Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
Rock Chalk

Challenge Cache Survey open until Dec 21

Recommended Posts

I found one section to be rather confusing. If I agree (duh!) that certain kinds of challenges make me hurry to find caches (e.g., find 400 caches in a day), does that agreement also imply that I agree with those who feel that these kinds of challenges are an argument against challenge caches?

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I found one section to be rather confusing. If I agree (duh!) that certain kinds of challenges make me hurry to find caches (e.g., find 400 caches in a day), does that agreement also imply that I agree with those who feel that these kinds of challenges are an argument against challenge caches?

 

That question falls under "Here are some things community members have indicated they don't like about challenge caches."

 

So one of the things some community members don't like is that some challenge caches result in them feeling they have to hurry to find caches in a specific time period.

 

By agreeing with the "I have to hurry to find caches in a specific time period" statement, you're agreeing that you don't like hurrying to find caches in a specific time period in order to qualify for a challenge cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Good job on the survey! You folks obviously put a lot of thought (and a lot of our feedback) into creating the survey questions. Thanks for doing that.

Share this post


Link to post

(Quotes from the survey.)

 

Some require players to declare their intention to participate, and only caches found after that date count towards qualification.

 

I wasn't aware that sort of thing was still allowed?

 

Does it diminish your experience if someone else can log the cache and get a smiley if they didn’t qualify for the challenge?

 

I think this depends on the Rating system being used. Under the current system, an ammo can in the woods that would normally be a 1.5/1.5 could reasonably be rated 5/1.5 if it was a very difficult challenge cache. If a difficult challenge cache with an easy hide can be logged as a Find by someone who has not met the challenge then the current system of rating Challenge caches must change somehow.

Edited by Joshism

Share this post


Link to post

For the final question I would like to have been able to say that I don't mind if cachers who don't qualify for a challenge cache find the physical cache but it shouldn't count the same way. There should be a different type of symbol for that type of find. I can't even figure out the location of many puzzle caches and they interfere with putting out new caches because we don't know where they are but I still think they have the right to exist. And just because I can no longer find a lot of T4 or T5 caches doesn't mean they shouldn't be put out there for cachers who can. Just needed a little opportunity to flesh out some answers. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

For the final question I would like to have been able to say that I don't mind if cachers who don't qualify for a challenge cache find the physical cache but it shouldn't count the same way. There should be a different type of symbol for that type of find. I can't even figure out the location of many puzzle caches and they interfere with putting out new caches because we don't know where they are but I still think they have the right to exist. And just because I can no longer find a lot of T4 or T5 caches doesn't mean they shouldn't be put out there for cachers who can. Just needed a little opportunity to flesh out some answers. Thanks.

I hadn't even thought about the ratings. I think it starts to get complicated trying to have two sets of D/T's for these caches so I think perhaps only cachers who qualify for the challenges should get to sign the logs unless some sort of "discovery" cache type is created.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the survey was done rather well. I love challenge caches but realize not all cachers do. I think we will see them back in 2016 in some modified version. Hopefully not too minced but merely cleaned up to avoid challenges that were difficult to manage (for various reasons).

Share this post


Link to post

I was amused to be adding an Other and then seeing my concern listed on the following page.

 

It would have been nice to have a section which rated favorite to least favorite types of Challenges.

 

I do feel there are some which were placed just to be very difficult and require someone to be a programmer or wiz with GSAK to work their way through. My general rule of thumb on these is if it looks like it will take me more than 5 minutes to see if I qualify then forget it. I have bothered, in the past, to spend up to an hour searching for qualification detail. Those kind I can certainly do without. I don't know how non-premium members are supposed to qualify for some.

Share this post


Link to post

My husband & I have two separate geocaching accounts but the survey would only let us take it once. When my husband goes on to take the survey, it tells him that he already has taken it. Is there any way to get around that so he can take the survey too?

