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

Challenge Cache Survey open until Dec 21

Recommended Posts

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.

 

What about all the various Terrains one must experience to fulfill the challenge?

Of course, it's virtually impossible to make such a prediction unless it's some sort of challenge related directly to terrain ratings.

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.

 

THANK YOU. I have seen ridiculous challenges where the owner has not even qualified themselves, yet expects others to do it.

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.

 

I think reasonable people understand that the highly subjective difficulty rating is flexible depending on the exact nature of the cache. A traditional only takes into consideration the hide, since that is how a traditional works. A multi might take into consideration the hide, the number of waypoints, the distance, the difficulty in finding waypoints etc. Why wouldn't a challenge cache owner take the difficulty of the challenge into account? It's a distinct sort of cache, so why would you expect it to be rated in exactly the same manner as a totally different cache?

 

For all this yammering about additional ratings and stars and scores etc., I just don't see why everyone is so determined to make things so complicated. These ratings have always been subjective.

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.

 

THANK YOU. I have seen ridiculous challenges where the owner has not even qualified themselves, yet expects others to do it.

 

Nobody reasonable *expects* others to complete a challenge or find a cache. The placement of a cache is an invitation, not an obligation.

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.

 

See YOUR POST #60. You cited the cache I referenced.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

While you're dishing out the orders, let's not forget that there are people who are quite happy to find misrated caches which help them qualify to log challenge caches and I doubt the owners of those misrated caches - or the people who choose to find them and use them for qualification - see the the placing of those caches as the actions of an idiot. In fact I'd say quite the opposite is true.

 

The owner of the challenge cache may well feel differently about those misrated caches as well as those placing and finding them but all too often if there's a way to reduce the actual effort required to get the smiley people will find and implement it, fuelling the seemingly never-ending race to the bottom - and others will praise them for doing it.

 

It's a sorry state of affairs but from what I can see the rot is well established and blooming.

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.

 

THANK YOU. I have seen ridiculous challenges where the owner has not even qualified themselves, yet expects others to do it.

 

Nobody reasonable *expects* others to complete a challenge or find a cache. The placement of a cache is an invitation, not an obligation.

 

Possibly.

 

Hopefully Arthur & Trillian will forgive me for extending their statement to read what I understood it to mean:

 

THANK YOU. I have seen ridiculous challenges where the owner has not even qualified themselves, yet expects others to do it if they want to log their particular challenge cache

 

Hopefully that clears up the confusion :)

Share this post


Link to post

See YOUR POST #60. You cited the cache I referenced.

I had forgotten that that cache was in a phone booth. Yes, that one probably is overrated. Perhaps it is rated 5/5 because it requires that you find caches that fill seven of your least found Fizzy cells on seven consecutive days, which can be extremely difficult. On the other hand, it also can be quite easy if you have lots of empty Fizzy cells to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post

Thinking out loud: How about a guideline that says that the final for a Challenge should have a D and/or T that is proportional to the difficulty of completing the challenge itself?

 

A working example of this would be the final of Challenge: Ironman 365 Consecutive Days

 

(don't click that link if you are flying under the PMO audit log radar)

Share this post


Link to post

Wow!

 

What a comprehensive survey!

 

Well done Mother Ship!

 

Sorta off topic, but let's ask the same questions for the inane jumping through hoops questions with some earthcaches. Why do I need to spend 15 minutes of Internet research, when I visited the place, soaked in the environs and took a selfie? And of course, I am never told if my answers are right or wrong.

 

And, to open a can of worms..... how about a similar survey for virtuals. I know all the con back ground, but c'mon, you need to acknowledge all those fav votes.

 

I've always thought virtuals could be replaced with history caches. Appoint a national board and approve 10 or 15 a month..... No appeal, just the best get published. Make it a competition. Perhaps award souvenirs? I would like to see a Grand Canyon souvenir in my list.

 

My humble thought.

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.

 

THANK YOU. I have seen ridiculous challenges where the owner has not even qualified themselves, yet expects others to do it.

 

Nobody reasonable *expects* others to complete a challenge or find a cache. The placement of a cache is an invitation, not an obligation.

 

Thank you narcissa! I'm not going to cry or play the entitlement card when i come across a cache that is too difficult for me. If one is too ridiculous, my opinion of course, then i have the freedom to just walk away from it. If i do want to attempt a cache, then it's on me to complete the task at hand. This is a choice that i make. No one is forcing me to do anything i don't want to. Honestly, i really don't care whether a CO qualifies for his challenge cache because this has no bearing on whether i qualify or not.

 

I still believe that if anything, there should be less restrictions/guidelines placed on challenge caches than there are now. Reviewers should pretty much treat them as a traditional cache when it comes to reviewing them. A reviewer should not have to try and determine the difficulty of one of these. It should be up to the CO (not Groundspeak or a reviewer) to take care of any problems that might arise later.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

What about all the various Terrains one must experience to fulfill the challenge?

Of course, it's virtually impossible to make such a prediction unless it's some sort of challenge related directly to terrain ratings.

