Keep Challenges but maybe make them souvenirs

[+ifamember]

I like the challenges, they add a fun dimension to the game but logging completion of the challenge in a physical cache is really not necessary and I agree it is a waste of a physical cache that others not interested in challenges are denied (since cache's are limited in any specific area). It would be better if in lieu of logging a cache that the system just generate a virtual souvenir. I received one of these when I achieved my first Washington State cache, one for my first Oregon State cache, one for International EarthCache Day, and one for the GIFF weekend 2015. I assume I will be getting one for the Last of 2015 and the First of 2016 caches. Some of the challenges like the Challenge of the Century, could be automatic as soon as the system observes that you have completed 100 of a specific cache type. Other challenges could be system designed as requested, or voted on (such as xxx total caches found, xx years caching, xxx trackables held, xxx total caches hidden, etc.). Whereas those users who enjoy coming up with complicated challenges that would not be practical to have the computer verify (say Shakespeare's Lost Plays), they could still do so. It would just be necessary for the parties who have completed the challenge to log as a virtual cache. This could either automatically generate the souvenir, (because really who cares if someone is lying, they are basically lying to themselves) or the souvenir could wait 30/60/90 days to be generated allowing the party who generated the challenge to verify that the task was completed using lists in the post or booklists. Basically unless they delete the post within the review period (30/60/90 days) then the souvenir would be automatically submitted. This frees up the designers to make great computer generated challenges, users who want challenge caches that are more complicated the freedom to set these up, and frees up hundreds of cache locations for those who do not care about challenges (by converting the challenge cache to a traditional cache or allowing the cache to be retired and replaced with a new cache).. Additionally, these changes should cause little or no programming needs as the statistics tool already tracks the information that would be used, and the souvenir process is already being used. Finally the new souvenirs generates an opportunity for some new artistic souvenirs to be designed,

[+niraD]

This kind of idea has been suggested before, for example:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325377

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=306936

[+frinklabs]

This kind of idea has been suggested before, for example:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325377

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=306936

 

You are half-right -- the second link is a version of the badges-for-challenges idea (which is where we are headed if they kill Challenges altogether).

 

The first link is for the so-called "Challenge Stars" feature whose implementation would still have a final container to be found after the challenge is completed.

 

IT entails two different log types, which allows a non-challenge-completer to log the cache with a Found It while providing a Challenge Completed log type for those who have fulfilled the requirements. I called this scenario win-win but not everyone agreed.

[+niraD]

To me, the "Challenge Stars" idea looks like pretty much the same thing as the "Challenge Souvenirs" idea. The main difference is that the "Challenge Stars" idea keeps challenges associated with physical caches. But with both ideas, completing the challenge is rewarded in a way that is completely separate from finding a physical cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

To me, the "Challenge Stars" idea looks like pretty much the same thing as the "Challenge Souvenirs" idea. The main difference is that the "Challenge Stars" idea keeps challenges associated with physical caches. But with both ideas, completing the challenge is rewarded in a way that is completely separate from finding a physical cache.

 

Not that I would expect a "Challenge Souvenirs" idea to ever get implemented, but if something like that happened I would rather see them as "Challenge Badges" somewhat like the Badgegen badges, and a separate, editable, "Accomplishments/Badges" tab created for displaying them. To me, a souvenir isn't a "reward", but using the traditional definition , is a token of remembrance. Seeing a souvenir for Turkey, Acquired on 05/10/2013 reminds me of the first day I found a cache in Turkey. A badge, such as the Sapphire "Traveling Cacher" badge in my project-gc profile is more of an award that indicates that I've found caches in 18 or more countries.

[+CanadianRockies]

Since there already are third-party websites that allow you to generate badges for various accomplishments, you can go there and copy the badges onto your profile page, if you're into that kind of thing. I'd prefer to see Groundspeak devote its limited programming resources towards more helpful projects that aren't so redundant (e.g., enabling their new search page to generate .GPX files directly and/or indirectly via bookmarks and PQs).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Since there already are third-party websites that allow you to generate badges for various accomplishments, you can go there and copy the badges onto your profile page, if you're into that kind of thing. I'd prefer to see Groundspeak devote its limited programming resources towards more helpful projects that aren't so redundant (e.g., enabling their new search page to generate .GPX files directly and/or indirectly via bookmarks and PQs).

 

As I said, I am not expecting that GS will develop something like Challenge Souvenirs, or Challenge Badges, but if they did I was just expressing my preference. Yes, I can generate badges/statistics and even souvenirs using third party sites but can only show them on the "Bio" tab in my profile and not in a separate tab such the Statistics, Souvenirs, or Accomplishments tab where they really belong.

 

The fact that so many users include third party stats, badges, and annoying animated gifs on their profile suggests to me that there are plenty of people that *are* into that kind of thing. Personally, I've suggested the maybe GS should let one or more of their partners worry about statistics and just provide a way to integrate that data from their partner sites.

 

I too would rather see them finish the implementation of the new Search engine more than anything else.

 

 

[+HHL]

[...] I'd prefer to see Groundspeak devote its limited programming resources towards more helpful projects that aren't so redundant (e.g., enabling their new search page to generate .GPX files directly and/or indirectly via bookmarks and PQs).

