Which date can you use to log a challenge cache

[+CanadianRockies]

BTW, if you can only log a challenge cache when you qualify then you shouldn't log the physical cache before you meet the requirements because signing the log is in fact logging (even if you don't log online you claim a find).

 

If you sign a challenge cache's physical log, then you are indeed logging (by definition). But you're only claiming to have found the physical container. By logging an online "Found it," you're claiming to have found the physical container and completed the challenge's requirements.

[+cheech gang]

BTW, if you can only log a challenge cache when you qualify then you shouldn't log the physical cache before you meet the requirements because signing the log is in fact logging (even if you don't log online you claim a find).

 

If you sign a challenge cache's physical log, then you are indeed logging (by definition). But you're only claiming to have found the physical container. By logging an online "Found it," you're claiming to have found the physical container and completed the challenge's requirements.

 

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. 

[+ChileHead]

All this discussion over something that is really such a trivial detail about challenges. No wonder they are on hiatus.

 

With this much discussion about a logging date, can you imagine how many emails that HQ had to deal with because people's ridiculous challenges weren't published?

[+narcissa]

All this discussion over something that is really such a trivial detail about challenges. No wonder they are on hiatus.

 

With this much discussion about a logging date, can you imagine how many emails that HQ had to deal with because people's ridiculous challenges weren't published?

 

It comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

[+SwineFlew]

All this discussion over something that is really such a trivial detail about challenges. No wonder they are on hiatus.

 

With this much discussion about a logging date, can you imagine how many emails that HQ had to deal with because people's ridiculous challenges weren't published?

I heard you.

 

Challenge caches are what controlling CO loves! Give them an inch, they will go a mile.

 

I wont care if all challenge caches are archived and banned for life. In fact, I feel it would be a good thing.

 

I did a challenge cache this past may because I was able to. I do challenge myself...but not for challenge caches. A big difference there.

 

My personal opinions about geocaching, its becoming too serious and no fun.

[beekayy]

I heard you.

 

Challenge caches are what controlling CO loves! Give them an inch, they will go a mile.

 

I wont care if all challenge caches are archived and banned for life. In fact, I feel it would be a good thing.

 

I did a challenge cache this past may because I was able to. I do challenge myself...but not for challenge caches. A big difference there.

 

My personal opinions about geocaching, its becoming too serious and no fun.

 

This is at least the second time you have made a comment about "controlling CO". Do you really think that some cache owners place caches just to try to control how, where, how long cachers look for them and then revel in said attempts? If so, I can't agree with you.

Edited July 11, 2015 by beekayy

[+WarNinjas]

I know most of the challenges around here say in the description "You can sign the log at any time but can only claim a find once you have met the challenge requirements"

 

I wouldn't go out of my way to sign one I didn't qualify for but my daughter and I took a trip out to a long bike trail of challenges. We qualified for about half of them. Some I was not sure if we qualified for yet or not. I would say there was about 20 and it wasn't really a planned out trip and we didn't check our stats against all the challenges out there. So what is being said here is we should have somehow in the field along our bike ride when it was starting to get dark looked threw our stats and count up everything to make sure we qualified for them before deciding to sign it. Even though it says to sign it at anytime? We signed all the ones we could find. I wouldn't make the 50 mile trip back up there to bike a long trail we already biked just to sign one. There are new places I want us to explore.

 

We wrote a note on all of them and when we got home we looked threw our finds and logged found it for the ones we qualified for. Now once in a while I will look threw my old notes for challenges and check again. If we qualify I log it. So it might not be the day we found it or the day we qualified but the day I noticed we qualified. I never use a challenge for our streak but also just log them when I have a list that shows I qualify.

 

I do agree now reading about messing up our mileage that I wish we had back dated them to when we found them but have done a bunch of challenges and don't see me trying to figure that out at this time. Had I thought of that back then I would have done it that way.

[+on4bam]

I still fail to see why someone would willingly go out to find a cache to sign the log and post a note online just in case the qualify to log it as a found later. There are so many complaints that areas are saturated with caches and yet, just that one you can't log (yet) is the one to go for.

Going on cachetrip today we'll do a 30 Km multi, at every WP there's also a traditional or multi and there are a lot more caches (close) along the way + also a few challenges I don't yet qualify for. I'm sure that except for the larger multi and a few short multi's we won't stop for the rest.

