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

Challenge Cache Survey open until Dec 21

Recommended Posts

Yep, temporary disable would be the best, if grandfathering isn't an option and caches are to be updated to a new standard. Another problem though - with challenge caches not explicitly searchable, who will inform Groundspeak of all the challange caches that need to be 'monitored' for this grace period?

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?

Their hands is full the way its. I dont know what kind of tools reviewers got but if they got a tool that remind them to check up on challenge caches, that will be good.

 

I say this before and I will say it again, a virtual in house challenge system will work the best. No caches to maintenance. No controlling CO to deal with. The challenge will be available to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

I say this before and I will say it again, a virtual in house challenge system will work the best. No caches to maintenance. No controlling CO to deal with. The challenge will be available to everyone.

That's been discussed quite a lot already in other threads. It has its own problems (as do all).

Primarily, that idea is effectively Worldwide (locationless) Geocaching Challenges, but based on statistics. It dramatically dilutes variety, reduces the fun and flexibility of creation, and removes the 'geocaching' from the challenge cache itself (even though the qualification may/would require geocaching).

Similar is having containerless challenge caches that are still locked to a location (what does the location have to do with it? If you have to visit the location, what do you do there? How do you prove you did? etc)

Share this post


Link to post

I say this before and I will say it again, a virtual in house challenge system will work the best. No caches to maintenance. No controlling CO to deal with. The challenge will be available to everyone.

That's been discussed quite a lot already in other threads. It has its own problems (as do all).

Primarily, that idea is effectively Worldwide (locationless) Geocaching Challenges, but based on statistics. It dramatically dilutes variety, reduces the fun and flexibility of creation, and removes the 'geocaching' from the challenge cache itself (even though the qualification may/would require geocaching).

Similar is having containerless challenge caches that are still locked to a location (what does the location have to do with it? If you have to visit the location, what do you do there? How do you prove you did? etc)

 

If a "challenge checker" can be made, it could be incorporated.

 

Heck...they could even make it another grid in the statistics for people to fill...fill your Challenges Grid to complete the "All Five Grids Challenge". Very meta.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, temporary disable would be the best, if grandfathering isn't an option and caches are to be updated to a new standard. Another problem though - with challenge caches not explicitly searchable, who will inform Groundspeak of all the challange caches that need to be 'monitored' for this grace period?

One thought would be to let the geocaching community self-police this aspect. It should be a Low effort task to set-up a page that allows cachers to submit GC-codes of challenge caches they come across that don't comply with updated guidelines.

 

Some ideas around this would be:

  • The page would go live after the xx days that CO's are given to update their caches themselves.
  • The page could include a check box for each guideline, and allow the reporting cacher to indicate which guideline(s) are not being followed.
  • The page could feed to a database table and spit back a message of "thanks, this cache has already been reported by a fellow cacher" to avoid duplicate entries in the queue. This could be a check on GC Code alone, or GC Code + Guideline Key(check boxes).
  • The back-end would append location specifics to each cache, and somehow route the cache to the reviewer queue for the correct area. Not sure how this works technically, but I imagine it would follow whatever process already exists for routing new cache submissions.
  • Once the reviewer confirms the cache is in compliance, or the cache is archived, then the cache is removed from the table.

Share this post


Link to post

I say this before and I will say it again, a virtual in house challenge system will work the best. No caches to maintenance. No controlling CO to deal with. The challenge will be available to everyone.

That's been discussed quite a lot already in other threads. It has its own problems (as do all).

Primarily, that idea is effectively Worldwide (locationless) Geocaching Challenges, but based on statistics. It dramatically dilutes variety, reduces the fun and flexibility of creation, and removes the 'geocaching' from the challenge cache itself (even though the qualification may/would require geocaching).

Similar is having containerless challenge caches that are still locked to a location (what does the location have to do with it? If you have to visit the location, what do you do there? How do you prove you did? etc)

 

Doing the challenge got nothing to do with location of the final. Nothing I will say again. Its more like... finally I got you off the annoying list! Doing challenge is fun in most part, but the final doesnt mean anything to me. Its more like... geez, I have to drive back there and get that off of my list. I finished alot of challenges out there but one major part, most of the final are too far out of the way. I did them because it was fun, but they arent all that close to me. Now, I really like those finals that are close to freeways or major hwy and they tend to get alot of finds.