 

I'm absolutely d'accord.

 

Hans

[+Harry Dolphin]

I think that they should either keep the challenges the way they are: Fulfill challenge, sign log, get "Found it".

Or maybe the better option: Put them in the lost-sock drawer with Waymarking. A completely separate game.

[+Path Pacer]

Some challenges can be quite convoluted and it's fun trying to figure out if you qualify for them, but others are more standard (getting all 50 states, filling your 366 or D/T grids, etc.). It would be nice if those had souvenirs.

[+tallglenn]

I think I'm past the point of wanting any more souvenirs. I have so many, and there is no way to sort them. It's just a chore to scroll down the page and see everything jumbled all together - states, megas, August games. The last few I got, I haven't even looked at/for yet.

[+hydnsek]

I think I'm past the point of wanting any more souvenirs. I have so many, and there is no way to sort them. It's just a chore to scroll down the page and see everything jumbled all together - states, megas, August games. The last few I got, I haven't even looked at/for yet.

+1. Completing a significant challenge is much more meaningful to me than getting a souvenir for finding a cache on Dec. 31. Would hate to see them lumped together as a jumble of "achievements."

[+The Jester]

...and I agree it is a waste of a physical cache that others not interested in challenges are denied (since cache's are limited in any specific area). ...

I couldn't disagree more. Just because some are not interested, doesn't make it a waste.I don't really like puzzles, so should we all get souvenirs for solving a puzzle and leave the cache site open so others can find a cache there? Just about any physical cache type is disliked by somebody, so where do you stop?

[+Mudfrog]

...and I agree it is a waste of a physical cache that others not interested in challenges are denied (since cache's are limited in any specific area). ...

I couldn't disagree more. Just because some are not interested, doesn't make it a waste.I don't really like puzzles, so should we all get souvenirs for solving a puzzle and leave the cache site open so others can find a cache there? Just about any physical cache type is disliked by somebody, so where do you stop?

 

Agree 100%.

 

Figure out how to make challenge caches less stressful for reviewers, otherwise, leave them alone! I don't need or want souvenirs, badges, and/or worthless stars.

 

Being denied? Boy, that entitlement card sure gets played a lot.

[+PlantAKiss]

Get rid of Challenge caches. They are ALRs. While I'm sure there are good ones the ones I've seen are all about high numbers and encourage nano spew in order for cachers to be able to fulfill the ALRs. It seems so remote from the original "hide and seek" type of game. Find 25 caches every day for 6 months...so you can log a Found It on a nano stuck on a metal sign. I don't get it... It's sad. So many LPCs, nanos, micros to build numbers. It's so nice but getting rarer to find a cache someone put any thought into. I appreciate all the hiders that put some effort into making it about the journey and/or clever hide.

[+CanadianRockies]

Get rid of Challenge caches. They are ALRs. While I'm sure there are good ones the ones I've seen are all about high numbers and encourage nano spew in order for cachers to be able to fulfill the ALRs. It seems so remote from the original "hide and seek" type of game. Find 25 caches every day for 6 months...so you can log a Found It on a nano stuck on a metal sign. I don't get it... It's sad. So many LPCs, nanos, micros to build numbers. It's so nice but getting rarer to find a cache someone put any thought into. I appreciate all the hiders that put some effort into making it about the journey and/or clever hide.

Yes, challenge caches have ALRs associated with them. So what? Groundspeak's guidelines explicitly allow for this, just as soccer's rule book explicitly allows for goalies to use their hands. Geocaching has evolved beyond simple "hide and seek." We now have puzzles, EarthCaches, Wherigos, virtuals, webcams, events, etc. Different people enjoy different types of caches. If you don't like doing the challenges, then don't do the challenges. Easy, peasey.

Edited December 21, 2015 by CanadianRockies

[+Manville Possum]

I'm sure challenges will be brought back, hopefully in very limited numbers.

 

I think the existing ones could be archived and once the new icon and guidelines are established new challenges would add fun to geocaching.

 

I also doubt that I will ever qualify to log any challenge caches. They are just not for casual cachers, but for those that geocache as a game and not a hobby.

[+The Jester]

Get rid of Challenge caches. They are ALRs. While I'm sure there are good ones the ones I've seen are all about high numbers and encourage nano spew in order for cachers to be able to fulfill the ALRs. It seems so remote from the original "hide and seek" type of game. Find 25 caches every day for 6 months...so you can log a Found It on a nano stuck on a metal sign. I don't get it... It's sad. So many LPCs, nanos, micros to build numbers. It's so nice but getting rarer to find a cache someone put any thought into. I appreciate all the hiders that put some effort into making it about the journey and/or clever hide.

Maybe in your area challenge caches are nano's, but I've yet to see one. Around here the challenge caches I've done end with a decent cache as a nice reward for the hard work to qualify.

[+on4bam]

Get rid of Challenge caches.

 

Here we go again. "I don't like them, get rid of them".

Easy solution: Ignore them, I bet you haven't found all caches in your area so you can still go after those ones.

Edited December 21, 2015 by on4bam

[+SwineFlew]

Get rid of Challenge caches.

