoned, but ultimately the CO decides how much enforcing they want to do.

 

The problem is when cachers compare one CO to another. The CO that promotes adherance to all the rules would tend to get more flack from finders whose experience differs with the apathetic 'nicer' CO. More needless reviewer and/or appeals work.

[+KBLAST]

The problem is when cachers compare one CO to another. The CO that promotes adherance to all the rules would tend to get more flack from finders whose experience differs with the apathetic 'nicer' CO. More needless reviewer and/or appeals work.

So the REAL solution would be for apathetic COs to step up and quit letting people "slide by" just because they don't want to deal with the backlash or are too lazy/don't care? That would require all COs to be on the same page about their responsibilities. I guess I'd be surprised to see someone chime in and say, "Screw you! We apathetic COs are united in our... um... apathy! We'll play it however we want!" So the chances of some of the folks who ARE part of the problem reading is pretty slim. Is there a way to deal with THIS problem (other than the aforementioned wait until it falls into disrepair and let it get archived)?

 

BTW - on a side note - I've been pleasantly surprised by the intelligent discussion happening in this thread as opposed to some others I've seen.

 

De reason discussions are fierce are mostly because people CARE about their hobby. There would be no discussion if no one cared, they would just let it go.

 

I love people fighting and caring about the hobby fiercely. I've fought from time to time, myself. I just hate when we (yes, including me) fall into hateful diatribes instead of constructive discussions. This post doesn't seem to have fallen into that. I like it that way.

[+cron]

I can understand some geocachers are getting bored after 100 or 10,000 finds and they need a little bit of extra spice to bring back the interest. I can also understand others can't care less about any requirements (be it logical or physical) and just want to find caches.

 

What would be the love child of those who need the challenge and those who just want to find a physical cache?

 

Not banning challenge caches and letting everyone sign the logbook for a find. Makes everyone happy.

[+on4bam]

Makes everyone happy.

 

No it won't

[+AustinMN]

Makes everyone happy.

 

No it won't

 

+1.

[+cron]

Makes everyone happy.

 

No it won't

 

Fair enough. Why?

 

I can see the challenge lovers happy as they can still find challenge caches and everyone else happy as they get their finds.

 

Pretty much the same as for a puzzle cache.

Edited April 28, 2015 by cron

[+thebruce0]

Not banning challenge caches and letting everyone sign the logbook for a find. Makes everyone happy.

 

I point again, to Challenge Stars. To distinguish challenges from finding geocaches. And the additional option of allows COs to unlink the two, so that those who want to find physical caches can, without qualifying, because the "Find log" doesn't mean "Found AND Qualified" any more, and people aiming to qualify for challenges can now track it distinctly with its own stats, as well as meaning that the DT of challenge caches are once again relevant for the actual cache while the challenge has its own rating.

 

There is, dare I say, no possible way to have 'Challenge Caches' in their current form (physical container and virtual challenge requirement), and allow cachers to both log it found without qualifying and while keeping the challenges themselves actually worthwhile (not making challenge caches into something else entirely, especially which has been done (and failed) before).

Edited April 28, 2015 by thebruce0

[+KBLAST]

One of the main reasons I chose the title of this thread was to prevent the conversation from turning into the same thread as the one already dedicated to battling for/against challenges and fixing challenges. Of course, if you think the greater problem really IS challenges, and your fix will solve the problem, I guess this is still on topic.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

It seems that people (the few on this forum, not the majority that doesn't read/post here) have a problem with challenges that are "to complex" or "to hard". If you do away with challenges for that reason, then what about D5 mysteries? What about multi stage caches with 20+ waypoints and hard to find tags and fieldpuzzles in hard to crack codes (enigma, DNA, Pig latin...).

The argument "to difficult" should never be used.

 

I disagree. The complaint that a challenge is too difficult (or a mystery cache too hard, or a multi with too many waypoints) isn't just that it's too difficult, or the mystery is too hard, or too many stages. The issue, to me, is when it's unnecessarily too difficult. I've done D4 mystery caches that took over a month to solve and enjoyed it. It's easy to create an unsolvable mystery, or a challenge that could only be achieved by a handful of cachers in the world but what's the point?

 

This isn't a contest to see who can create the hardest puzzle, or the challenge which the fewest people will ever qualify. Some challenge cachers have taken the level of complexity and achievability to a level of absurdity.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

Makes everyone happy.

 

No it won't

 

I'm guessing that's because challenge owners and enthusiasts like the exclusivity of the current challenge system. It's a find that no one else can add to their found list. Makes that find more valuable to those who are competitive.

A souvenir/badge is easier to overlook, more 'whatever' to those people who don't care about statistics/grid-filling/achievements. The challenge qualifiers achievement is more overt and attention getting if there's a physical cache to claim as a prize.

[+thebruce0]

The challenge qualifiers achievement is more overt and attention getting if there's a physical cache to claim as a prize.

"Overt" and "attention getting" is pretty one-sided.

Tying it to a physical cache means you have much more (localized) freedom with ideas. Even if the challenge idea is common, if you think of it yourself because there isn't one nearby, you can publish it for people near you. Less duplication, less comparison for originality to other challenges worldwide (or in the greater region). So the other side of the argument is tying the challenge to a physical cache actually helps with creativity and freedom for COs who want to put out caches with challenges.

 

Fizzy challenges are a dime a dozen.

But so what?

Anyone who completes a fizzy can go and log them, if they're ever in the area of those challenge caches. Duplication is irrelevant for those who don't travel much. Their geocaching 'world' may only be the closest 20km to home. Having some of these challenges pop up next door is something 'new' and may be 'exciting' (who are we to say). And the COs are glad to put the caches out that they have a desire to put out.

 

Are there people who make it competitive? Sure. But stating it's about prizes, attention, and bragging rights as if those are the only reasons - nuh uh. At least for such people no more so than putting out caches in general.

Edited April 28, 2015 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

I wish there were a good "quickstart" guide or something for geocaching, but that'd be like trying to throw all the rules of something like "Settlers of Catan" into a paragraph.

FWIW, my copy of Settlers of Catan came with a short Game Overview document, a Game Rules document, and a more detailed Almanac document. The short Game Overview document is essentially a quickstart guide.

 

And there are quickstart guides for geocaching. The cache notes we print and put in caches are essentially quickstart guides. So are the brochures that are available in several languages.

 

I think that might be part of Groundspeak's challenge, as well... with games like Scrabble and Settlers of Catan it's a lot easier to make hard and fast rules.

Well, yes. In Scrabble and Settlers of Catan, the rules for where you can place your pieces are pretty clear. But for challenge caches, there are subjective rules about "similar" challenge caches in the area, and so on.