 

A containerless challenge cache wont be at any location. It will be just a list of challenge that GS got listed and you can check to see if you finished it. And if you did, you get a brownie point. The brownie point will show on your profile so you can show it off of what kind of challenge you done. Nobody own them, so it take the CO out of situation. I will say that dealing with a controlling challenge cache CO does suck the fun out of it.

 

I am very sure the biggest problem with challenge cache is that they suck alot of reviewers resource time of going back and forth. Little by little, GS is changing guidelines to keep those controlling CO at bay. Dont believe me? You havent been watching the history of GS very close.

Share this post


Link to post

  • The back-end would append location specifics to each cache, and somehow route the cache to the reviewer queue for the correct area. Not sure how this works technically, but I imagine it would follow whatever process already exists for routing new cache submissions.

You wouldn't even need this step. The only changes that would be reviewed in this scenario are the challenge-related ones, which wouldn't be affected by regional laws or customs. They could all go into the same queue where one or more Lackeys and/or reviewers with spare time (does such a thing even exist?) could go in and review the challenge-related aspects of the cache. After all, if the cache has already been published, it's already been reviewed by a local reviewer on the non-challenge aspects.

Share this post


Link to post

  • The back-end would append location specifics to each cache, and somehow route the cache to the reviewer queue for the correct area. Not sure how this works technically, but I imagine it would follow whatever process already exists for routing new cache submissions.

You wouldn't even need this step. The only changes that would be reviewed in this scenario are the challenge-related ones, which wouldn't be affected by regional laws or customs. They could all go into the same queue where one or more Lackeys and/or reviewers with spare time (does such a thing even exist?) could go in and review the challenge-related aspects of the cache. After all, if the cache has already been published, it's already been reviewed by a local reviewer on the non-challenge aspects.

Good point, so it's even simplier than I initially thought. :D

And hopefully, there wouldn't be that many caches that get reported, if CO's do what's necessary first.

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.

 

The point is just that grandfathering cache type, then continuing to allow that cache type with different guidelines will only lead to confusion. When there were just a handful of challenges (Fizzy, Jasmer, Delorme...) it wasn't required to include "Challenge" in the title. Then the guidelines where changed making that a requirement but older challenge caches such as "Oregon's "Well Rounded Cacher" aka Oregon's Fizzy" do not contain challenge in the title but are allowed to exist because it's grandfathered. Now were talking about creating a new type of Challenge cache (possibly with it's own icon) but with yet another set of guidelines. Throw in Geocaching Challenges and caches with challenge in the title but are not challenge caches and it gets even more confusing.

 

I don't think that archiving all existing challenge caches and forcing COs to submit a new listing is the answer (but would be popular with numbers hounds) either and frankly don't think there's a good solution.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher

Share this post


Link to post

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.

The need to "opt in" for a challenge cache seemed pretty pointless to me (except as a loophole to get around the "date found" restriction). But I recently completed a challenge that I don't think could be done without an "opt in" requirement: Week Streak Challenge Series #11: Fizzy Filler. It's a creative challenge that was lots of fun to work on and is one of our favorite challenge caches. It would be sad to see challenges like this one excluded by any new guideline changes.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

For me, it depends very much on what the new changes are. For example, if Groundspeak requires all challenge caches to have verification checkers incorporated into them, then I'm sure that would mean the demise of many excellent challenge caches that are either too hard to build a checker for or whose owners aren't willing (or able) to build even a relatively simple checker. That would be a shame.

 

Even worse would be if Groundspeak decides they're only going to allow, say, eight specified kinds of challenge caches. Archiving the many creative and enjoyable challenges that fall outside that list would be a big, big mistake, in my opinion. (Restricting challenge caches to a narrow range also would be a big, big mistake...but that's a different issue.)

Edited by CanadianRockies

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.

I think this a bad idea. I came up with the idea for the Washington History Challenge several years before I 'qulified'. It is one of the most talked about challenges in the area. But if I'd had to wait to complete it before it was published there would have been long time that people have been enjoying that wouldn't have existed.