 

Sure, but in those cases, you've experienced those Terrains to get those caches, while you haven't experience this Terrain to get this cache. Which is why I think there's a point to having the Difficulty related to the difficulty of completing the challenge - since you have to read the challenge and therefore have an idea of any required terrains, which are really only relevant once you do those caches. In a sense, having D only related to the Challenge would make the T and D ratings more like T=Braun required to locate the cache, D=Everything Else required to log the Find online.

But I also think that the D and T for a listing is most relevant to the listing's container itself. So with the current system, I like when the CO at least puts in the description what the D and T of the cache itself is despite the D and T rating on the listing, just to ensure we have an idea of what the cache search - not the challenge qualification - will be like. Some see that as a problem with Challenge Cache D and T, some see that as a perfectly reasonable method. I just think this is an area that can be improved :)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I think reasonable people understand that the highly subjective difficulty rating is flexible depending on the exact nature of the cache. A traditional only takes into consideration the hide, since that is how a traditional works. A multi might take into consideration the hide, the number of waypoints, the distance, the difficulty in finding waypoints etc. Why wouldn't a challenge cache owner take the difficulty of the challenge into account? It's a distinct sort of cache, so why would you expect it to be rated in exactly the same manner as a totally different cache?

If COs quite often are led to include the D and T of the listing's cache in the cache description, where the D and T for the listing is readily available for it but used to reflect the challenge instead, then there's a conflict of some sort.

 

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final cache IS itself a 5/5.

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final is a 1/1 LPC.

How do we know the difference by the intended cache properties? That's the problem.

Putting a second D/T in the description, right now, is the only real workaround, afaic.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I think reasonable people understand that the highly subjective difficulty rating is flexible depending on the exact nature of the cache. A traditional only takes into consideration the hide, since that is how a traditional works. A multi might take into consideration the hide, the number of waypoints, the distance, the difficulty in finding waypoints etc. Why wouldn't a challenge cache owner take the difficulty of the challenge into account? It's a distinct sort of cache, so why would you expect it to be rated in exactly the same manner as a totally different cache?

If COs quite often are led to include the D and T of the listing's cache in the cache description, where the D and T for the listing is readily available for it but used to reflect the challenge instead, then there's a conflict of some sort.

 

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final cache IS itself a 5/5.

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final is a 1/1 LPC.

How do we know the difference by the intended cache properties? That's the problem.

Putting a second D/T in the description, right now, is the only real workaround, afaic.

 

Or, do like many challenge cache owners out there,,, include the information in the cache description. I've seen many with indications of what the difficulty ratings mean for the cache. Many state that the actual container is lower in difficulty, that the higher listed on the page are for the completion of the challenge itself.

 

No matter how it's done, and like all other cache types, there will always problems because of subjectivity.

Share this post


Link to post

I think reasonable people understand that the highly subjective difficulty rating is flexible depending on the exact nature of the cache. A traditional only takes into consideration the hide, since that is how a traditional works. A multi might take into consideration the hide, the number of waypoints, the distance, the difficulty in finding waypoints etc. Why wouldn't a challenge cache owner take the difficulty of the challenge into account? It's a distinct sort of cache, so why would you expect it to be rated in exactly the same manner as a totally different cache?

If COs quite often are led to include the D and T of the listing's cache in the cache description, where the D and T for the listing is readily available for it but used to reflect the challenge instead, then there's a conflict of some sort.

 

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final cache IS itself a 5/5.

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final is a 1/1 LPC.

How do we know the difference by the intended cache properties? That's the problem.

Putting a second D/T in the description, right now, is the only real workaround, afaic.

Doesn't the same problem happen with puzzle caches? The D* is for the puzzle, but the finding can be quite different? Both solving the puzzle and qualifing for the challenge was (orgininally) to be done before finding the cache, so both were part of the difficulty of finding the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I think reasonable people understand that the highly subjective difficulty rating is flexible depending on the exact nature of the cache. A traditional only takes into consideration the hide, since that is how a traditional works. A multi might take into consideration the hide, the number of waypoints, the distance, the difficulty in finding waypoints etc. Why wouldn't a challenge cache owner take the difficulty of the challenge into account? It's a distinct sort of cache, so why would you expect it to be rated in exactly the same manner as a totally different cache?

If COs quite often are led to include the D and T of the listing's cache in the cache description, where the D and T for the listing is readily available for it but used to reflect the challenge instead, then there's a conflict of some sort.

 

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final cache IS itself a 5/5.

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final is a 1/1 LPC.

How do we know the difference by the intended cache properties? That's the problem.

Putting a second D/T in the description, right now, is the only real workaround, afaic.

Doesn't the same problem happen with puzzle caches? The D* is for the puzzle, but the finding can be quite different? Both solving the puzzle and qualifing for the challenge was (orgininally) to be done before finding the cache, so both were part of the difficulty of finding the cache.

Sure, but again, the D is related to determination of the location of the container. It's all self-contained to the cache being located.

 

Basically we've got 3 layers here.

1) D and T for locating the container and signing the logsheet

2) D and T including interpretation/solving the listing to get the #1

3) D and T of additional logging requirements on top of #1 and/or 2, in order to post a Find Log on the listing.