Share this post


Link to post

My husband & I have two separate geocaching accounts but the survey would only let us take it once. When my husband goes on to take the survey, it tells him that he already has taken it. Is there any way to get around that so he can take the survey too?

 

Delete your cookies.

Share this post


Link to post

I do feel there are some which were placed just to be very difficult and require someone to be a programmer or wiz with GSAK to work their way through. My general rule of thumb on these is if it looks like it will take me more than 5 minutes to see if I qualify then forget it. I have bothered, in the past, to spend up to an hour searching for qualification detail. Those kind I can certainly do without.

But to me the real question is whether you think the fact that you could do without them is a good reason not to allow them.

 

The more this is discussed in the forum, the more I think that if it's that hard to draw an objective line, a perfectly reasonable way to solve the reviewing problem would be to just allow anything. Stupid challenges will be ignored just like impossible puzzles and impossible hides are already ignored. I'm not seeing how the "danger" of stupid challenge caches warrants taking away the possibility of interesting new ideas for challenge caches

Share this post


Link to post

I took the survey, but thought that it appeared to be written in such a way as to be considering only negative things, like eliminating certain types of challenges, etc. I for one would like to see challenge caching expanded, with as many new types of challenges as people can dream up! Many of the challenges listed, I've already done, so new challenges keep the game interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

The more this is discussed in the forum, the more I think that if it's that hard to draw an objective line, a perfectly reasonable way to solve the reviewing problem would be to just allow anything. Stupid challenges will be ignored just like impossible puzzles and impossible hides are already ignored. I'm not seeing how the "danger" of stupid challenge caches warrants taking away the possibility of interesting new ideas for challenge caches

The way I see it, there are two choices to minimize or remove the reviewal process - allow anything, or automate everything with explicit definitions. That is, either anything goes (see Geocaching Challenges) or challenges are based on measuring and calculating stats with existing algorithms. If it's not an algorithm or not available as one or uses some aspect that isn't a property in some way in the database, then it can't be a challenge. And that goes back to every challenge cache requireing a checker. If that ends up being true, then at the very least the review process is minimized (to "is this a reasonable challenge?") if not removed entirely (limits can be added to a challenge tester algorithm if necessary to say "nope, requires too much" or "nope, too few people would qualify"). Heck they could have a bot-review process that would approve/deny after your challenge is put in a queue for auto-review, where it applies your checker to a random collection of members' stats, like a political survey. And decides whether it's reasonable or not, depending on the style of challenge it is (that seems to me a potential reasoning behind guaging the popularity of various challenge styles via the survey)

 

Anyway, just thinking out loud now :P

1) Allow all (dilute the enjoyment, no review process)

2) Change nothing (best variety, most flexibility, most review process)

3) Automated review (limited challenge flexibility by measurable stats, little/no review)

 

I still think a Project-GC partnership could be a good business move; create a system using PGC that makes it easy for COs to build flexible checkers for a wide variety of challenge styles.

If I can write one or two SQLite queries to parse my finds and tell me if I qualify for almost any challenge, it can be done; just need a UI designer to make a nice flexible interface :) Easy! Right? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

My alter ego, the pollster, thinks this survey should be a real treat to analyze. Forced responses? Weird open ends? Oh, joy.

Share this post


Link to post

I do feel there are some which were placed just to be very difficult and require someone to be a programmer or wiz with GSAK to work their way through. My general rule of thumb on these is if it looks like it will take me more than 5 minutes to see if I qualify then forget it. I have bothered, in the past, to spend up to an hour searching for qualification detail. Those kind I can certainly do without.

But to me the real question is whether you think the fact that you could do without them is a good reason not to allow them.

 

The more this is discussed in the forum, the more I think that if it's that hard to draw an objective line, a perfectly reasonable way to solve the reviewing problem would be to just allow anything. Stupid challenges will be ignored just like impossible puzzles and impossible hides are already ignored. I'm not seeing how the "danger" of stupid challenge caches warrants taking away the possibility of interesting new ideas for challenge caches

 

This is the way i see it as well. Just because i dislike a cache doesn't mean that it should not be allowed. I really don't like being asked to thumbs up or thumbs down a cache idea because i know someone else may think it's the greatest cache they ever did.