 

And how about the 'standard' challenges (delorme, jasmer) - if one is archived for a state, only someone who has completed it can list a new one?

 

All of these can be listed under the 'prove cachers can complete the requirements' section of the guidelines. Of course, some of the near impossible challenges (like a 1500 day streak) do need proof that it's been done. But not a blanket requirement.

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.

I think this a bad idea.

 

And yet that's what I see on all Belgian challenge listings.

Requirements for the challenge are listed followed by the CO's proof of accomplishment.

Share this post


Link to post

I know this is not a popular idea but my daughter and I wanted to never archive a cache we placed. We didn't like looking at others profiles who placed caches and then archived them. Not ones who archived them after years but ones that looked liked they placed them and archived after it needed maintenance. We never archived one for over 3 years (except one when we were new.) Now we have, to make new hides we have found in the area that were cooler. If this was a few years ago and they were talking of archiving our caches for some new rule they came up with we would be very upset. Now I don't care as much but still wouldn't like having our caches archived. If they were up to the rules when we placed them there is no reason to archive them now. It is not our fault that GS decided to change things up.

I am a mellow person and don't get upset about much but if they come in and archive our challenges I think I would not be happy about it.

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.

 

Personally I don't agree with this. Some people are very clever at coming up with challenges (e.g. the Geocaching Licence Series in New Zealand). This can take years to qualify for all of them. Many of us are enjoying the challenge of working through them, and some have completed it. I suspect at the time of publishing the CO hadn't qualified, but may have done so by now. If they had waited till they had qualified it may be a very long time between conceptualising the challenge and finally getting it published and the rest of miss out on the challenge in the mean time. I know CO's with challenges who are committed to attempting them.

 

Similarly, if there is no 366 day streak challenge cache in an area for example, then why not allow someone who hasn't achieved it to place it? At least they are willing to put the effort in to place it.

 

On the other hand I would prefer challenges to be placed by experienced cachers, rather than newbies. This is where reviewers come in to make judgements. e.g. if there is already a 366 challenge in an area then if someone wanted to place another one in the same area then the reviewer could decline it, providing the reason, and possibly providing alternatives suggestions. e.g. if there wasn't a 200 day challenge then that would likely be acceptable. There would be subjectivity and published guidelines would be useful.

 

Maybe the criteria could be: Are there any cachers who have achieved the challenge, who would qualify to find it? But even this would be limiting. e.g. There is a cacher in the state who is approaching 2000 days in a row. It would be great (in my opinion) if a challenge cache was placed by anyone to recognise the achievement when that cacher gets there so they can find it as a reward to recognise and celebrate their achievement. In this case the CO may never have a hope of qualifying. In my mind that doesn't matter at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I've done many challenge caches and can't think of any that should be archived.

Therefore it must be only a small percentage that are 'no good'.

 

I'd be keen to know examples of challenge caches that others think shouldn't exist, or are problematic.

 

Why 'penalise' the majority because of the minority?

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.

I think this a bad idea. I came up with the idea for the Washington History Challenge several years before I 'qulified'. It is one of the most talked about challenges in the area. But if I'd had to wait to complete it before it was published there would have been long time that people have been enjoying that wouldn't have existed.

 

And how about the 'standard' challenges (delorme, jasmer) - if one is archived for a state, only someone who has completed it can list a new one?

 

All of these can be listed under the 'prove cachers can complete the requirements' section of the guidelines. Of course, some of the near impossible challenges (like a 1500 day streak) do need proof that it's been done. But not a blanket requirement.

 

I thought this was already a requirement. Maybe unwritten (?), but I thought that was part of the "must be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" requirement, having done so oneself being the first way of proving it.

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.

I think this a bad idea. I came up with the idea for the Washington History Challenge several years before I 'qulified'. It is one of the most talked about challenges in the area. But if I'd had to wait to complete it before it was published there would have been long time that people have been enjoying that wouldn't have existed.

 

And how about the 'standard' challenges (delorme, jasmer) - if one is archived for a state, only someone who has completed it can list a new one?

 

All of these can be listed under the 'prove cachers can complete the requirements' section of the guidelines. Of course, some of the near impossible challenges (like a 1500 day streak) do need proof that it's been done. But not a blanket requirement.