[+jellis]

I normally don't sign the log until after I've qualified for the challenge. Then I log the find that same date. Keeps it simple.

That's fine, but some us travel and find Challenge caches we want to log but don't qualify for. Do I go back to that state when I do? No, I sign it now and log the find once I do qualify.

[+CanadianRockies]

I still fail to see why someone would willingly go out to find a cache to sign the log and post a note online just in case the qualify to log it as a found later. There are so many complaints that areas are saturated with caches and yet, just that one you can't log (yet) is the one to go for.

Many people who tackle challenge caches don't do it just to increment their smiley count by one. Lots of challenge caches take so much time to accomplish and document that they are an incredible waste of time if "it's all about the numbers." Instead, these folks take on challenge caches because they enjoy the challenges (among other reasons).

 

Suppose I go 10 minutes out of my way to sign the physical log for a challenge cache that I haven't qualified for yet, but I'm 20 percent certain I will qualify for it eventually. And even if I never qualify for it, the challenge looks like a lot of fun, so I'm sure I'll enjoy striving to achieve it even if I never accomplish it. Do you understand why I might sign that log?

 

Going on cachetrip today we'll do a 30 Km multi, at every WP there's also a traditional or multi and there are a lot more caches (close) along the way + also a few challenges I don't yet qualify for. I'm sure that except for the larger multi and a few short multi's we won't stop for the rest.

If that's the way you like to geocache, then that's great. Other people enjoy geocaching in other ways, and that's okay too. To each, their own. Vive la différence.

Edited July 11, 2015 by CanadianRockies

[+fizzymagic]

But the smiley for finding the physical cache would no longer held hostage to the challenge.

 

Just like other ALR caches. Making ALRs optional eliminated most of the controversy over ALR caches. Of course, now the controversy has migrated towards challenge caches, and hence, the moratorium.

 

Completely false. The moratorium has nothing to do with the small group of dedicated haters who cannot stand the thought that somebody, somewhere, might be having a bit of fun that they don't approve of. Those haters are infesting this thread, it is true, but the moratorium (as we have been repeatedly told by TPTB) has to do with reviewer issues.

 

You all are entitled to your opinions, odious though they may be, but you're not entitled to make up facts.

[+K13]

The moratorium has as much (if not more) to do with appeals over what qualifies as a find as it does with Reviewer issues for placing new Challenges.

[+on4bam]

Suppose I go 10 minutes out of my way to sign the physical log for a challenge cache that I haven't qualified for yet, but I'm 20 percent certain I will qualify for it eventually. And even if I never qualify for it, the challenge looks like a lot of fun, so I'm sure I'll enjoy striving to achieve it even if I never accomplish it. Do you understand why I might sign that log?

 

No, I don't.

 

If that's the way you like to geocache, then that's great. Other people enjoy geocaching in other ways, and that's okay too. To each, their own. Vive la différence.

 

Sure, but the point I was making was that you don't have to go log everything in a certain area. There are enough choices and logging a challenge because you might, maybe, ever, qualify seems such a waste.

 

I like challenges, I hate the fact that there's a moratorium but I won't go far out of my way to qualify and will never go find one "in advance" of qualifying.

 

BTW, we did 7 today (should have been 8, 1 DNF) but it could well have been 25-30 as I almost stepped on a trad but didn't log (all 17 virtual WP's of the multi were trads/short multi's and there were a lot of other trads along the way too).

 

Did I mention some caches were buried?

[+dprovan]

The moratorium has as much (if not more) to do with appeals over what qualifies as a find as it does with Reviewer issues for placing new Challenges.

No, it doesn't.

[knowschad]

All this discussion over something that is really such a trivial detail about challenges. No wonder they are on hiatus.

 

With this much discussion about a logging date, can you imagine how many emails that HQ had to deal with because people's ridiculous challenges weren't published?

 

Hey, this is some very important stuff!!

[+fizzymagic]

The moratorium has as much (if not more) to do with appeals over what qualifies as a find as it does with Reviewer issues for placing new Challenges.

 

Utterly false.

 

One might gt that impression from the relentless efforts of several people in the forums here, but it is simply not true. Do a search.

[knowschad]

My personal opinions about geocaching, its becoming too serious and no fun.

Seriously? Where's the fun in that?

[+narcissa]

I normally don't sign the log until after I've qualified for the challenge. Then I log the find that same date. Keeps it simple.