 

Puzzles would fall under #2. So depending on what you consider reasonable requirements for either posting a Find log, or what the properties of a cache listing are intended to refer to, would determine your opinion of whether D and T should be reflective of the challenge ALR or the cache itself. Same with a puzzle - a CO could certainly opt to add the D and T for the actual container search (perhaps it's well camo'd but the puzzle is really easy) in the description - but I don't think I've ever seen that on a puzzle listing.

 

I think it stands to reason that sure, while conceptually a puzzle D may differ from the container search D, that seems to be a non-issue with the current system. There's the much greater, more obvious, more argued issue of challenge D and T overriding the D and T as it pertains to the listing's cache itself. Many more complaints about "inaccurate" D and T in that context than any other, that I've seen at least, especially in the forum.

 

It's much easier of course if someone just considers the D and T as a catch-all for everything required to log the Find online. But not everyone thinks that way, and many use the D and T as specifically related to the search. So... how can this discrepancy be solved? Should it? Is there a better way?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

It's much easier of course if someone just considers the D and T as a catch-all for everything required to log the Find online. But not everyone thinks that way, and many use the D and T as specifically related to the search. So... how can this discrepancy be solved? Should it? Is there a better way?

 

I suppose one can try ... but it's not like the D/T ratings are amazingly accurate for ordinary caches, much less challenge caches.

 

Chiefly, I'm thinking about the fact that cache ratings change over time. A 1/5 island cache up here in the north can become a 1/2 cache for a few months when the lake freezes over, then reverts back to being a 1/5 when the ice melts. A puzzle cache that was a D5 can become a D2 when some fancy new computer tool that the owner doesn't know about suddenly becomes available.

 

In my area, one local cacher had a set of challenge caches that required the qualifier to earn X different Groundspeak souvenirs (X=5, 10, 15, 20, etc.). Back when the only way you could get souvenirs was by visiting states or participating in the rare events like Leap Day or WWFMs, getting to 30 souvenirs was a D3. But then Groundspeak started handing out tons of souvenirs every year (like in August 2012, when you could earn 31 souvenirs for caching on each of the 31 days in the month). The owner archived their series of challenge caches and put out a new series with adjusted ratings (30 souvenirs is now a D2).

 

Sure, there's probably some role for separating the D/T of the work involved to qualify for the cache from the D/T of the cache itself. But given how variable the latter is, and how much judgment comes into play in deciding the former, I'm not sure that two inaccurate ratings are better than one.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Recent posts underscore a major problem with Challenges: too much is objective. What's the appropriate way to rate the D/T of a Challenge cache? What makes the challenge reasonably attainable? To fix the system we need to make things more subjective. That will make reviewer work easier too.

Edited by Joshism

Share this post


Link to post

Recent posts underscore a major problem with Challenges: too much is objective. What's the appropriate way to rate the D/T of a Challenge cache? What makes the challenge reasonably attainable? To fix the system we need to make things more subjective. That will make reviewer work easier too.

 

Did you mean to say that too much is subjective and to fix the system we need to make things more objective?

Share this post


Link to post

Did you mean to say that too much is subjective and to fix the system we need to make things more objective?

 

Confused? You will be after this episode of "Soap" :ph34r: (Anyone remembers this?)

Share this post


Link to post

Confused? You will be after this episode of "Soap" :ph34r: (Anyone remembers this?)

 

Yep, one of my all time favourites.

Share this post


Link to post

I think reasonable people understand that the highly subjective difficulty rating is flexible depending on the exact nature of the cache. A traditional only takes into consideration the hide, since that is how a traditional works. A multi might take into consideration the hide, the number of waypoints, the distance, the difficulty in finding waypoints etc. Why wouldn't a challenge cache owner take the difficulty of the challenge into account? It's a distinct sort of cache, so why would you expect it to be rated in exactly the same manner as a totally different cache?

If COs quite often are led to include the D and T of the listing's cache in the cache description, where the D and T for the listing is readily available for it but used to reflect the challenge instead, then there's a conflict of some sort.

 

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final cache IS itself a 5/5.

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final is a 1/1 LPC.

How do we know the difference by the intended cache properties? That's the problem.

Putting a second D/T in the description, right now, is the only real workaround, afaic.

 

There are endless situations where the D/T rating fails as a perfect descriptor of the cache. If someone isn't going to read the page for a challenge cache, I don't know how much closer you can put the dots for them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

If COs quite often are led to include the D and T of the listing's cache in the cache description, where the D and T for the listing is readily available for it but used to reflect the challenge instead, then there's a conflict of some sort.

 

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final cache IS itself a 5/5.

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final is a 1/1 LPC.

How do we know the difference by the intended cache properties? That's the problem.

Putting a second D/T in the description, right now, is the only real workaround, afaic.

There are endless situations where the D/T rating fails as a perfect descriptor of the cache. If someone isn't going to read the page for a challenge cache, I don't know how much closer you can put the dots for them anyway.

Sure, but still in this case there are two concepts being described, not just an inaccurate rating of one concept. There's the finding of the cache, and there's the qualification for the challenge. Which does the D/T refer to (whether or not it's perfectly accurate to either)? Inaccurate DTs for the cache can exist for any cache type; challenge caches, an ALR exception to mystery caches, now also incorporate (potentially inaccurate) DTs for the challenge itself. Two things are being described here, regardless of the accuracy of their rating. So again, that's why some COs include the DT for the "cache itself" in the listing description, since they set the DT for the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

If COs quite often are led to include the D and T of the listing's cache in the cache description, where the D and T for the listing is readily available for it but used to reflect the challenge instead, then there's a conflict of some sort.