 

I just don't see why these should be any more of a headache for reviewers than other caches. Imo, review them just like traditionals and don't delve into figuring out if they are too difficult. It should not matter that one person out of a million can do a cache. It shouldn't matter if a cache is too tedious or just plain lame. Again, review these like traditionals and let geocachers themselves decide whether they like or dislike them. Everyone of us has the ability to just walk away from caches we don't like! :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway, just thinking out loud now :P

1) Allow all (dilute the enjoyment, no review process)

2) Change nothing (best variety, most flexibility, most review process)

3) Automated review (limited challenge flexibility by measurable stats, little/no review)

I think more reasonable that these is a 4th option: change nothing except streamline the review process by having one lackey in charge of all appeals -- or even all reviews -- and empower them to reject any challenge cache without explanation and without the possibility of further appeals. I can't say exactly what the load on that lackey would be, but I can imagine the master lackey being able to help any submitter that is sincere about making a good challenge cache while ignoring the ones that are obviously just trying to be silly or annoying.

 

That would eliminate all stupid challenges and a few that aren't stupid but are, nevertheless, rejected because of the master reviewer's whim. I'm fine with that when the alternative is an automated review process or required automated confirmation mechanisms, since both of those will reject far more challenge caches that aren't even remotely stupid just because they don't fit in with the existing processes.

 

My alter ego, the pollster, thinks this survey should be a real treat to analyze. Forced responses? Weird open ends? Oh, joy.

Your alter ego is assuming the goal is to gather impartial information about how people feel about challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to wonder if they've given any serious thought about what to do with the results. Do they have a set number of options that they will choose from based on how the proverbial wind blows or are they expecting to derive a solution based on how people answer? It almost seems like they've stepped into a minefield and they'll never be able to make even a majority happy. I'm almost tempted to say they should have just made a decision and implemented it instead of asking for a million different opinions from a million different people.

Share this post


Link to post

My alter ego, the pollster, thinks this survey should be a real treat to analyze. Forced responses? Weird open ends? Oh, joy.

Your alter ego is assuming the goal is to gather impartial information about how people feel about challenge caches.

 

I don't see anything in the survey design to indicate that it's trying to sway people one way or the other. It's just kind of badly designed.

Share this post


Link to post

My alter ego, the pollster, thinks this survey should be a real treat to analyze. Forced responses? Weird open ends? Oh, joy.

Your alter ego is assuming the goal is to gather impartial information about how people feel about challenge caches.

I don't see anything in the survey design to indicate that it's trying to sway people one way or the other. It's just kind of badly designed.

I don't think it's trying to sway anyone. I think it's trying to collect information that allows them to justify the conclusion that challenge caches are bad and need to be strictly controlled or can be eliminated. Not that I think anyone involved was conscious of that goal, so I agree the basic conclusion is "badly designed".

Share this post


Link to post

My alter ego, the pollster, thinks this survey should be a real treat to analyze. Forced responses? Weird open ends? Oh, joy.

Your alter ego is assuming the goal is to gather impartial information about how people feel about challenge caches.

I don't see anything in the survey design to indicate that it's trying to sway people one way or the other. It's just kind of badly designed.

I don't think it's trying to sway anyone. I think it's trying to collect information that allows them to justify the conclusion that challenge caches are bad and need to be strictly controlled or can be eliminated. Not that I think anyone involved was conscious of that goal, so I agree the basic conclusion is "badly designed".

 

It seems to me like they are, in their ham-fisted way, making a genuine attempt to build consensus and come to a solution that doesn't eliminate challenge caches, but does address at least some of the very legitimate concerns people have about them.

 

I am not overly optimistic that they'll generate a solution that isn't terrible, but I do think they're trying.