 

I thought this was already a requirement. Maybe unwritten (?), but I thought that was part of the "must be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" requirement, having done so oneself being the first way of proving it.

 

It might be an unwritten rule in some places but I've not seen it enforced locally.

 

I suspect this is one of the subjective decisions reviewers have had to make which in turn has contributed to the disproportionate amount of reviewer time wasted arguing the subjective judgments.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought this was already a requirement. Maybe unwritten (?), but I thought that was part of the "must be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" requirement, having done so oneself being the first way of proving it.

 

Most, if not all challenges in Belgium are like this. Maybe that's the reason it looks like there are no/few problems here.

 

 

BTW, isn't the best "survey" taking a look at the appeals and categorizing where the problems are? This would give a better idea of what should/could be done. Unfortunately that's info that was never released by GS.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought this was already a requirement. Maybe unwritten (?), but I thought that was part of the "must be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" requirement, having done so oneself being the first way of proving it.

 

Most, if not all challenges in Belgium are like this. Maybe that's the reason it looks like there are no/few problems here.

 

 

BTW, isn't the best "survey" taking a look at the appeals and categorizing where the problems are? This would give a better idea of what should/could be done. Unfortunately that's info that was never released by GS.

 

I doubt they will air what goes on behind the scenes.

 

I suspect the intent behind the survey is to get, in advance, a sense of the reactions they might receive in response to changes they might make.

 

If I were GS, seeing the tomes written here of sometimes strongly conflicting opinions, I wouldn't open up the internal discussions for public scrutiny either.

Share this post


Link to post

I've done many challenge caches and can't think of any that should be archived.

Therefore it must be only a small percentage that are 'no good'.

 

I'd be keen to know examples of challenge caches that others think shouldn't exist, or are problematic.

 

Why 'penalise' the majority because of the minority?

 

There are numerous forum posts where you can see the issues detailed.

Share this post


Link to post

There are numerous forum posts where you can see the issues detailed.

 

No we can't. The issue is appeals and we know absolutely nothing about what problems are raised there.

Share this post


Link to post

There are numerous forum posts where you can see the issues detailed.

No we can't. The issue is appeals and we know absolutely nothing about what problems are raised there.

 

No, one of the issues is appeals. There are numerous issues, including community-related, as recognized in the outline for the moratorium.

We don't technically know what the primary problem is Groundspeak wishes to resolve, though it makes sense that appeals quantity may be the top issue. Some lackeys may have commented about the moratorium as well, raising the significance of that point. But Groundspeak has never said "This is our biggest problem, and we want to resolve this before moving forward."

 

However, there are many aspects of challenge caches that can make them frustrating for the community. They are neither a separate cache type nor do they have a specific attribute, so the logging requirements are easily misunderstood. Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches. While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.

 

In order to properly evaluate and fully focus on the challenge cache system, it is necessary to have a period of time that is free of new submissions.

 

HQ will work with the community and Community Volunteer Reviewers to address shortcomings in the current system, with the goal of adding clarity and retaining what makes challenge caches so much fun for players.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

There are numerous forum posts where you can see the issues detailed.

 

No we can't. The issue is appeals and we know absolutely nothing about what problems are raised there.

 

You completely deleted what I was replying to, which completely changes the context in a way that is very dishonest. Here is what was removed:

 

I've done many challenge caches and can't think of any that should be archived.

Therefore it must be only a small percentage that are 'no good'.

 

I'd be keen to know examples of challenge caches that others think shouldn't exist, or are problematic.

 

Why 'penalise' the majority because of the minority?

 

The various problems that geocachers have with these caches (beyond the appeals issue stated by Groundspeak) ARE, in fact, outlined in excruciating detail in numerous posts.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought this was already a requirement. Maybe unwritten (?), but I thought that was part of the "must be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" requirement, having done so oneself being the first way of proving it.

 

Most, if not all challenges in Belgium are like this. Maybe that's the reason it looks like there are no/few problems here.