 

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final cache IS itself a 5/5.

One CO can put out a 5/5 challenge where the final is a 1/1 LPC.

How do we know the difference by the intended cache properties? That's the problem.

Putting a second D/T in the description, right now, is the only real workaround, afaic.

There are endless situations where the D/T rating fails as a perfect descriptor of the cache. If someone isn't going to read the page for a challenge cache, I don't know how much closer you can put the dots for them anyway.

Sure, but still in this case there are two concepts being described, not just an inaccurate rating of one concept. There's the finding of the cache, and there's the qualification for the challenge. Which does the D/T refer to (whether or not it's perfectly accurate to either)? Inaccurate DTs for the cache can exist for any cache type; challenge caches, an ALR exception to mystery caches, now also incorporate (potentially inaccurate) DTs for the challenge itself. Two things are being described here, regardless of the accuracy of their rating. So again, that's why some COs include the DT for the "cache itself" in the listing description, since they set the DT for the challenge.

 

Perfect. I don't really see why there is angst about this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Perfect. I don't really see why there is angst about this issue.

 

It deals with Challenge Caches. By definition, it must create angst. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Perfect. I don't really see why there is angst about this issue.

 

Because it's an ambiguity that can be associated with Challenge caches. Consequently it's touted as a reason that Challenge caches should be altered and/or banned altogether. I can't recall claims that puzzle and/or multi caches should be halted because of ambiguous D/T ratings though. After all, some puzzle and multi caches base their D/T ratings on the overall experience. For example, puzzle cache D/T's that incorporate the presumed difficulty of solving the puzzle and multi cache D/T's that incorporate all the D's and T's of the various waypoints.

 

But seriously. From what I've seen, many CC's mention the D/T of the final within the cache description. And, as you mentioned, if a cacher isn't going to read the cache description then they probably shouldn't go looking for that particular cache. I'm not sure how anyone can pursue a 'Mystery' cache without reading the cache description, whether it's a puzzle or a CC.

 

I'd be glad to see the 'D/T of final cache' be a 'required' part of Challenge cache descriptions.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be glad to see the 'D/T of final cache' be a 'required' part of Challenge cache descriptions.

I wouldn't mind that, either. But that would increase Reviewers' workloads instead of reducing them, as Grounspeak wants. Especially if the same requirement was made for puzzles, multis, and Wherigos.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I would rather see the Terrain rating of the Challenge cache be accurate to that cache location. The D rating could be related to the difficulty of the ALR associated with the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

...or the challenge qualification rating(s) could be distinct from the final cache and a unique and required property of challenges caches, allowing people to search for easy or hard challenges, while retaining an accurate rating for the actual associated cache being located, since challenge caches may also consist of a puzzle to also determine the location of the cache; a challenge could be a traditional with an ALR, or a puzzle with an ALR, or even more than one or two stages (a multi) with an ALR...

:ph34r:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be glad to see the 'D/T of final cache' be a 'required' part of Challenge cache descriptions.

I wouldn't mind that, either. But that would increase Reviewers' workloads instead of reducing them, as Grounspeak wants. Especially if the same requirement was made for puzzles, multis, and Wherigos.

 

I wouldn't propose adding the requirement to non-CC caches, but rather to alter the CC guidelines to include an additional 'requirement', similar to how there's already an existing requirement that "challenge" is in the cache name.

 

My impression from the moratorium announcement was that the subjective evaluation of CC listings was the more time-consuming aspect of reviewing CC's. Checking for one additional item would be objective and hopefully not very time-consuming. I'm not suggesting Reviewers should subjectively evaluate the D/T ratings, just that they check whether there's a second D/T rating in the cache description. No need for Reviewers to question the D/T ratings any more than they'd question such ratings on traditional or multi caches (ie, if something has a T1 rating, then the Handicap-accessible attribute should also apply).

 

The revamping of the submission process could include a standard template that CO's have to follow when submitting Challenge Caches. The format could be included in the CC guidelines and, at the least' push the required items to the beginning of the cache description so it's easier for Reviewers to tick-mark through the few required components.

 

I've also been thinking about the 'dedicated CC reviewers' idea that was mentioned in one of the many CC threads, which I can't find right now. I can see how that might be helpful.

-- The regular Reviewer would check for the objective stuff (ie, required components of cache listing, saturation, etc).

-- If that's approved, then the listing is pushed to the 'Challenge Cache Panel' (I'm making up a name). This 'Panel' would evaluate the subjective aspects of the CC submission (ie, too similar to other CC's or not, reasonably attainable or not, requires changing caching behavior or not, etc). If there are issues here, then that Panel communicates with the CO. The regular Reviewer doesn't have to deal with it and there are no appeals to GS beyond the 'Panel'.

 

However, this brings us back to the issue of 'resources'. The 'Panel' would have to be created and who would be included? I'd imagine that a Lackey(s) would be required and cachers would have to be recruited similar to however regular Reviewers are currently recruited, although the requirements for a 'Panel' reviewer might differ a bit from the requirements for a 'regular' reviewer. The submission guidelines might indicate a longer review time for CC's than for non-CC caches as well.