Share this post


Link to post

 

It seems to me like they are, in their ham-fisted way, making a genuine attempt to build consensus and come to a solution that doesn't eliminate challenge caches, but does address at least some of the very legitimate concerns people have about them.

 

If that were their intent they could not have found a worse way of doing the questionnaire. There are so many different ways of interpreting it. For example, I answered what they asked for.

So if I disagree with a statement like "There are too many challenge caches of type X" then I chose "disagree" or "strongly disagree" regardless of whether I like or dislike the challenges of that specific type.

Effects caused by this and the effect of averaging out likes and dislikes will let them end up with mostly useless data.

Share this post


Link to post

I love challenge caches and I love puzzle caches.

Having said that there are some of both that leave me scratching my head wondering why the co placed the cache in the first place as there is likely to be only 1 or 2 people who will qualify or solve their cache.

 

I think challenge caches should be brought back in-spite of these few annoying caches not banned because of a few bad caches.

 

When I go on a road trip (eg son's football tournament) I try and get caches on the way that help me complete certain challenge caches. I need a lot more caches starting with the letter I with terrain 2.5 or higher for one, as there is no time limit I'll do my best to fit those in my families activities.

 

About the only ones that bug me is having to record I am starting or when the challenge cache it self is part of the challenge. What I mean is you have to find 30 puzzle type caches in a row and this cache has to be the last one of the 30 to qualify, so I can't qualify at home in my own time but need to set aside a day while on holiday (with family) to complete your challenge. Thankfully I am able to ignore these sorts of caches just like I can ignore any other sort of cache I don't care to find.

 

As a challenge cache owner I do expect people to have completed the challenge cache before they sign the logbook. If an overseas visitor contacted me and said they were going to complete my challenge on their trip but are travelling the wrong way to get my cache at the end then I would allow it but that should be my decision not the default of I was in the area and signed the log and have no idea if or when I'll complete the challenge but I want to change this note to a found when I do.

Share this post


Link to post

This.

99% of challenge caches I love. There are a few challenge caches that are problematic - especially ones the owner hasn't actually done themselves, because they are so impossible to do. There are a few I wouldn't do because they don't float my boat. But in the same way, I don't like 1/1 trads because I want to keep my D/T average high, and I'll save the 1/1 for when I'm no longer able to climb trees. So should we ban 1/1's to make room for physically demanding ones for me? Or ban tree-climbs to leave room for disabled friendly? You do the ones you want to do and are capable of safely doing, and ignore the rest. Which brings me to:


  •  
  • No challenge caches that the owner doesn't qual for themselves - will keep the really ridiculous ones down
  • Consider no challenge caches that require 'all caches in a certain area' - very few cachers like or are capable of 'all' types of caches and there are always a few problematic lost/needs maintenance/CO left the game that make them annoying
  • Maybe have an attribute to make them more searchable.
     

But aside from that first point, I can live with the way it was

Edited by Cdn Howlers

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me like they are, in their ham-fisted way, making a genuine attempt to build consensus and come to a solution that doesn't eliminate challenge caches, but does address at least some of the very legitimate concerns people have about them.

Actually, there was little or nothing in the survey that would help address the two legitimate concerns, which are the review overhead and the impact of challenge caches on other aspects of the game. What I remember about the survey seemed mostly geared to giving people that don't like challenge caches a platform to express their dislikes dressed up as as if they were legitimate concerns.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me like they are, in their ham-fisted way, making a genuine attempt to build consensus and come to a solution that doesn't eliminate challenge caches, but does address at least some of the very legitimate concerns people have about them.

Actually, there was little or nothing in the survey that would help address the two legitimate concerns, which are the review overhead and the impact of challenge caches on other aspects of the game. What I remember about the survey seemed mostly geared to giving people that don't like challenge caches a platform to express their dislikes dressed up as as if they were legitimate concerns.

 

I agree and was waiting for a chance to offer my positive opinion and felt let down when I got to the end of the survey. They seemed to be looking for a reason to ban them.