 

Here we go again. "I don't like them, get rid of them".

Easy solution: Ignore them, I bet you haven't found all caches in your area so you can still go after those ones.

I am more of a fan to get rid of controlling people out of geocaching... first step to get rid of... challenge caches.

[+bflentje]

I think that they should either keep the challenges the way they are: Fulfill challenge, sign log, get "Found it".

Or maybe the better option: Put them in the lost-sock drawer with Waymarking. A completely separate game.

 

This, except the better option you mentioned was option A.

[+L0ne.R]

Get rid of Challenge caches. They are ALRs. While I'm sure there are good ones the ones I've seen are all about high numbers and encourage nano spew in order for cachers to be able to fulfill the ALRs. It seems so remote from the original "hide and seek" type of game. Find 25 caches every day for 6 months...so you can log a Found It on a nano stuck on a metal sign. I don't get it... It's sad. So many LPCs, nanos, micros to build numbers. It's so nice but getting rarer to find a cache someone put any thought into. I appreciate all the hiders that put some effort into making it about the journey and/or clever hide.

Yes, challenge caches have ALRs associated with them. So what?

 

the ones I've seen are all about high numbers and encourage nano spew in order for cachers to be able to fulfill the ALRs. It seems so remote from the original "hide and seek" type of game. Find 25 caches every day for 6 months...so you can log a Found It on a nano stuck on a metal sign. I don't get it... It's sad. So many LPCs, nanos, micros to build numbers. It's so nice but getting rarer to find a cache someone put any thought into.

[+Mudfrog]

Get rid of Challenge caches.

 

Here we go again. "I don't like them, get rid of them".

Easy solution: Ignore them, I bet you haven't found all caches in your area so you can still go after those ones.

I am more of a fan to get rid of controlling people out of geocaching... first step to get rid of... challenge caches.

 

Talk about being controlling, getting rid of people because their caches are too hard for you.

 

My goodness,, this is so easy. You're not forced to do a challenge cache. Just like any other game or hobby, you decide for yourself, whether you want to pursue the harder aspects that come along with it. Simply walk away from this part of the game if you don't like the terms.

[+dprovan]

I am more of a fan to get rid of controlling people out of geocaching... first step to get rid of... challenge caches.

I don't suppose you can see that this statement could only be made by a controlling person.

[Keystone]

The specific discussion topic in this thread is the idea of recognizing the completion of a challenge by awarding a souvenir. Let's stick to that discussion, thanks.

[+Michaelcycle]

Get rid of Challenge caches.

 

Here we go again. "I don't like them, get rid of them".

Easy solution: Ignore them, I bet you haven't found all caches in your area so you can still go after those ones.

I am more of a fan to get rid of controlling people out of geocaching... first step to get rid of... challenge caches.

 

Talk about being controlling, getting rid of people because their caches are too hard for you.

 

My goodness,, this is so easy. You're not forced to do a challenge cache. Just like any other game or hobby, you decide for yourself, whether you want to pursue the harder aspects that come along with it. Simply walk away from this part of the game if you don't like the terms.

Mudfrog and on4bam did you not get the memo? Challenge cache submissions are suspended. They are so problematic that Groundspeak won't approve any new ones. Given all the effort that has gone into this process if they come back it won't be as currently constituted. How can you say "if you don't like them just ignore them" ? It's too late for that, Groundspeak has acted and has asked for input about what to do going forward. If you like them just the way they are then say so. If you want them banished just say so. But don't tell people to ignore them when they think challenges are having a deleterious effect on the game and express their opinion why and what to do about it.

 

As for making them souvenir-like, I vote no. I value those little digital reminders of bicycling in former Soviet block countries and meeting really nice people.

[+Manville Possum]

I'm not interested in a souvenir, but a new cache type icon would be nice.

[+on4bam]

Mudfrog and on4bam did you not get the memo?

 

I don't get "memo's" from GS

 

Challenge cache submissions are suspended. They are so problematic that Groundspeak won't approve any new ones.

 

Yup, and we don't know what the extra workload for appeals is.

 

Given all the effort that has gone into this process if they come back it won't be as currently constituted. How can you say "if you don't like them just ignore them" ? It's too late for that, Groundspeak has acted and has asked for input about what to do going forward.

 

Exactly why "get rid of them" is of no value in this thread.

 

If you like them just the way they are then say so. If you want them banished just say so. But don't tell people to ignore them when they think challenges are having a deleterious effect on the game and express their opinion why and what to do about it.

 

Dead horse. I gave my opinion more than I care to count in different threads.

 

As for making them souvenir-like, I vote no.

 

That's something I agree too.

If there's a souvenir (as there is now for countries, cached on a date.. ) I'm not interested anymore. I have plenty of souvenirs hidden on my profile as I don't consider them "achievements", doing things and being able to log a cache does.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Get rid of Challenge caches.

 

Here we go again. "I don't like them, get rid of them".

Easy solution: Ignore them, I bet you haven't found all caches in your area so you can still go after those ones.

I am more of a fan to get rid of controlling people out of geocaching... first step to get rid of... challenge caches.

 

Talk about being controlling, getting rid of people because their caches are too hard for you.