 

ETA: The other benefit of the 'CC Panel' approach is more consistency in what CC's are published, going forward. Some cachers have noted variances in what some regional Reviewers approve vs Reviewers I other regions. If the subjective aspect of CC evaluation is centralized, then that should reduce the regional variations. Maybe?

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post

...or the challenge qualification rating(s) could be distinct from the final cache and a unique and required property of challenges caches, allowing people to search for easy or hard challenges, while retaining an accurate rating for the actual associated cache being located, since challenge caches may also consist of a puzzle to also determine the location of the cache; a challenge could be a traditional with an ALR, or a puzzle with an ALR, or even more than one or two stages (a multi) with an ALR...

:ph34r:

 

Creating a distinct rating for every little nuance and niche issue that people decide to fuss about isn't going to enhance the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Creating a distinct rating for every little nuance and niche issue that people decide to fuss about isn't going to enhance the game.

Who said every little niche and nuance? This thread is about challenge caches, where there are a number of issues being discussed, one of which from the community is the issue of inaccurate D/T as it pertains to the challenge vs the actual cache - what the D and T actually represent, not just subjectivity about their accuracy pertaining to the cache. That's not niche or nuance. There's a moratorium on challenge caches. That's pretty significant. We don't know if which issue in that reason is most significant, only that there are numerous issues. So, let's talk about them.

 

"Inaccuracy" could be regarding disagreeing opinions of whether a rating is an accurate description of one aspect of the cache.

"Inaccuracy" could also be regarding what the rating is actually describing.

It's the latter that is not niche or nuance.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

The difficulty or terrain rating for the challenge portion is one of the more subjective systems in this game. I ignore them because it does not provide any meaningful basis for filtering out challenges I am not interested in doing or distinguishing between challenges that I might want to do from those that are beyond my reach. Even more than the difficulty level of puzzle caches - which does help those of us who are not particularly interested in many kinds of puzzles - the ratings for challenges have little objective consistency and no basis for applying them.

 

I have seen challenges that I qualify relatively easily rated because I like certain kinds of caches and others that I would never do because the requirements are at the far end of most people's experiences - but the ratings are often the same.

 

How hard is it to fill out a grid? How hard is it to find caches that are based on animals, superheroes, or flying saucers? I think it might be possible to come up with ratings based on the effort required to meet a challenge - how far you would have to travel, the number of caches fitting the criteria, the number of caches in generally that a person might have to find, etc. - but I doubt if most of us are willing to complete that kind of survey. If its based on the experience of a CO issuing a challenge, it probably will not apply to me. So I have to look at other factors.

 

I would probably dispense with ratings for the challenge itself and stick to what it takes to find the cache. That is probably more useful than an opinion that collecting a certain number of caches involving animals, cryptids, or other items is worthy of 5 stars.

Share this post


Link to post

Creating a distinct rating for every little nuance and niche issue that people decide to fuss about isn't going to enhance the game.

Who said every little niche and nuance? This thread is about challenge caches, where there are a number of issues being discussed, one of which from the community is the issue of inaccurate D/T as it pertains to the challenge vs the actual cache - what the D and T actually represent, not just subjectivity about their accuracy pertaining to the cache. That's not niche or nuance. There's a moratorium on challenge caches. That's pretty significant. We don't know if which issue in that reason is most significant, only that there are numerous issues. So, let's talk about them.

 

"Inaccuracy" could be regarding disagreeing opinions of whether a rating is an accurate description of one aspect of the cache.

"Inaccuracy" could also be regarding what the rating is actually describing.

It's the latter that is not niche or nuance.

 

I think your sense of the importance of this issue may be disproportionate. The D/T rating has never been a steadfast way to assess a cache of any type. At a certain point you are just asking too much of those little numbers.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me jump in here for a moment or four from a challenge cache owners standpoint with a different point of view. Kinda long.

 

I am opposed to archiving all active challenge caches and having to redo them.

 

I am opposed to requiring a "checker" to say yea or nae to a completion of requirements as I see no way of doing that with our CCIO cache or any cache of it's type. I am sure there will be people out there with suggestions and will entertain ideas but read the cache page first.

 

We have a challenge cache - GCR9XY, Counting Counties in Oregon - where one has to find a Small, Regular or large cache in each of Oregon's 36 counties. No Micro or virtual listings accepted. Sounds simple and really is, IF you read the cache page and understand the cache size restriction.

 

It has been out for slightly over 10 years with only 93 finds and as I understand it, it is the first of it's kind in geocaching.

 

Yes, we did locate a cache of these requirements BEFORE publishing the cache just to prove it could be done. (As we have done for the other challenge caches we have out also.)

 

I maintain a Charter membership with GC.com for the PQ option, a GSAK account to be able to work with location / placement requirements and a mapping program to deal with placement in the counties.

 

That being said, from my standpoint there are a lot of cachers out there who are whiners, pure and simple.

 

How is it my fault when you drive from Portland to Eastern Oregon, locate only ONE cache in each county and fail to realize it is a micro, therefore out of the running for this cache and then want me to grant "you" an exception this one time?