 

I love them.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me like they are, in their ham-fisted way, making a genuine attempt to build consensus and come to a solution that doesn't eliminate challenge caches, but does address at least some of the very legitimate concerns people have about them.

Actually, there was little or nothing in the survey that would help address the two legitimate concerns, which are the review overhead and the impact of challenge caches on other aspects of the game. What I remember about the survey seemed mostly geared to giving people that don't like challenge caches a platform to express their dislikes dressed up as as if they were legitimate concerns.

 

I agree and was waiting for a chance to offer my positive opinion and felt let down when I got to the end of the survey. They seemed to be looking for a reason to ban them.

 

I love them.

Funny, because I saw it 180 degrees from your conclusion. I got the sense that Groundspeak was going for the "anything goes" model. I guess the glass can be half empty or half full depending on how you look at things.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, there was little or nothing in the survey that would help address the two legitimate concerns, which are the review overhead and the impact of challenge caches on other aspects of the game.

 

I think there were ideas presented that could affect reviewer overhead. For example, some of the suggestions for future "rules" for challenges might remove some of the need for subjectivity involved in reviews. (The ideas that I remembered from the survey: mandatory challenge checkers, pre-qualifying by the cache owner).

Edited by Team Hugs

Share this post


Link to post

When I go on a road trip (eg son's football tournament) I try and get caches on the way that help me complete certain challenge caches. I need a lot more caches starting with the letter I with terrain 2.5 or higher for one, as there is no time limit I'll do my best to fit those in my families activities.

We're the same way. When we go on a long road trip, there are usually four or five challenge caches that we're working on and trying to juggle. Makes for some odd travel stops, keeps the vacation interesting, and prevents geocaching from getting stale. I really appreciate all the creative ideas many challenge cache owners come up with and have no problem ignoring the over-the-top ones.

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope the existing ones are grandfathered in. I would hate to have to archive ours and start over.

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope the existing ones are grandfathered in. I would hate to have to archive ours and start over.

Archived is the best way... too much drama to save the grandfathered caches...way too much... if you dont believe me... look at the webcam caches and virtual... enough said.

Share this post


Link to post

I found one section to be rather confusing. If I agree (duh!) that certain kinds of challenges make me hurry to find caches (e.g., find 400 caches in a day), does that agreement also imply that I agree with those who feel that these kinds of challenges are an argument against challenge caches?

 

That question falls under "Here are some things community members have indicated they don't like about challenge caches."

 

So one of the things some community members don't like is that some challenge caches result in them feeling they have to hurry to find caches in a specific time period.

 

By agreeing with the "I have to hurry to find caches in a specific time period" statement, you're agreeing that you don't like hurrying to find caches in a specific time period in order to qualify for a challenge cache.

 

The way question 9 was worded was very confusing. Agreeing or disagreeing with a statement as worded is not the same as liking or disliking the statement. I'm afraid I ended up answering agree/disagree for all of them, not whether I liked or diskliked them. e.g. The first few statements I agreed with and I like that about challenge caches. Amongst my fellow geocachers it has been 50/50 which way they answered, therefore the results can't be relied on in my opinion.

If the intention was as stated above above then the wording was very poor. If it was worded "I don't like having to hurry to find caches ..." then it would have been much clearer how to answer.

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope the existing ones are grandfathered in. I would hate to have to archive ours and start over.

 

I agree that archiving and recreating would be a pain for COs and finders. As a CO, I'd copy and paste the old one to the new one leaving the physical cache as is. As a finder, I'd want to go and find the new ones, which in reality would very likely be the same cache as the archived one. If so (i.e. the final co-ords are the same) then there is the temptation to log the new one as found (with the original find date), without going out and finding it again. The log book would confirm the find. This would effectively mean double counting the find as it isn't really a new cache. Personally I wouldn't do this because it would change past milestones, etc .... To be true, I'd end up refinding the cache, once I'd requalified if necessary. I'd rather not have to though.