 

My goodness,, this is so easy. You're not forced to do a challenge cache. Just like any other game or hobby, you decide for yourself, whether you want to pursue the harder aspects that come along with it. Simply walk away from this part of the game if you don't like the terms.

 

Here we go again.

 

Ignoring certain caches or "simply walking away" from certain types of caches doesn't change the fact the these types of caches can *still* cause issues for those that ignore them. Even if 99% of all geocachers ignored all challenge caches, the reviewer issues (the primary reason that GS created the 1 year moratorium) would still remain.

 

Frankly, suggesting to those that express concerns about issues related challenge caches that the reason that they don't like them is because they're too hard is rather insulting.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

Get rid of Challenge caches.

 

Here we go again. "I don't like them, get rid of them".

Easy solution: Ignore them, I bet you haven't found all caches in your area so you can still go after those ones.

I am more of a fan to get rid of controlling people out of geocaching... first step to get rid of... challenge caches.

 

Talk about being controlling, getting rid of people because their caches are too hard for you.

 

My goodness,, this is so easy. You're not forced to do a challenge cache. Just like any other game or hobby, you decide for yourself, whether you want to pursue the harder aspects that come along with it. Simply walk away from this part of the game if you don't like the terms.

 

Here we go again.

 

Ignoring certain caches or "simply walking away" from certain types of caches doesn't change the fact the these types of caches can *still* cause issues for those that ignore them. Even if 99% of all geocachers ignored all challenge caches, the reviewer issues (the primary reason that GS created the 1 year moratorium) would still remain.

 

Frankly, suggesting to those that express concerns about issues related challenge caches that the reason that they don't like them is because they're too hard is rather insulting.

 

I agree that there are issues for reviewers and Groundspeak. For reviewers, the extra work involved is in the reviewing of them. Improvements can be made to alleviate these extra headaches. For one thing, and this seems to be a biggie, i don't understand why Groundspeak worries about how difficult a challenge cache is. It's obvious that it's going to be harder on reviewers when they have to take extra steps to try and evaluate the difficulty of every challenge cache submission. Why not review them the same way as traditional caches? Just like all other cache types, the ones that aren't fun for people will be the ones that get ignored the most. We cachers can decide for ourselves what we like and what we don't.

 

Might sound insulting but honestly, why do you think cachers themselves dislike them? The only thing i've read is that CCs are too difficult thereby denying them smiley count. From a cacher's standpoint, what other harm do challenge caches themselves cause?

Edited December 21, 2015 by Mudfrog

[+Cache O'Plenty]

In keeping with the original post, my vote is to not convert them into souvenirs. That only converts challenges into a Groundspeak side game. I rarely look at other cachers profile pages for anything other than their finds. Souvenirs are fine for me to remember my accomplishments (states/countries visited), special events (CITO Day, 12-12-12, International Geocaching Days, etc.).

 

I'd prefer to have them have their own icon, just like puzzles/unknown, events, CITO, Earthcaches, etc. That way I can tell if I've been concentrating on just one aspect of the game.

 

If you are concerned about challenge caches saturating an area, then you should worry about puzzle cache or letterbox saturation as well. I visited the challenge alley in Florida. Yes, there are about 108 challenge caches in a power trail but at each end there are two puzzle cache power trails of 40 caches each (one is focused on NY Yankees and the other on Boston Red Sox) In the middle of all that, there is a huge section of just Letterbox caches.

 

I agree there are problems with some challenge caches and their requirements. The stranger slice/dice of stats are probably the ones that trouble GS reviewers. Especially those that cannot be calculated by data on the website or the information needed is not included in pocket queries (i.e. those based on the actual owner of the cache - not the "placed by" name). Another example is the ones based on clearing an entire area of caches, regardless of difficulty/terrain. We have a number of caches that require clearing all caches in an area bounded by the freeways in our area (we have a lot of freeways!). Accomplishment of that is time sensitive - the next day an new cache is published and you no longer qualify.

 

My suggestion: create a list of challenges that reviewers agree is quantifiable (like the DeLorme, D/T matrix, states in a day, milestone challenges, etc). Any cacher can us that list to create a challenge cache and just refer to the "standard" list. If they want to create some "off the wall" challenge that's not on the list - submit that to the reviewers so it can be added to the "qualifies' list. That way, a new challenge only has to be reviewed once, worldwide.

[+Mudfrog]

I agree there are problems with some challenge caches and their requirements. The stranger slice/dice of stats are probably the ones that trouble GS reviewers. Especially those that cannot be calculated by data on the website or the information needed is not included in pocket queries (i.e. those based on the actual owner of the cache - not the "placed by" name). Another example is the ones based on clearing an entire area of caches, regardless of difficulty/terrain. We have a number of caches that require clearing all caches in an area bounded by the freeways in our area (we have a lot of freeways!). Accomplishment of that is time sensitive - the next day an new cache is published and you no longer qualify.

 

A reviewer shouldn't even be involved with this part. Qualifications met are between the cache owner and the finder. The headaches are on the CO when he sets up a cache that's difficult to quantify. That would go for the finder as well when he or she accepts the challenge.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Get rid of Challenge caches.