 

How is it my fault that you "complete" this challenge to your satisfaction, work it so your in Bend Sunday afternoon and want me to verify your cache size and placement in the next hour so you can head back home and you fail to have a cache in each county or one of the wrong size and I say no, incomplete listing?

 

How is it my fault that your from out of state and have any of these issues on a "once in a lifetime" trip? You can read and understand a map but not a cache page?

I have it in the cache description that I WILL read each and every cache submitted for this challenge to check for size description.

Why is it my fault if the cache owner has failed to list the right size with GC.com and state right on the cache page it is a micro or nano cache and I reject the cache? Or if the cache owner has changed the container size for some reason and failed to adjust the cache page?

 

To be blunt, I have adjusted this cache several times to try and accommodate as many people as possible and still maintain the integrity and concept of this cache as much as possible. I am not sure I could do any less and maintain the concept of this cache. ( I refuse to consider adding micro containers.)

 

More to come.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me jump in here for a moment or four from a challenge cache owners standpoint with a different point of view. Kinda long.

 

I am opposed to archiving all active challenge caches and having to redo them.

 

I am opposed to requiring a "checker" to say yea or nae to a completion of requirements as I see no way of doing that with our CCIO cache or any cache of it's type. I am sure there will be people out there with suggestions and will entertain ideas but read the cache page first.

 

We have a challenge cache - GCR9XY, Counting Counties in Oregon - where one has to find a Small, Regular or large cache in each of Oregon's 36 counties. No Micro or virtual listings accepted. Sounds simple and really is, IF you read the cache page and understand the cache size restriction.

 

It has been out for slightly over 10 years with only 93 finds and as I understand it, it is the first of it's kind in geocaching.

 

Yes, we did locate a cache of these requirements BEFORE publishing the cache just to prove it could be done. (As we have done for the other challenge caches we have out also.)

 

I maintain a Charter membership with GC.com for the PQ option, a GSAK account to be able to work with location / placement requirements and a mapping program to deal with placement in the counties.

 

That being said, from my standpoint there are a lot of cachers out there who are whiners, pure and simple.

 

How is it my fault when you drive from Portland to Eastern Oregon, locate only ONE cache in each county and fail to realize it is a micro, therefore out of the running for this cache and then want me to grant "you" an exception this one time?

 

How is it my fault that you "complete" this challenge to your satisfaction, work it so your in Bend Sunday afternoon and want me to verify your cache size and placement in the next hour so you can head back home and you fail to have a cache in each county or one of the wrong size and I say no, incomplete listing?

 

How is it my fault that your from out of state and have any of these issues on a "once in a lifetime" trip? You can read and understand a map but not a cache page?

I have it in the cache description that I WILL read each and every cache submitted for this challenge to check for size description.

Why is it my fault if the cache owner has failed to list the right size with GC.com and state right on the cache page it is a micro or nano cache and I reject the cache? Or if the cache owner has changed the container size for some reason and failed to adjust the cache page?

 

To be blunt, I have adjusted this cache several times to try and accommodate as many people as possible and still maintain the integrity and concept of this cache as much as possible. I am not sure I could do any less and maintain the concept of this cache. ( I refuse to consider adding micro containers.)

 

More to come.

 

Makes me wonder why people want to own challenge caches :ph34r:

 

I think I mentioned in an earlier post - or maybe a post on another of the current challenge cache related threads - if there's an easy way to 'qualify' for a challenge, people will take it - or make one, or get someone else to make one. And if none of that works out, the next best thing is to browbeat the CO until they capitulate.

Share this post


Link to post

Makes me wonder why people want to own challenge caches :ph34r:

 

I can feel the "fun" leaving my body reading through that post. I'm not sure what the attraction of owning a Challenge is if you have to put up with that level of aggravation.

Share this post


Link to post

Makes me wonder why people want to own challenge caches :ph34r:

 

I can feel the "fun" leaving my body reading through that post. I'm not sure what the attraction of owning a Challenge is if you have to put up with that level of aggravation.

 

Some CO's don't suffer the aggravation - they just accept all logs :(

Share this post


Link to post

I think your sense of the importance of this issue may be disproportionate. The D/T rating has never been a steadfast way to assess a cache of any type. At a certain point you are just asking too much of those little numbers.

 

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache. With challenge caches the single ALR exception to cache type Find requirements, they may reflect the challenge, or not, or both. That is a problem of definition, for what purpose people use the D and T. It's disproportionate - it's an issue often raised in the community, and it was in the survey. :antenna:

Share this post


Link to post

Creating a distinct rating for every little nuance and niche issue that people decide to fuss about isn't going to enhance the game.

Who said every little niche and nuance? This thread is about challenge caches, where there are a number of issues being discussed, one of which from the community is the issue of inaccurate D/T as it pertains to the challenge vs the actual cache - what the D and T actually represent, not just subjectivity about their accuracy pertaining to the cache. That's not niche or nuance. There's a moratorium on challenge caches. That's pretty significant. We don't know if which issue in that reason is most significant, only that there are numerous issues. So, let's talk about them.

 

"Inaccuracy" could be regarding disagreeing opinions of whether a rating is an accurate description of one aspect of the cache.

"Inaccuracy" could also be regarding what the rating is actually describing.