 

Therefore grandfathering is preferable. But, the down side of grandfathering is that ones stats for the new Challenge type caches wouldn't include all the old challenge caches. There would effectively be pressure on COs to relist (archive and recreate) so that they would be counted as the new cache type. In my opinion, grandfathering is therefore effectively the same as archiving and recreating and isn't the best solution either.

 

This leaves the options of adding an attribute to existing caches, or having the ability to change them to a new cache type. The ultimate is to make them a new cache type (perhaps by the CO submitting a list to a reviewer who would have the ability to make the change). The downside is this would restate one's past statistics. e.g. If a challenge cache required so many mystery caches it may now appear that they hadn't actually qualified. This can be overcome by including mystery and challenge together when checking qualifications. Maybe the new Challenge type could be a subset of "All Mystery caches" in the same way as specific event types are a subset of All Event caches?

 

Adding an attribute rather than having a new cache type, has the advantage of not upsetting existing stats, but given the popularity and growth of challenge caches, having them as a specific cache type is my preference.

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope the existing ones are grandfathered in. I would hate to have to archive ours and start over.

Archived is the best way... too much drama to save the grandfathered caches...way too much... if you dont believe me... look at the webcam caches and virtual... enough said.

 

What drama are you speaking about? If GS changes the guidelines about challenge caches so all owners will have to change their cache descrptions and challenge requirements. Did you see any drama with earthcaches when the guidelines about them were changed significantly? Hopefuly GS will not do too much restrictions otherwise there will be no challenge any more and such caches can be archived once and for all.

 

btw. webcam and virtuals cannot be compared with challenge caches. They publication were stopped for completely different reason(s).

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope the existing ones are grandfathered in. I would hate to have to archive ours and start over.

Archived is the best way... too much drama to save the grandfathered caches...way too much... if you dont believe me... look at the webcam caches and virtual... enough said.

 

What drama are you speaking about?

 

Perhaps drama isn't the right word. If all existing challenge caches were grandfathered it would just create confusion. Virtual caches were grandfathered many years ago yet there are still some that come into the forums asking if they can create a new one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

btw. webcam and virtuals cannot be compared with challenge caches. They publication were stopped for completely different reason(s).

 

Of course they can be compared - you can compare anything with anything and measure how they are alike and how they differ :)

Share this post


Link to post

 

Perhaps drama isn't the right word. If all existing challenge caches were grandfathered it would just create confusion. Virtual caches were grandfathered many years ago yet there are still some that come into the forums asking if they can create a new one.

 

 

Yes, you are right. Cachers are still asking for them or trying to convince GS to change their decision about them. But I think it is not a problem of grandfathering, because many cachers have the same wish about locationless caches, which were completely removed from geocaching. I think it is question of their icons. People want them in found/published cache profile. But I hope if any there will be only challenge requirements grandfathering not challenge cache itsefl.

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope the existing ones are grandfathered in. I would hate to have to archive ours and start over.

Archived is the best way... too much drama to save the grandfathered caches...way too much... if you dont believe me... look at the webcam caches and virtual... enough said.

Archiving challenge caches would be a nightmare; I'm surprised GS even listed it as an option. For certain types of challenges (e.g., Jasmer, Fizzy, counties), many cachers have devoted months /years towards qualifying. I think there would be lots of very bitter complaints (justified, IMHO) if these were archived.

Share this post


Link to post

For certain types of challenges (e.g., Jasmer, Fizzy, counties), many cachers have devoted months /years towards qualifying. I think there would be lots of very bitter complaints (justified, IMHO) if these were archived.

 

Is that a measurable statistic?

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope the existing ones are grandfathered in. I would hate to have to archive ours and start over.

Archived is the best way... too much drama to save the grandfathered caches...way too much... if you dont believe me... look at the webcam caches and virtual... enough said.