 

Here we go again. "I don't like them, get rid of them".

Easy solution: Ignore them, I bet you haven't found all caches in your area so you can still go after those ones.

I am more of a fan to get rid of controlling people out of geocaching... first step to get rid of... challenge caches.

 

Talk about being controlling, getting rid of people because their caches are too hard for you.

 

My goodness,, this is so easy. You're not forced to do a challenge cache. Just like any other game or hobby, you decide for yourself, whether you want to pursue the harder aspects that come along with it. Simply walk away from this part of the game if you don't like the terms.

 

Here we go again.

 

Ignoring certain caches or "simply walking away" from certain types of caches doesn't change the fact the these types of caches can *still* cause issues for those that ignore them. Even if 99% of all geocachers ignored all challenge caches, the reviewer issues (the primary reason that GS created the 1 year moratorium) would still remain.

 

Frankly, suggesting to those that express concerns about issues related challenge caches that the reason that they don't like them is because they're too hard is rather insulting.

 

I agree that there are issues for reviewers and Groundspeak. For reviewers, the extra work involved is in the reviewing of them. Improvements can be made to alleviate these extra headaches. For one thing, and this seems to be a biggie, i don't understand why Groundspeak worries about how difficult a challenge cache is.

 

I don't recall seeing statements from GS that they worried about challenge caches being too difficult. The notion of attainability has been discussed and I suspect that the issue is when a CO submitting a challenge thinks it's attainable while the reviewer does not. Perhaps, it felt like it was getting to the point where it seemed like a contest to see who could create the most convoluted criteria that excluded the greatest number of geocacher as possible rather than create something that a reasonable number of people are going to enjoy finding. While there have always been very difficult hides, they don't breed like wildfire as challenge caches have in some areas.

 

 

Might sound insulting but honestly, why do you think cachers themselves dislike them?

 

 

I didn't say that cachers themselves dislike them. For me, it's not about whether a specific cachers dislikes them or not, but how they can impact the game as a whole. If it was simply a matter of disliking them then ignoring them would solve the problem.

 

The only thing i've read is that CCs are too difficult thereby denying them smiley count.

 

Really? I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that. Actually, I would suspect that most of those that have criticized CCs care a lot less about their smiley count than those that support them.

 

From a cacher's standpoint, what other harm do challenge caches themselves cause?

 

Despite the popularity of caching for the numbers there are still a lot of geocachers out there that prefer quality over quantity. The numbers mentality has fostered the notion that the number of caches placed is more important than the quality of each cache. Similarly, the popularity of challenge caches in some areas has led to many caches being placed so that they can be used to satisfy a challenge rather than being placed to provide a quality experience. Whether it's a numbers mentality or challenge cache mentality (and I strongly believe that there is a correlation between the two), it's pretty obvious to me from looking at the geocaching map that there are many areas where the mentality breeds to the point where someone that just prefers to find a few quality caches will have little real estate left to enjoy the type of caching they prefer.

 

Personally, I don't believe that types of caching which focus on the numbers (which, I believe challenge caching does in many, if not most cases) can coexists with caching which focuses primary on quality. Every cache takes up the same amount of real estate. The number of multi caches, letter box hybrids, earth caches, high difficulty hides, or even puzzle caches will never compete with caches placed primarily for the numbers.

[+on4bam]

My suggestion: create a list of challenges that reviewers agree is quantifiable (like the DeLorme, D/T matrix, states in a day, milestone challenges, etc). Any cacher can us that list to create a challenge cache and just refer to the "standard" list. If they want to create some "off the wall" challenge that's not on the list - submit that to the reviewers so it can be added to the "qualifies' list. That way, a new challenge only has to be reviewed once, worldwide.

 

How would you see a challenge (actual challenge in Belgium) "make the Frankenstein monster using 25 cachenames" where "from the rear" will give you one EAR to use. BTW, the CO allows all languages but the same language must be used for all 25 caches.

Not only is this difficult to make into a standard, it even more difficult to design a checker.

 

Worldwide challenges are also not easy to design. Let's say in Greenland a challenges requires 10% of the country's caches to be found. Easy, we did it during our 2 week holiday, now do the same for the US One size doesn't fit all.

[+Mudfrog]

I don't recall seeing statements from GS that they worried about challenge caches being too difficult.

I've seen stated several times, that a challenge cache should be attainable by a certain percentage of people. In other words, they can't be too difficult. I'm pretty sure that reviewers were tasked with having to figure some of this out, which of course, caused more headaches.

 

I didn't say that cachers themselves dislike them. For me, it's not about whether a specific cachers dislikes them or not, but how they can impact the game as a whole. If it was simply a matter of disliking them then ignoring them would solve the problem.

I personally know cachers who dislike them because they don't allow them to get an easy find. They believe that they should be able to log every cache out there and get upset when one pops up that's too difficult for them.

 

Really? I don't recall ever seeing anyone say that. Actually, I would suspect that most of those that have criticized CCs care a lot less about their smiley count than those that support them.

This is interesting. The complaints i've heard first hand, are made by people who want to log a cache but can't because it's too difficult for them. I'm sorry but i just don't believe CCs are causing that much problem, certainly not as much the majority of other stuff placed these days.