 

I suspect that GS enacted the moratorium, and subsequently created the survey to elicit feedback for what to do next, not because of the places where there are no/few problems with challenge caches, but because there are a few places (enough that they felt it worth addressing) where there *are* problems.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

All this talk about doing negative things to existing challenge caches is disheartening. If anything, challenge caches should be expanded and celebrated. When I go to visit an area, I know those are the caches I seek out and alot of other cachers do too. Despite all the shortcomings in the way the survey is written, I am glad it has been widely distributed via the local facebook pages so that more than just the narrow group of people who post here, will hopefully have a voice, as I believe that those who frequent these forums don't really reflect the caching community as a whole. Many people I know don't even bother with these forums because of all the negativity.

Share this post


Link to post
I've done many challenge caches and can't think of any that should be archived.

Therefore it must be only a small percentage that are 'no good'.

 

I'd be keen to know examples of challenge caches that others think shouldn't exist, or are problematic.

You won't be able to see the problematic challenge caches, because they haven't been published. It's the review and appeals process where the bad challenge caches cause problems.

 

It's similar to the problem with virtual caches years ago. The ones that were published and that survived as grandfathered caches weren't the problem. The problem was the review and appeals process associated with all the junk that was being submitted.

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.

I think this a bad idea. I came up with the idea for the Washington History Challenge several years before I 'qulified'. It is one of the most talked about challenges in the area. But if I'd had to wait to complete it before it was published there would have been long time that people have been enjoying that wouldn't have existed.

 

And how about the 'standard' challenges (delorme, jasmer) - if one is archived for a state, only someone who has completed it can list a new one?

 

All of these can be listed under the 'prove cachers can complete the requirements' section of the guidelines. Of course, some of the near impossible challenges (like a 1500 day streak) do need proof that it's been done. But not a blanket requirement.

I thought this was already a requirement. Maybe unwritten (?), but I thought that was part of the "must be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" requirement, having done so oneself being the first way of proving it.

It might be an unwritten rule in some places but I've not seen it enforced locally.

Oh no, it's very much written down:

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

...

A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to point out that even if some or all of the current challenge caches were archived, it doesn't necessarily mean any effort toward completing them is wasted. Generally, archived caches can still be logged. Unless Groundspeak made the decision that archived challenge caches would be locked to prevent post-archival logging, I don't see why someone who completes the challenge after it's archived couldn't log it as a find.

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.

I think this a bad idea. I came up with the idea for the Washington History Challenge several years before I 'qulified'. It is one of the most talked about challenges in the area. But if I'd had to wait to complete it before it was published there would have been long time that people have been enjoying that wouldn't have existed.

 

And how about the 'standard' challenges (delorme, jasmer) - if one is archived for a state, only someone who has completed it can list a new one?

 

All of these can be listed under the 'prove cachers can complete the requirements' section of the guidelines. Of course, some of the near impossible challenges (like a 1500 day streak) do need proof that it's been done. But not a blanket requirement.

I thought this was already a requirement. Maybe unwritten (?), but I thought that was part of the "must be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" requirement, having done so oneself being the first way of proving it.

It might be an unwritten rule in some places but I've not seen it enforced locally.

Oh no, it's very much written down:

Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

...

A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers.

 

Good spot - thanks for sharing that :)

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to point out that even if some or all of the current challenge caches were archived, it doesn't necessarily mean any effort toward completing them is wasted. Generally, archived caches can still be logged. Unless Groundspeak made the decision that archived challenge caches would be locked to prevent post-archival logging, I don't see why someone who completes the challenge after it's archived couldn't log it as a find.

Many people who are working on challenges prefer to sign the challenge cache log after they complete the challenge requirements. (Some say they only will do it this way.) If Groundspeak archives the current challenge caches, then I'd expect some challenge cache owners to keep the physical containers in place for a while to accommodate these preferences. But I wouldn't be surprised if many challenge cache owners immediately removed their cache containers, either because that's what they normally do after archival or because they are upset with Groundspeak's decision.

 

Some of those immediately archived challenges will be ones that people have been working on for months or years, and I expect Groundspeak would have lots of unsatisfied customers.

Share this post


Link to post

Above in the thread is referenced a Challenge cache (hidden in a phone booth) which requires one to find 7 caches. It is rated as a D5/T5. This is likely a secret reason so many people like the Challenge caches.

 

Imagine the shame of filling the 5/5 box of your Fizzy with a cache hidden in a phone booth. That sort of defeats the whole idea of a Fizzy grid being a worthwhile achievement.