Archiving challenge caches would be a nightmare; I'm surprised GS even listed it as an option. For certain types of challenges (e.g., Jasmer, Fizzy, counties), many cachers have devoted months /years towards qualifying. I think there would be lots of very bitter complaints (justified, IMHO) if these were archived.

 

If they quit challenges altogether, I imagine they'd just leave the existing ones...but would need to put real restrictions on them: no adoptions allowed and they would have to say they would not review any appeals regarding challenge logs/qualifications. They'd eventually dwindle in numbers. GS could also institute their own badge/point system for the grid and stat-based challenges to replace the various challenge caches that dies off. I doubt they would ever just archive them all.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me like they are, in their ham-fisted way, making a genuine attempt to build consensus and come to a solution that doesn't eliminate challenge caches, but does address at least some of the very legitimate concerns people have about them.

Actually, there was little or nothing in the survey that would help address the two legitimate concerns, which are the review overhead and the impact of challenge caches on other aspects of the game. What I remember about the survey seemed mostly geared to giving people that don't like challenge caches a platform to express their dislikes dressed up as as if they were legitimate concerns.

 

Confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the survey in general. I especially liked these parts:

 

1. Challenges requiring you to "opt in" to do it, and any caches before it do not count. I very much dislike them on principle. People should not have to "opt in" on a challenge to do it. I think it's more of a tool to boost the cache owner's ego.

 

2. I like the choice to have the changes affect all challenges, even ones already in action, with no grandfathering. I own challenges and I support this.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the most important rule would be that anyone placing a challenge should be someone who has met the requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the survey in general. I especially liked these parts:

 

1. Challenges requiring you to "opt in" to do it, and any caches before it do not count. I very much dislike them on principle. People should not have to "opt in" on a challenge to do it. I think it's more of a tool to boost the cache owner's ego.

 

2. I like the choice to have the changes affect all challenges, even ones already in action, with no grandfathering. I own challenges and I support this.

I agree. It put every CO to follow the rules. However, it will be best if GS archived them all at once. I will tell you why, over the years, GS changes the guideline(s) but it takes years for many CO to update their cache page. (the no picture requirement for earthcache is one thing that come to mind and to this date, you will see a bunch that havent been updated) Many of them know the guideline change right away but many dont want to change it so they wont. Its history repeating itself over and over. Archived them will be the best route.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the survey in general. I especially liked these parts:

 

1. Challenges requiring you to "opt in" to do it, and any caches before it do not count. I very much dislike them on principle. People should not have to "opt in" on a challenge to do it. I think it's more of a tool to boost the cache owner's ego.

 

2. I like the choice to have the changes affect all challenges, even ones already in action, with no grandfathering. I own challenges and I support this.

I agree. It put every CO to follow the rules. However, it will be best if GS archived them all at once. I will tell you why, over the years, GS changes the guideline(s) but it takes years for many CO to update their cache page. (the no picture requirement for earthcache is one thing that come to mind and to this date, you will see a bunch that havent been updated) Many of them know the guideline change right away but many dont want to change it so they wont. Its history repeating itself over and over. Archived them will be the best route.

 

So what would be wrong with just disabling them and giving the COs a set time (30, 60, 90 days) to bring them up to "standards" or they get archived? Wholesale archiving is a good way to tick a lot of folks off unnecessarily.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the survey in general. I especially liked these parts:

 

1. Challenges requiring you to "opt in" to do it, and any caches before it do not count. I very much dislike them on principle. People should not have to "opt in" on a challenge to do it. I think it's more of a tool to boost the cache owner's ego.

 

2. I like the choice to have the changes affect all challenges, even ones already in action, with no grandfathering. I own challenges and I support this.

I agree. It put every CO to follow the rules. However, it will be best if GS archived them all at once. I will tell you why, over the years, GS changes the guideline(s) but it takes years for many CO to update their cache page. (the no picture requirement for earthcache is one thing that come to mind and to this date, you will see a bunch that havent been updated) Many of them know the guideline change right away but many dont want to change it so they wont. Its history repeating itself over and over. Archived them will be the best route.