That's fine, but some us travel and find Challenge caches we want to log but don't qualify for. Do I go back to that state when I do? No, I sign it now and log the find once I do qualify.

 

To me it would seem weird to spend my travel time finding caches that I'm specifically not allowed to "find" online when there are literally millions of caches out there.

[+CanadianRockies]

If that's the way you like to geocache, then that's great. Other people enjoy geocaching in other ways, and that's okay too. To each, their own. Vive la différence.

Sure, but the point I was making was that you don't have to go log everything in a certain area. There are enough choices and logging a challenge because you might, maybe, ever, qualify seems such a waste.

I don't log challenge caches because I feel some compulsion to go out and log everything in a certain area. I'm guessing not many challenge cachers do. This is most obvious when I travel and encounter far more caches than I could possibly find. In those cases, I often go out of my way to pre-sign certain challenge caches.

 

Why would I do that? I pre-sign some challenge caches because I really enjoy certain types of challenges. Even though I might not successfully complete a particular challenge, I'll still probably enjoy the attempt.

 

I also seek out multi-caches. But why would I opt to search for a many-stage multi when there are plenty of traditional caches that I could choose instead? After all, my chances of finding a long multi's final are significantly worse than my chances of finding a traditional cache. Or, to paraphrase you, there are enough other choices, so searching for a multi because I might, maybe, ever find its final is such a waste.

 

I search for multi-caches because I enjoy many of them. Even if I might not get that smiley in the end, I'll still probably enjoy the time I'm out there looking.

 

I also enjoy working on clever puzzles, even when I know there's a significant chance that I might not solve some of them. The pleasure I get simply from trying makes the effort worthwhile.

[+niraD]

But the smiley for finding the physical cache would no longer held hostage to the challenge.

 

Just like other ALR caches. Making ALRs optional eliminated most of the controversy over ALR caches. Of course, now the controversy has migrated towards challenge caches, and hence, the moratorium.

Completely false. The moratorium has nothing to do with the small group of dedicated haters who cannot stand the thought that somebody, somewhere, might be having a bit of fun that they don't approve of. Those haters are infesting this thread, it is true, but the moratorium (as we have been repeatedly told by TPTB) has to do with reviewer issues.

Okay, there are several issues muddled here. I apologize for that.

 

My quoted reply was in response to the idea that a challenge isn't a challenge unless completing the requirements of the challenge is mandatory before someone can post an online Find. I still think that finding a mystery/puzzle cache every day for 30 days (or whatever) is just as much a challenge, regardless of whether or not the challenge must be completed before a certain online Find log can be posted. Making the ALR optional doesn't reduce the challenge of completing the ALR. Making the challenge requirements optional doesn't reduce the challenge of completing the challenge requirements.

 

Separate from that is the issue of reviewer load. From what I can see, what killed ALR caches was the reviewer load dealing with disgruntled cache owners trying to place unacceptable ALR caches. And what led to the challenge cache moratorium was the reviewer load dealing with disgruntled cache owners trying to place unacceptable challenge caches. Killing ALR caches or challenge caches (or virtual caches) gets rid of the reviewer load associated with those caches.

 

And separate from that is the issue of controversy/"haters" in the forums. But when ALRs became optional, not only did the issue of reviewer load go away, but the controversy/"haters" in the forums dropped (once the initial fury over the decision to make ALRs optional subsided).

 

But (somewhat tongue in cheek) it seems to me that current controversy over exactly how/when challenge caches should be logged isn't exactly helping the cause of bringing back challenge caches in their current form. Although I don't actually think that's an option Groundspeak is considering. The fact that there is a moratorium indicates to me that Groundspeak thinks that challenge caches will need to change substantially if they are to return after the moratorium.

 

Anyway, back on topic, to the discussion of exactly how/when challenge caches should be logged...

[+fizzymagic]

I still think that finding a mystery/puzzle cache every day for 30 days (or whatever) is just as much a challenge, regardless of whether or not the challenge must be completed before a certain online Find log can be posted. Making the ALR optional doesn't reduce the challenge of completing the ALR. Making the challenge requirements optional doesn't reduce the challenge of completing the challenge requirements.

 

No, but it effectively prevents people who enjoy logging difficult challenge caches from having fun.

 

But (somewhat tongue in cheek) it seems to me that current controversy over exactly how/when challenge caches should be logged isn't exactly helping the cause of bringing back challenge caches in their current form.