 

These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Above in the thread is referenced a Challenge cache (hidden in a phone booth) which requires one to find 7 caches. It is rated as a D5/T5. This is likely a secret reason so many people like the Challenge caches.

 

Imagine the shame of filling the 5/5 box of your Fizzy with a cache hidden in a phone booth. That sort of defeats the whole idea of a Fizzy grid being a worthwhile achievement.

 

These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

 

If you dislike challenge caches, why are you concerned with a grid?

Share this post


Link to post
These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

 

Would that dislike be assuaged if the D actually represented the D of the cache itself, by decoupling the challenge's difficulty into a different metric?

Share this post


Link to post
These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

 

Would that dislike be assuaged if the D actually represented the D of the cache itself, by decoupling the challenge's difficulty into a different metric?

 

That's a can of worms. What about puzzles that are rated highly because of the difficulty of the puzzle, rather than the hide? How is that different than a challenge that is difficult to complete?

Share this post


Link to post

Above in the thread is referenced a Challenge cache (hidden in a phone booth) which requires one to find 7 caches. It is rated as a D5/T5. This is likely a secret reason so many people like the Challenge caches.

 

Imagine the shame of filling the 5/5 box of your Fizzy with a cache hidden in a phone booth. That sort of defeats the whole idea of a Fizzy grid being a worthwhile achievement.

 

These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

 

If you dislike challenge caches, why are you concerned with a grid?

 

One can dislike challenge caches while still enjoy the achievement of completing a statistical grid of accurately rated caches. A 5/5 is not likely located in a phone booth beside a sidewalk in Oregon.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a can of worms. What about puzzles that are rated highly because of the difficulty of the puzzle, rather than the hide? How is that different than a challenge that is difficult to complete?

 

Determination of location. Whether it's solving a puzzle for coordinates or locating the container at the coordinates. It's always been that way (ever since puzzles were allowed).

Challenge difficulty has absolutely nothing to do with determining the location of the container. The difficulty rating on a CC is irrelevant to the container itself. That's the reason for the common complaint. The Terrain rating relevance is hit and miss - some COs rate the Terrain for the cache, some take the challenge into consideration (such as the phone-booth 5/5 mentioned above).

Share this post


Link to post

Determination of location and the terrain to get from parking to that location is your D/T. A wheelchair-accessible phone booth, along the sidewalk, within 25' of a parking lot is NOT a T/5. A difficult puzzle or other challenging ALR might make for a high Difficulty rating, but the Terrain rating for this cache should be no higher than a 1.5*.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree on the T rating for a challenge but the D rating, just like for puzzles reflects the difficulty. If you have to find 2000 multi's in one day in order to log a challenge it's definitely a D5.

Share this post


Link to post

Above in the thread is referenced a Challenge cache (hidden in a phone booth) which requires one to find 7 caches. It is rated as a D5/T5. This is likely a secret reason so many people like the Challenge caches.

 

Imagine the shame of filling the 5/5 box of your Fizzy with a cache hidden in a phone booth. That sort of defeats the whole idea of a Fizzy grid being a worthwhile achievement.

 

These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

 

If you dislike challenge caches, why are you concerned with a grid?

You are missing the point of what K13 said. Its about everybody that have to deal with caches with false D/T rating. They are placed for the fizzy challenge. How would you feel if you are looking for a hard cache for your personal choice of doing them and you have to weed through all those fake caches that was placed for fizzy challenge? This is where some people dislike challenge caches because it mess with the D/T rating.

Share this post


Link to post

Above in the thread is referenced a Challenge cache (hidden in a phone booth) which requires one to find 7 caches. It is rated as a D5/T5. This is likely a secret reason so many people like the Challenge caches.

 

Imagine the shame of filling the 5/5 box of your Fizzy with a cache hidden in a phone booth. That sort of defeats the whole idea of a Fizzy grid being a worthwhile achievement.

 

These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

 

If you dislike challenge caches, why are you concerned with a grid?

 

One can dislike challenge caches while still enjoy the achievement of completing a statistical grid of accurately rated caches. A 5/5 is not likely located in a phone booth beside a sidewalk in Oregon.