 

So, because a few CO's are not updating their caches, then all CO's should lose their caches? There are often 'bad apples' in any group of people/caches/etc. That doesn't mean that all should be tarred with the same brush.

 

If challenge caches are going to be changed and/or discontinued, then I'd prefer seeing the existing ones grandfathered. The problem has been stated several times that publication review was a major impetus for the moratorium. The existing challenge caches have already been reviewed, so might as well let them live on. The 'no precedent' rule applies to all cache types, so existing challenge caches won't enable cachers to create new challenge that don't meet new guidelines (assuming new challenges are allowed to be published post-moratorium).

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the survey in general. I especially liked these parts:

 

1. Challenges requiring you to "opt in" to do it, and any caches before it do not count. I very much dislike them on principle. People should not have to "opt in" on a challenge to do it. I think it's more of a tool to boost the cache owner's ego.

 

2. I like the choice to have the changes affect all challenges, even ones already in action, with no grandfathering. I own challenges and I support this.

I agree. It put every CO to follow the rules. However, it will be best if GS archived them all at once. I will tell you why, over the years, GS changes the guideline(s) but it takes years for many CO to update their cache page. (the no picture requirement for earthcache is one thing that come to mind and to this date, you will see a bunch that havent been updated) Many of them know the guideline change right away but many dont want to change it so they wont. Its history repeating itself over and over. Archived them will be the best route.

 

So what would be wrong with just disabling them and giving the COs a set time (30, 60, 90 days) to bring them up to "standards" or they get archived? Wholesale archiving is a good way to tick a lot of folks off unnecessarily.

 

That could work. Sounds like a fair-minded idea.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the survey in general. I especially liked these parts:

 

1. Challenges requiring you to "opt in" to do it, and any caches before it do not count. I very much dislike them on principle. People should not have to "opt in" on a challenge to do it. I think it's more of a tool to boost the cache owner's ego.

 

2. I like the choice to have the changes affect all challenges, even ones already in action, with no grandfathering. I own challenges and I support this.

I agree. It put every CO to follow the rules. However, it will be best if GS archived them all at once. I will tell you why, over the years, GS changes the guideline(s) but it takes years for many CO to update their cache page. (the no picture requirement for earthcache is one thing that come to mind and to this date, you will see a bunch that havent been updated) Many of them know the guideline change right away but many dont want to change it so they wont. Its history repeating itself over and over. Archived them will be the best route.

 

So what would be wrong with just disabling them and giving the COs a set time (30, 60, 90 days) to bring them up to "standards" or they get archived? Wholesale archiving is a good way to tick a lot of folks off unnecessarily.

 

That could work. Sounds like a fair-minded idea.

 

Not really, and there are some folks that will just undisable without any change.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the survey in general. I especially liked these parts:

 

1. Challenges requiring you to "opt in" to do it, and any caches before it do not count. I very much dislike them on principle. People should not have to "opt in" on a challenge to do it. I think it's more of a tool to boost the cache owner's ego.

 

2. I like the choice to have the changes affect all challenges, even ones already in action, with no grandfathering. I own challenges and I support this.

I agree. It put every CO to follow the rules. However, it will be best if GS archived them all at once. I will tell you why, over the years, GS changes the guideline(s) but it takes years for many CO to update their cache page. (the no picture requirement for earthcache is one thing that come to mind and to this date, you will see a bunch that havent been updated) Many of them know the guideline change right away but many dont want to change it so they wont. Its history repeating itself over and over. Archived them will be the best route.

 

So what would be wrong with just disabling them and giving the COs a set time (30, 60, 90 days) to bring them up to "standards" or they get archived? Wholesale archiving is a good way to tick a lot of folks off unnecessarily.

 

That could work. Sounds like a fair-minded idea.

 

Not really, and there are some folks that will just undisable without any change.

 

But wouldn't the reviewer check in 90 days and archive the cache if they owner didn't comply?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

×