 

Despite the popularity of caching for the numbers there are still a lot of geocachers out there that prefer quality over quantity. The numbers mentality has fostered the notion that the number of caches placed is more important than the quality of each cache. Similarly, the popularity of challenge caches in some areas has led to many caches being placed so that they can be used to satisfy a challenge rather than being placed to provide a quality experience. Whether it's a numbers mentality or challenge cache mentality (and I strongly believe that there is a correlation between the two), it's pretty obvious to me from looking at the geocaching map that there are many areas where the mentality breeds to the point where someone that just prefers to find a few quality caches will have little real estate left to enjoy the type of caching they prefer.

I agree with you here, especially that there are some of us who prefer quality. But i don't agree that CCs are causing as much problem as you think they are. I've seen a few instances of caches being placed solely for the purpose of helping on a CC but not very many. Even if it was widespread, the ones placed probably take up a space that a low quality cache was going to end up taking up anyways.

 

Don't know the numbers but i'd guess that challenge caches make up less than 5% of the total caches out there. On the other hand, i figure power trails, series, parking lot, guardrail, and dumpster caches make up much more. Just cannot help but think that these are the caches that cause the most negative impact on our hobby as they're pretty much placed solely to help increase smiley count. There's rarely anything likable about them except that they provide easy numbers.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I agree there are problems with some challenge caches and their requirements. The stranger slice/dice of stats are probably the ones that trouble GS reviewers. Especially those that cannot be calculated by data on the website or the information needed is not included in pocket queries (i.e. those based on the actual owner of the cache - not the "placed by" name). Another example is the ones based on clearing an entire area of caches, regardless of difficulty/terrain. We have a number of caches that require clearing all caches in an area bounded by the freeways in our area (we have a lot of freeways!). Accomplishment of that is time sensitive - the next day an new cache is published and you no longer qualify.

 

A reviewer shouldn't even be involved with this part. Qualifications met are between the cache owner and the finder. The headaches are on the CO when he sets up a cache that's difficult to quantify. That would go for the finder as well when he or she accepts the challenge.

 

I agree that reviewers should not be involved when it comes to logging a find (and the dispute over the qualification). The disputes get Groundspeak appeals folks involved. But the reviewer is involved when the challenge is being published. Thus they are in a position that can identify potential dispute appeals early and help avoid future appeals. And that leads to reviewer/CO disputes over what qualifications are more prone to problems.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

My suggestion: create a list of challenges that reviewers agree is quantifiable (like the DeLorme, D/T matrix, states in a day, milestone challenges, etc). Any cacher can us that list to create a challenge cache and just refer to the "standard" list. If they want to create some "off the wall" challenge that's not on the list - submit that to the reviewers so it can be added to the "qualifies' list. That way, a new challenge only has to be reviewed once, worldwide.

 

How would you see a challenge (actual challenge in Belgium) "make the Frankenstein monster using 25 cachenames" where "from the rear" will give you one EAR to use. BTW, the CO allows all languages but the same language must be used for all 25 caches.

Not only is this difficult to make into a standard, it even more difficult to design a checker.

 

Worldwide challenges are also not easy to design. Let's say in Greenland a challenges requires 10% of the country's caches to be found. Easy, we did it during our 2 week holiday, now do the same for the US One size doesn't fit all.

 

We have exactly the same challenge here in California except ours doesn't allow for partial word segments (EAR out of REAR). My solution isn't perfect but may go a long way in reducing disputes. Perhaps a subsection of the "standsrd" list would would be for troublesome challenges and would require a "geochecker" if the qualifications are not easily quantified by stats. I don't know, but it may be that a macro exists that can parse out words from various elements of a cache record to satisfy the qualifications. I know, that means that cachers (finders) might have to use third party software to make the qualification easier. In any case, the qualification portion should be accomplished by using information on the site.

[+CanadianRockies]

Personally, I don't believe that types of caching which focus on the numbers (which, I believe challenge caching does in many, if not most cases) can coexists with caching which focuses primary on quality. Every cache takes up the same amount of real estate. The number of multi caches, letter box hybrids, earth caches, high difficulty hides, or even puzzle caches will never compete with caches placed primarily for the numbers.

Do you see the contradiction in your statements? If your focus is primarily on quality rather than numbers, then why do you care whether or not the number of those quality caches can compete with the number of power trail caches?

[+on4bam]

Don't know the numbers but i'd guess that challenge caches make up less than 5% of the total caches out there.

 

Looking at the 25000+ unfounds I have in Belgium, challenges make up 0.4%. I guess that takes care of there being too many

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Don't know the numbers but i'd guess that challenge caches make up less than 5% of the total caches out there.

 

Looking at the 25000+ unfounds I have in Belgium, challenges make up 0.4%. I guess that takes care of there being too many

 

There is a very small percentage of challenge caches within 100 miles of where I live but I'm not going to suggestion that the percentage here in indicative of how it is anywhere else.

 

There was basically only 1 large power trail in 2009. Look at a map of Nevada today and it looks like one large connected trail covering the entire state. The numbers caching mentality breeds more numbers cachers. The same thing has happened in some areas with challenge caches.