 

Nobody is forcing you to find a cache that doesn't meet your personal standards. If you don't want to see that particular 5/5 in your stats, don't find it.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a can of worms. What about puzzles that are rated highly because of the difficulty of the puzzle, rather than the hide? How is that different than a challenge that is difficult to complete?

 

Determination of location. Whether it's solving a puzzle for coordinates or locating the container at the coordinates. It's always been that way (ever since puzzles were allowed).

Challenge difficulty has absolutely nothing to do with determining the location of the container. The difficulty rating on a CC is irrelevant to the container itself. That's the reason for the common complaint. The Terrain rating relevance is hit and miss - some COs rate the Terrain for the cache, some take the challenge into consideration (such as the phone-booth 5/5 mentioned above).

 

This doesn't make any sense. With a puzzle, I have to determine the coordinates (usually) AND locate the container.

Share this post


Link to post

This doesn't make any sense. With a puzzle, I have to determine the coordinates (usually) AND locate the container.

Yes, because both are required to locate the container.

Share this post


Link to post

Above in the thread is referenced a Challenge cache (hidden in a phone booth) which requires one to find 7 caches. It is rated as a D5/T5. This is likely a secret reason so many people like the Challenge caches.

 

Imagine the shame of filling the 5/5 box of your Fizzy with a cache hidden in a phone booth. That sort of defeats the whole idea of a Fizzy grid being a worthwhile achievement.

 

These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

 

If you dislike challenge caches, why are you concerned with a grid?

 

One can dislike challenge caches while still enjoy the achievement of completing a statistical grid of accurately rated caches. A 5/5 is not likely located in a phone booth beside a sidewalk in Oregon.

 

Nobody is forcing you to find a cache that doesn't meet your personal standards. If you don't want to see that particular 5/5 in your stats, don't find it.

Again...you failed to understand it. You are trolling. Knock it off. As smart you are, you should be able to understand other people views.

Share this post


Link to post

You are missing the point of what K13 said. Its about everybody that have to deal with caches with false D/T rating. They are placed for the fizzy challenge. How would you feel if you are looking for a hard cache for your personal choice of doing them and you have to weed through all those fake caches that was placed for fizzy challenge? This is where some people dislike challenge caches because it mess with the D/T rating.

 

If I was searching for a particular type of experience I would probably filter out all puzzles, or otherwise adjust my search to focus on the type of cache I was seeking. But I have found caches with inflated ratings that were placed long before challenges (or grids) became a factor. And I have found caches that have undervalued their ratings - a 1 or 1.5 terrain involving a significant hike and elevation gain - placed long after challenges became popular.

 

Perhaps the real "problem" is not the challenge, but the underlying stat pages and grids. Are the inflated ratings on a cache due to a challenge, the grid itself, or simply because the ratings tend to be subjective? Are the ratings meant to help complete a challenge cache that will go relatively unnoticed or to fill out a grid that can be displayed in the profile? Would a person be tempted to inflate numbers to help with the latter even if there were no fizzy challenges?

 

I don't know. Stars have never been a motivating factor or the way that I search for caches I want to find - except for the time I needed an extra 5 terrain/2.5 difficulty cache to complete a "battleship" challenge and suggested to my wife that we kayak a particular location that happened to have a qualifying cache. But I suspect that some ratings would remain loose even if challenge caches did not exist and if you are seeking a particularly hard cache, you would still have to wade through a lot of caches that may not meet your personal standards.

Edited by geodarts

Share this post


Link to post

This doesn't make any sense. With a puzzle, I have to determine the coordinates (usually) AND locate the container.

Yes, because both are required to locate the container.

 

So both should be accounted for in the owner's (entirely subjective) decision about difficulty rating.

 

There would be far less complaining about this nonsense if cache owners and cache finders used these ratings as mere descriptions of a cache, rather than some sort of score.

Edited by narcissa

Share this post


Link to post

Above in the thread is referenced a Challenge cache (hidden in a phone booth) which requires one to find 7 caches. It is rated as a D5/T5. This is likely a secret reason so many people like the Challenge caches.

 

Imagine the shame of filling the 5/5 box of your Fizzy with a cache hidden in a phone booth. That sort of defeats the whole idea of a Fizzy grid being a worthwhile achievement.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find the earlier reference to this challenge cache. Could you provide a post number, a link, or a GC Code?