 

That is exactly the purpose of those who don't like them and are working to have them eliminated. Ginning up false controversy is excellent propaganda tool and is being used here in a manner I personally find contemptible.

 

The so-called "controversy" is fallacious (who would accidentally log a cache in the area that is a question mark without reading the text?), tired (that whole argument was hashed over in detail several months ago), and dishonest (the whole "I just want to log all teh cachez" line is absurd).

 

Am I annoyed by this? You bet. My caching rate is already down because of the relative paucity of even mildly interesting caches; removing challenges will just make it that much more boring.

 

But it'll all be good because you guys can be certain that nobody is having fun you don't approve of!

Edited July 12, 2015 by fizzymagic

[+niraD]

But (somewhat tongue in cheek) it seems to me that current controversy over exactly how/when challenge caches should be logged isn't exactly helping the cause of bringing back challenge caches in their current form.

That is exactly the purpose of those who don't like them and are working to have them eliminated.

FWIW, the controversy I was referring to wasn't the old one between challenge fans and "haters". It's the controversy that is on-topic in this thread, the controversy over whether one should sign the physical log before completing the challenge requirements, and if so, which date should be used when logging the challenge cache online.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I normally don't sign the log until after I've qualified for the challenge. Then I log the find that same date. Keeps it simple.

That's fine, but some us travel and find Challenge caches we want to log but don't qualify for. Do I go back to that state when I do? No, I sign it now and log the find once I do qualify.

 

To me it would seem weird to spend my travel time finding caches that I'm specifically not allowed to "find" online when there are literally millions of caches out there.

 

For me, I don't travel for the purpose of finding caches. I travel and take the opportunity to find caches while I am there. I agree with CR in that choosing a challenge cache to find if there happens to be one in the area provides the incentive to work on a challenge. My goal isn't to find as many as possible of the millions of caches out there, but to find the kinds of caches I want to find.

 

I gave an example of a challenge cache in Paris that is close to where I will be staying in September. It's one of those find N types of caches in a day challenges. I am not traveling to Paris to go geocaching. I'm going to be working everyday but might have the opportunity to find a few caches while I am there and one of them happens to be a challenge cache. As I've also wrote previously, I don't live in an area where there are many challenge caches. There's only one that I haven't done (attend 5 CITO events) within 30 miles. Finding that challenge cache in Paris when I happen to be there is the best opportunity for me to complete a challenge cache even though I'll probably have to travel 75 miles r/t to an area where I can complete the criteria.

[+narcissa]

My caching rate is already down because of the relative paucity of even mildly interesting caches; removing challenges will just make it that much more boring.

 

Don't you need to find those other boring caches to qualify for challenges? Or have challenges become so prevalent that you can now qualify for challenges by only finding challenges? Certainly adds a layer of complexity to the game.

[+captnemo]

I don't often travel to cache but I do cache while I travel.

 

Back on the subject. I date the find log for the date I have completed all of the requirements. If I have completed the ALRs when I find the physical cache then the day of the find is the day of the log. If I haven't completed the ALR when I find the physical cache then I will log a note with the find date and then a second log, a find log with that date, when I have completed the ALR.

 

My reasons are the same as when I go back and find a cache that I have DNFed and that is to maintain my catching history a Note then a Find.

Edited July 12, 2015 by captnemo

[+dprovan]

FWIW, the controversy I was referring to wasn't the old one between challenge fans and "haters". It's the controversy that is on-topic in this thread, the controversy over whether one should sign the physical log before completing the challenge requirements, and if so, which date should be used when logging the challenge cache online.

This isn't a controversy. Some people think the day you can claim the find is the logical date for the found log. Others think that the date you signed the log is the logical date. The points are being discussed. I don't hear anyone saying it's a crime to use the other date, just that they don't think it's logical.

 

Then there's the third group which points out that this isn't an issue if you just sign the log only after you qualify. And even that group isn't saying it's wrong to do it the other way around, we're just questioning the arguments being presented for pre-signing.

 

Stop pretending everyone's at everyone else's throat over it.

[+on4bam]

Stop pretending everyone's at everyone else's throat over it.

 

It looks like most, if not all in this thread like and enjoy challenges.

[+K13]

Stop pretending everyone's at everyone else's throat over it.

 

It looks like most, if not all in this thread like and enjoy challenges.

 

Not everyone likes this cache type.