 

[+on4bam]

There is a very small percentage of challenge caches within 100 miles of where I live but I'm not going to suggestion that the percentage here in indicative of how it is anywhere else.

 

I'm not suggestion the situation here is representative for other places too (you may remember I keep saying there's no one size fits all in a global activity). I just ran a filter in GSAK and found 7951 caches that are part of a series/trail or 31%, at least here that's a bigger impact than the 0.4 (107 caches) than challenges.

 

Should be interesting to see how it is in other areas.

[+CanadianRockies]

Don't know the numbers but i'd guess that challenge caches make up less than 5% of the total caches out there.

Looking at the 25000+ unfounds I have in Belgium, challenges make up 0.4%. I guess that takes care of there being too many

There is a very small percentage of challenge caches within 100 miles of where I live but I'm not going to suggestion that the percentage here in indicative of how it is anywhere else.

 

There was basically only 1 large power trail in 2009. Look at a map of Nevada today and it looks like one large connected trail covering the entire state. The numbers caching mentality breeds more numbers cachers. The same thing has happened in some areas with challenge caches.

You keep throwing out these examples, even though they fail to support your claims. Nevada has thousands upon thousands of power trail caches but only has about 122 challenge caches.* Meanwhile, your state of New York has very few power trail caches yet has about 165 challenge caches. Last time, you also cited the many (walkable) "power trails" near Seoul. But the entire country of South Korea has about 11 challenge caches.

 

If challenge caches are "all about the numbers," then those numbers just aren't adding up. You "strongly believe that there is a correlation" between the numbers mentality and the challenge mentality. But you haven't established any positive correlation -- much less any causation (which is what really matters).

 

-----------

 

"Challenge caches" approximated by the number of "mystery" caches with "challenge" in their titles.

[+thebruce0]

Not only that, but you could focus just on Dundas Ontario for 40 kms and have an ENORMOUS ratio of CCs to non-CCs. Why scan the state or province? Why not the country? Why not just the town? Scope is just as important to the question as density. I could say I'm surrounded by hundreds of CCs and say it's a problem. Then someone could scan all Ontario (because they travel more) and that percentage drops and say it's not a problem.

It's not a pandemic anywhere, it's just that some regions may have more people who enjoy them than other regions. Same goes for any aspect of the game. How many places are inundated by LPCs from a couple of people? Or crazy tough mental puzzles near educational institutions?

 

Anyway, a couple points from earlier comments...

Challenge cache type: Probably the first and most initially suggested - but it still adds to the cache saturation complaint. Still complaints would there be (#yodamoment) that CCs are taking up valuable cache space. Why? Likely because they aren't allowed to log them found (even though they could enjoy the search for the physical cache without the smiley reward). The cache type suggestion allows for easy filtering and searching, but doesn't address the saturation/finding problem.

 

Reviewers judging difficulty: It still has to happen at some point. Newcomers have zero foundation to work from, and as the game gets older year after year the divide grows dramatically to the enormity of statistical variation and experience. To simply allow anyone to put out any challenge is one thing, but as time goes on it makes such potential challenge ideas ridiculously hard to attain for a growing segment of the community. Reviewers have to ensure there's a line, as dynamic as it may be depending on population and local geocaching habits and stats, so that there aren't swaths of caches that only the top 20th percentil (or whatever small number) can even consider qualifying for.

I wouldn't be surprised if a rule comes that says challenges can't be based on requirements for overall quantity of finds, but to be more focused on variety, theme, tasks, etc.

 

Souvenirs: I wouldn't be against them, but I don't see at all how it's an improvement to the CC element because it takes away from the fun of creating them, and the potential variety. Especially if they're worldwide accessible. Unless GS allowed the community to create the souvenirs and program the algorithms (as per PGC checkers). If it's earn-it-once-and-no-more then there's no lasting enjoyment. With a CC, you might accomplish some goal, but as long as someone somewhere else uses that goal for a cache, there's another cache to be found marking that particular accomplishment. ie, the reward isn't just "qualifying", it's having the ability/right to now log any and all challenges that require that qualification.

Souvenirs only mark the once-off qualification (with no rewarding 'search'); CCs can for perpetuity reward the qualification with more Finds.

 

I honestly wouldn't mind if some sort of system were implemented which makes CCs as rare and intentional as something like Earthcaches. A challenge reviewer team at GS, maybe a larger minimum distance to the next closest, some type of statistical recognition.

I think right now they're more like a patchwork between a standard cache and its own thing, and that sort of limbo is causing issues; they're neither A nor B, officially. If they're made intentional and more defined somehow, I think they'll be easier to find, enjoy and/or ignore.

Edited December 22, 2015 by thebruce0

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Don't know the numbers but i'd guess that challenge caches make up less than 5% of the total caches out there.

Looking at the 25000+ unfounds I have in Belgium, challenges make up 0.4%. I guess that takes care of there being too many

There is a very small percentage of challenge caches within 100 miles of where I live but I'm not going to suggestion that the percentage here in indicative of how it is anywhere else.