 

I agree SOME challenge caches are overrated. But others could be highly rated for legitimate reasons. I own a Fizzy Challenge and a Double Fizzy Challenge, both of which I rated 5/5. This is the traditional rating given to Fizzy challenges, since you not only have to find nine D5 caches but also nine T5 caches to qualify (not to mention the 9 D4.5s, 9 T4.5s, 9 D4s, 9T4s, etc.). As well, I assigned a T5 to my Alberta "Counties" Challenge, since qualifying requires traveling many, many kilometres. You can disagree with its 4/5 rating, but I can assure its not an easy Fizzy filler; only 3 people have found it during its four years of existence. (Today's its birthday!)

 

These FALSE D/T ratings on so many Challenge caches are one of the main reasons some of us strongly dislike Challenge caches.

I don't like inaccurate D/T ratings of any sort, but I'm more concerned about caches that are significantly under-rated, especially bad terrain ratings. These are mostly traditionals that could lure geocachers into dangerous situations. If I get upset, however, I get upset with the cache owner rather than with traditional cache types. And if you really want to get some easy T5 caches, then try the many T5 boating caches. I've seen lots more of them than T5 challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

All traditionals are henceforth difficult 1 because the coordinates are on the cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

All traditionals are henceforth difficult 1 because the coordinates are on the cache page.

uh, nope, because you just ignored the physical locating of the container at the coordinates.

 

This doesn't make any sense. With a puzzle, I have to determine the coordinates (usually) AND locate the container.

Yes, because both are required to locate the container.

 

So both should be accounted for in the owner's (entirely subjective) decision about difficulty rating.

 

There would be far less complaining about this nonsense if cache owners and cache finders used these ratings as mere descriptions of a cache, rather than some sort of score.

 

...not sure what's different that you're saying.

That's the whole point - difficulty is intended for locating the container (puzzles, camoflage, etc, brain power). Challenge caches add the challenge difficulty into the cache difficulty, and so the D, many feel, is not accurate to just locating the listing's container.

 

The only valid argument, IMO, that supports the practice is if someone interprets the D as not intended to be for explicitly locating the container, but rather reflective of all the work required to log the Find. Maybe that debate needs to happen too, as it's similar to the issue of cache-finding(locating)-before-qualifying.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Quote - "I really don't care about people claiming finds they don't really have, because it doesn't affect me"

I see this said time and time again. Would the people saying this feel different if they'd logged a legitimate find on oh let's say, a remote virtual on a mountain top after a two day hike, becoming the 5th person to log a find on it since it came out in 2002. Then along comes cacher ArmchairLoggerJoeBlow posting his/her "Found it!" with maybe a "TFTC, greetings from YouKnowWhere"? Sure it doesn't affect you directly, but I personally wouldn't much care for it, or ArmChairLoggerJoeBlow either.

It would be as obvious to anyone else as it was to me that the log was bogus, so it wouldn't matter to me at all. I'm clearly still 1 of 5.

 

I don't care for logs that are inaccurate, but only because they are inaccurate, not because their inaccuracy impacts me.

 

I agree on the T rating for a challenge but the D rating, just like for puzzles reflects the difficulty. If you have to find 2000 multi's in one day in order to log a challenge it's definitely a D5.

I'm hard pressed to see how you can get 2000 multi's in one day without doing T5 worth of terrain, even if it's just getting out of a car over and over.

 

How would you feel if you are looking for a hard cache for your personal choice of doing them and you have to weed through all those fake caches that was placed for fizzy challenge?

The same as I feel when I have to wade through any over rated caches that were placed for other reasons. Well, at least I assume I would: I've never actually see a fake cache placed for the fizzy rating, although I've seen intentionally misrated caches done just to be cute.

 

This is where some people dislike challenge caches because it mess with the D/T rating.

Challenges don't mess with the D/T rating. Idiot COs mess with the D/T rating. This argument is like saying smartphones are bad because people like to steal them and sell them on ebay. Complain about misrating caches. Don't complain about the fact that challenge caches are so popular that idiot COs think people will like misrated caches that help them achieve them.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...