It's the latter that is not niche or nuance.

 

I think your sense of the importance of this issue may be disproportionate. The D/T rating has never been a steadfast way to assess a cache of any type. At a certain point you are just asking too much of those little numbers.

 

Thanks for stating the obvious, but it completely misses the point.

Yes, D/T ratings are generally pretty subjective.

All he was talking about was where/how the D/T ratings applied in the case of a challenge cache - whether to the challenge or the cache.

 

I see nothing wrong with applying some sort of "Challenge Rating", separate from the D/T. Wouldn't even have to be hard-wired into the cache like the D/T is...but simply a requirement for the listing. All this assuming Challenge Caches stick around, of course.

Share this post


Link to post

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache.

 

I imagine you've already differentiated puzzles from this blanket ruling - although I confess I lack the energy to read back through... :P

Edited by Team Microdot

Share this post


Link to post

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache.

I imagine you've already differentiated puzzles from this blanket ruling - although I confess I lack the energy to read back through... :P

Yes. Let me refresh your memory: Puzzles are still used to determine the location of the cache. Yes, puzzles on a listing are a different difficulty than say how well the container is camouflaged, which is why I listed 3 possible purposes to D and T: 1] D and T of locating the logsheet at the physical coordinates, 2] D and T of determining the location of the logsheet starting from the listing (puzzles included), 3] D and T of completing the entire listing as required (including ALRs) to post the Find Log. If we were to check on the complaints related to #2 vs #1 compared to #3 vs #1 or 2, I think you'd quickly find that #3 is a far more significant issue.

And it was on the survey.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache.

I imagine you've already differentiated puzzles from this blanket ruling - although I confess I lack the energy to read back through... :P

Yes. Let me refresh your memory: Puzzles are still used to determine the location of the cache. Yes, puzzles on a listing are a different difficulty than say how well the container is camouflaged, which is why I listed 3 possible purposes to D and T: 1] D and T of locating the logsheet at the physical coordinates, 2] D and T of determining the location of the logsheet starting from the listing (puzzles included), 3] D and T of completing the entire listing as required (including ALRs) to post the Find Log. If we were to check on the complaints related to #2 vs #1 compared to #3 vs #1 or 2, I think you'd quickly find that #3 is a far more significant issue.

And it was on the survey.

 

OK - so puzzles are an exception to your rule of every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache.

 

What about caches with field puzzles?

Share this post


Link to post

I think your sense of the importance of this issue may be disproportionate. The D/T rating has never been a steadfast way to assess a cache of any type. At a certain point you are just asking too much of those little numbers.

 

...again, the only point here is, regardless of accuracy, is that with every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache. With challenge caches the single ALR exception to cache type Find requirements, they may reflect the challenge, or not, or both. That is a problem of definition, for what purpose people use the D and T. It's disproportionate - it's an issue often raised in the community, and it was in the survey. :antenna:

 

With every other cache type, the D/T rating reflects the elements that are inherent in the nature of the cache. Why would that be different for a challenge cache? I don't see completing a challenge to be all that different from completing a puzzle. The only difference, really, is that you can delete someone's log on a challenge cache if they don't do the task set out on the cache page.

 

The actual reason that this is an "issue" is that D/T ratings have become some sort of silly score, rather than a description of the cache, so now everyone is fussed about getting these fake "points." These irrationalities should be stripped away from the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

OK - so puzzles are an exception to your rule of every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache.

 

What about caches with field puzzles?

 

...we just went over all of this. Please read it again, if you're too lazy, if you're going to raise it again. Puzzles are not a cache type, they are an element of the Mystery cache type wherein the location of the cache is not known and requires some task in order to determine it (even if the logsheet's container is at the posted coordinates).

As for field puzzles - notice I said location of the "logsheet". Since the rule requires a signature on the logsheet. And any puzzle owner - listing or field - will confirm they have the right to delete a Find log if your name is not in the logsheet. And before you make a point about people not doing puzzles, coordinate sharing and whatnot, that again is irrelevant. The intent is to do what the CO has set up to locate and sign the logsheet, but any circumvention of such requirements is not verifiable, and so the signature is the only requirement. Inaccurate D and T then? Sure - but it's still related to determining the location of the logsheet that must be signed.

 

With every other cache type, the D/T rating reflects the elements that are inherent in the nature of the cache.

What is the "nature of the cache"?

For every physical cache type, the D and T reflect what is required to find the cache. Now we have the challenge cache exception with the ALR. So now do the D and T remain reflective of locating the logsheet to sign (as is the case with all other physical types), or do they reflect the task required to complete the ALR in order to post the Find log? Or do they reflect a combination of both? THAT is the question.

 

Why would that be different for a challenge cache? I don't see completing a challenge to be all that different from completing a puzzle.

no comment

 

The actual reason that this is an "issue" is that D/T ratings have become some sort of silly score

No, they are objectively intended to be reflective of the difficulty and terrain of "finding the cache". But what does that mean with challenge caches in existence??

 

Everyone has accepted a meaning and purpose to the D and T. Not everyone's understanding is the same. This needs to be made clear and decided upon by Groundspeak.

That's why it was in the survey.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

OK - so puzzles are an exception to your rule of every other cache type, the D and T reflect the cache.