[+SwineFlew]

My personal opinions about geocaching, its becoming too serious and no fun.

Seriously? Where's the fun in that?

I saw what you did there.

[+on4bam]

Stop pretending everyone's at everyone else's throat over it.

 

It looks like most, if not all in this thread like and enjoy challenges.

 

Not everyone likes this cache type.

 

I just thought English was your native language, oh well.. guess not...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Stop pretending everyone's at everyone else's throat over it.

 

It looks like most, if not all in this thread like and enjoy challenges.

 

For me it's not about liking or not liking challenges. It's how the existence of challenge have an impact on the game. Other than moving caches and perhaps the FTF game I've seen a lot more drama associated with challenge caches than other aspects of the game. Apparently GS weighed the amount of enjoyment they bring to the impact they've had on reviewers and perhaps other considerations and determined that, at least temporarily, a moratorium on new placements should be put in place until they can address the negative impact they're having.

[+fizzymagic]

Other than moving caches and perhaps the FTF game I've seen a lot more drama associated with challenge caches than other aspects of the game.

 

That's meant to be a joke, right?

 

Drama on the forums != drama IRL.

 

I consider geocachers being shot at, arrested, etc. considerably more dramatic than online squabbles about when one can log a find. Especially when the online squabbles are quite self-evidently ginned up by a small group.

 

The real drama these days has much more to do with power trails and geo-art than challenges, which have always been (and remain) a relatively small part of the caching universe, your hatred of them notwithstanding.

[+GeoBain]

Stop pretending everyone's at everyone else's throat over it.

 

It looks like most, if not all in this thread like and enjoy challenges.

 

Not everyone likes this cache type.

 

Some of us are indifferent.

Edited July 13, 2015 by GeoBain

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

The real drama these days has much more to do with power trails and geo-art than challenges, which have always been (and remain) a relatively small part of the caching universe, your hatred of them notwithstanding.

 

Of course, incidents involving physical altercations and threats of violence are more significant than verbal sparring matches. I wonder what types of caches are associated with the greatest frequency of these incidents.

 

I don't hate power trails and geo-art. My view on them is the same as it is for challenges. I understand that they can provide joy for some but also recognize that they cause problems for the game as a whole and can negatively impact the enjoyment of the game for others and "if you don't like them, don't do them" is not a viable solution. I think that most of the people that speak out here against challenge caches, or power trails or geo-art recognize that these caches are providing joy to some geocachers but are just trying to emphasize that the existence of these cache types have consequences as well.

 

If i called for a permanent ban on challenge caches solely because I didn't like them, that would be selfish. I don't speak out against challenge caches because how they affect me personally (as I've said, they're very uncommon in my area), but because of how I see them impacting the game as a whole.

 

 

[+narcissa]

Stop pretending everyone's at everyone else's throat over it.

 

It looks like most, if not all in this thread like and enjoy challenges.

 

Not everyone likes this cache type.

 

Some of us are indifferent.

 

Some of us like a worthwhile challenge now and then but find that some people are getting a little silly about them.

Edited July 13, 2015 by narcissa

[+dprovan]

If i called for a permanent ban on challenge caches solely because I didn't like them, that would be selfish. I don't speak out against challenge caches because how they affect me personally (as I've said, they're very uncommon in my area), but because of how I see them impacting the game as a whole.

Perhaps your lack of personal experience is warping your sense of how it impacts the game as a whole. I see people talking about problems with challenge caches here in the forums where people come to complain, but I've never ever seen any conflict caused by them in practice. Sure, apparently some people cause trouble in the review process, and that's something that should be sorted out, but reading the discussions here, you'd think people get into fisticuffs all the time over rejected claims. Challenge caches are popular in my area, and the worst angst I've seen is a CO that very reluctantly has to reject a claim that missed part of the requirement. If there are big fights over challenge caches in other areas, I suggest blaming the culture in that area instead of blaming challenge caches.

[+niraD]

Some of us like a worthwhile challenge now and then but find that some people are getting a little silly about them.

Personally, I think a system of online badges for statistical challenges/milestones makes more sense than the current system of geocaching-related logging requirements. But giving challenge caches their own type would be good too; they've clearly outgrown the role of mystery/puzzle caches as a "staging ground for new and unique geocaches that do not fit in another category."

 

But while the only caches on my ignore list are challenge caches that I expect I'll never complete, I do enjoy a good challenge (admittedly, "good" is very subjective), including one that I've been (slowly) working on since it was published 8+ years ago.

 

But what's going to kill (or transform, or transform and then leave for dead) challenge caches isn't the people who hate them or the people who are indifferent towards them or the people who have decidedly mixed feelings about them. What's going to kill them is their fans pushing the limits further and further. Not unlike certain other cache types that can't be listed here any longer.

[+narcissa]

Some of us like a worthwhile challenge now and then but find that some people are getting a little silly about them.

Personally, I think a system of online badges for statistical challenges/milestones makes more sense than the current system of geocaching-related logging requirements. But giving challenge caches their own type would be good too; they've clearly outgrown the role of mystery/puzzle caches as a "staging ground for new and unique geocaches that do not fit in another category."

 

But while the only caches on my ignore list are challenge caches that I expect I'll never complete, I do enjoy a good challenge (admittedly, "good" is very subjective), including one that I've been (slowly) working on since it was published 8+ years ago.

 

But what's going to kill (or transform, or transform and then leave for dead) challenge caches isn't the people who hate them or the people who are indifferent towards them or the people who have decidedly mixed feelings about them. What's going to kill them is their fans pushing the limits further and further. Not unlike certain other cache types that can't be listed here any longer.

 

Wholeheartedly agree on all points.

[+L0ne.R]

But what's going to kill (or transform, or transform and then leave for dead) challenge caches isn't the people who hate them or the people who are indifferent towards them or the people who have decidedly mixed feelings about them. What's going to kill them is their fans pushing the limits further and further. Not unlike certain other cache types that can't be listed here any longer.

 

Spot on.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If i called for a permanent ban on challenge caches solely because I didn't like them, that would be selfish. I don't speak out against challenge caches because how they affect me personally (as I've said, they're very uncommon in my area), but because of how I see them impacting the game as a whole.

Perhaps your lack of personal experience is warping your sense of how it impacts the game as a whole. I see people talking about problems with challenge caches here in the forums where people come to complain, but I've never ever seen any conflict caused by them in practice. Sure, apparently some people cause trouble in the review process, and that's something that should be sorted out, but reading the discussions here, you'd think people get into fisticuffs all the time over rejected claims. Challenge caches are popular in my area, and the worst angst I've seen is a CO that very reluctantly has to reject a claim that missed part of the requirement. If there are big fights over challenge caches in other areas, I suggest blaming the culture in that area instead of blaming challenge caches.

 

As I see it, the geocaching culture in an area and the pervasiveness of a certain type of cache is intertwined. Just look at a map of some areas and it's pretty obvious (at least to me) that a "all about the numbers" culture has led to the creation of dozen of "cache series" (or is the the other way around).

 

From what I've seen one of the most challenge rich areas is in Ontario and that's related to a culture of placing caches that exist only to help those trying to complete challenge caches.

 

Maybe I don't have experience with challenge caches personally but apparently I'm not the only one that notices a negative impact on the game as a whole, and I consider the review process to be integral to the game. Apparently GS agrees.

 

 

[+dprovan]

But what's going to kill (or transform, or transform and then leave for dead) challenge caches isn't the people who hate them or the people who are indifferent towards them or the people who have decidedly mixed feelings about them. What's going to kill them is their fans pushing the limits further and further.

People that go too far are more exploiters than fans. I have a hard time imagining a challenge cache fan that would think positively about a challenge that's stupidly complicated, obscure, or otherwise impossible.

 

From what I've seen one of the most challenge rich areas is in Ontario and that's related to a culture of placing caches that exist only to help those trying to complete challenge caches.

There are plenty of challenge caches in my area, and once in a while caches are placed to help satisfy the challenges, but because the local culture favors decent caches to begin with, those helping caches are as good as most of the other caches, if not better.

 

Maybe I don't have experience with challenge caches personally but apparently I'm not the only one that notices a negative impact on the game as a whole, and I consider the review process to be integral to the game. Apparently GS agrees.

I have a lot of experience with challenge caches, and I've found they have a significant positive impact on the game as a whole. Will you add that datapoint to your set, or will you continue to believe that since you've heard some people in some areas complain about them, they must be bad, so you must continue to call for a permanent ban for everyone?

 

I definitely don't discount the impact on the review process, but it seems like there must be a less draconian way to avoid wasting time with odd ball challenge caches while still allowing the ones that reviewers have no problem approving.