 

What about caches with field puzzles?

 

...we just went over all of this. Please read it again, if you're too lazy, if you're going to raise it again. Puzzles are not a cache type, they are an element of the Mystery cache type wherein the location of the cache is not known and requires some task in order to determine it (even if the logsheet's container is at the posted coordinates).

As for field puzzles - notice I said location of the "logsheet". Since the rule requires a signature on the logsheet. And any puzzle owner - listing or field - will confirm they have the right to delete a Find log if your name is not in the logsheet. And before you make a point about people not doing puzzles, coordinate sharing and whatnot, that again is irrelevant. The intent is to do what the CO has set up to locate and sign the logsheet, but any circumvention of such requirements is not verifiable, and so the signature is the only requirement. Inaccurate D and T then? Sure - but it's still related to determining the location of the logsheet that must be signed.

 

 

I confess - I am too lazy.

 

Just scratch out the word puzzle from my earlier post and replace it with mystery.

 

Although people refer to puzzle caches all the time in conversation... so I think they are a thing... even though they are part of a larger set... yes, they are a thing :)

 

I just thought you were suggesting that challenge caches sat on one side of a line with regard to D & T ratings and all other cache types sat on the other side of the line - which clearly isn't true. That's all :)

Share this post


Link to post

 

What is the "nature of the cache"?

For every physical cache type, the D and T reflect what is required to find the cache. Now we have the challenge cache exception with the ALR. So now do the D and T remain reflective of locating the logsheet to sign (as is the case with all other physical types), or do they reflect the task required to complete the ALR in order to post the Find log? Or do they reflect a combination of both? THAT is the question.

 

No, the question is: why does it matter? Again, you are simply asking too much of these numbers.

 

We all know that we need to consider D/T differently when we look at a traditional versus a puzzle or an Earthcache. Why is it so vexing that we also have to consider it differently for a challenge cache?

Share this post


Link to post

Although people refer to puzzle caches all the time in conversation... so I think they are a thing... even though they are part of a larger set... yes, they are a thing :)

Yeah, it's a common term, but "puzzle caches" aren't an official cache type, they're just a class of Mystery cache. :omnomnom: I call mystery caches with puzzles puzzle caches too; it's just easier :P

 

I just thought you were suggesting that challenge caches sat on one side of a line with regard to D & T ratings and all other cache types sat on the other side of the line - which clearly isn't true. That's all :)

Right, technically there is no line. There are only Mystery Caches, a catch-all physical cache listing type.

 

"Puzzle cache" is a colloquial term for mystery caches where a puzzle is used to determine the cache/logsheet location (or the field puzzle attribute to indicate a puzzle not outlined on the listing).

"Challenge cache" is an official term for an exception to mystery caches where an ALR is permitted; the problem is there's no way to provide the difficulty of completing that ALR (which is unrelated to determining location of the physical cache/logsheet), so the D and T are in this case allowed to take the challenge into consideration. And therein lies the problem.

 

the question is: why does it matter?

It just does. Clearly. Because it's in the survey! If it really doesn't matter to you, then why do you have a problem with discussing any solution? If you take issue with that, then clearly it does matter to you. You prefer it one way, not any other.

 

We all know that we need to consider D/T differently when we look at a traditional versus a puzzle or an Earthcache. Why is it so vexing that we also have to consider it differently for a challenge cache?

Nope, because "Challenge Cache" is not a cache type. "Puzzle cache" is not a cache type. Both are "Mystery Caches".

We interpret the intent of the D and T based on cache type:

 

If you see a Mystery Cache you know the posted coordinates may not indicate the physical cache location, and if the listing contains a puzzle you know the D is intended to relate to solving the puzzle towards determining the location of the cache and signing the loghseet.

 

If you see a Traditional, you know the physical cache is at the posted coordinates, and you know the D is intended to relate to locating the physical container and signing the logsheet at posted coordinates.

 

If you see a "Field Puzzle" attribute on any cache, you know the D is intended to take the field puzzle into consideration to access the logsheet for signing at the cache's determined coordinates.

 

If you see an Earthcache, you know there is no physical container but a geology-related task to complete starting at the posted coordinates, and you know the D is intended to relate to the difficulty of the tasks required to answer questions posed by the CO.

 

If you see a Mystery Cache you know the posted coordinates may not indicate the physical cache location, and if the listing contains a challenge logging requirement, you know the D is intended to relate to... relate to... determining the location of the cache? ...or qualifying for the additional challenge logging requirement? If the description contains a puzzle as well, well that doesn't help. If the description says "the cache IS at the posted coordinates", well that doesn't help. If the cache states another D and T, ah hey, that does help! Now we know how hard it'll be to locate and sign the logsheet and to qualify for the challenge ALR to post the Find Log.

 

I'm not trying to change your opinion about what the D and T should define for a physical cache type (locating the logsheet vs posting the Find log), I'm just hoping that you'll understand that there is a unique and clear issue with definitions in regards to D and T in the context of challenge caches, where some prefer it one way, and some prefer it another, and a few solutions or workarounds have been proposed. Saying "there is (or I see) no issue" is neither here nor there. There is. And enough of an issue to be included in the survey. Please, please just see that.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...