 

There was basically only 1 large power trail in 2009. Look at a map of Nevada today and it looks like one large connected trail covering the entire state. The numbers caching mentality breeds more numbers cachers. The same thing has happened in some areas with challenge caches.

You keep throwing out these examples, even though they fail to support your claims. Nevada has thousands upon thousands of power trail caches but only has about 122 challenge caches.* Meanwhile, your state of New York has very few power trail caches yet has about 165 challenge caches. Last time, you also cited the many (walkable) "power trails" near Seoul. But the entire country of South Korea has about 11 challenge caches.

 

If challenge caches are "all about the numbers," then those numbers just aren't adding up. You "strongly believe that there is a correlation" between the numbers mentality and the challenge mentality. But you haven't established any positive correlation -- much less any causation (which is what really matters).

 

-----------

 

"Challenge caches" approximated by the number of "mystery" caches with "challenge" in their titles.

Just a point of clarification. The number of challenge caches in and of itself isn't the causation. It's those challenge caches that require finding vast numbers of caches. So counting the number of challenge caches isn't productive. It is, though, interesting. If someone were interested in doing challenges, then the few areas that have a plethora of CCs are "target rich".

 

I point again to the Florida power trail of challenges. 108 challenges (btw - I qualified for 83 of them).

 

Yes, Nevada has thousands of caches arranged in power trail format. Nevada also has thousand of uninhabited desert area that can support these numbers. And there is room for more caches. Many side roads in the desert are still vacant.

 

If you want geoart, just look at the desert areas around Barstow, CA.

[+bflentje]

How would you see a challenge (actual challenge in Belgium) "make the Frankenstein monster using 25 cachenames" where "from the rear" will give you one EAR to use. BTW, the CO allows all languages but the same language must be used for all 25 caches.

Not only is this difficult to make into a standard, it even more difficult to design a checker.

 

My plan would ban this challenge as it is multi-dimensional.

[+thebruce0]

I think it's a great challenge; it's flexible, it's non-typical, it's definitely thematic, sounds like fun, and it's accessible to anyone. Its only downfall really is creating a checker would be more complicated.

If COs could create souvenirs for their challenges, that could potentially be a very neat one.

 

...hmm... on that note.

What if, "challenge souvenirs" were implemented as a sort of virtual geocoin? (not in the tradeable sense thoguh) That is, the CO can create/design their own to go with their challenge; it could be a draw to the cache as well. People (ymmv) love seeing really well designed coins, with the option to discover if they want (for their own record). A well-designed souvenir might be a draw for someone somewhere to work towards qualifying for the challenge and earning that souvenir for their collection. A good challenge with a badly designed souvenir may still be popular for the challenge, but any challenge with a well-designed souvenir could be popular just for that.

 

If new challenges require a souvenir designed to be the reward, that could help reduce the sheer quantity of challenge caches getting published (it's extra work) and increase intentionality of the CO for owning one. It can certainly be an additional creative outlet for artists. Heck some independents could even commission their work, designing souvenirs for COs... professional artists and designers. Souvenir series designs could be a thing. As souvenirs would also be a measurable statistic, they could also be part of an ALR (though there'd likely be a limit so it's not souvenirs all the way down) eg, earn a souvenir for completing the challenge cache which requires finding (earning souvenirs) for the rest of the challenge caches in the series. Verifiable by user stats

Now of course, guaranteed your mileage may very on that... but what I like most about it is the new creative outlet, and increased dedication required to create/own challenge caches (and encouraging making them even better). hm.

 

Given how many challenge caches there/could be, I'd also suggest much more flexibility in the souvenir list than the current souvenir page. Users should be able not only to show/hide, but prominently display their favourites. That could also encourage better design and better challenges.

Edited December 22, 2015 by thebruce0

[+on4bam]

How would you see a challenge (actual challenge in Belgium) "make the Frankenstein monster using 25 cachenames" where "from the rear" will give you one EAR to use. BTW, the CO allows all languages but the same language must be used for all 25 caches.

Not only is this difficult to make into a standard, it even more difficult to design a checker.

 

My plan would ban this challenge as it is multi-dimensional.

 

Thing is, it's fun and it's is creative. As may here complain it's all about the numbers when challenges are concerned, this one is not and still there's the "ban crowd" again.

 

BTW, instead of the "standard" complete alphabet challenge there's a challenge in Norway that requires :

You must be able to match the initials of your total cache discoveries with all the letters into two stanzas of the Swedish national anthem "Du Gamla, Du Fria."

Not easy for a non-Scandinavian but also a creative task. (I just need two special characters for that one when we go there again).

 

It's this kind of challenges that can be done by the people complaining that they will never get xxx caches in a day of fill a grid.

[+CanadianRockies]

If new challenges require a souvenir designed to be the reward, that could help reduce the sheer quantity of challenge caches getting published (it's extra work) and increase intentionality of the CO for owning one. It can certainly be an additional creative outlet for artists. Heck some independents could even commission their work, designing souvenirs for COs... professional artists and designers. Souvenir series designs could be a thing.

Good grief. Are Volunteer Reviewers also going to be art critics under your idea? Or would they be required to approve all souvenir art work, including blank, white squares?

 

As souvenirs would also be a measurable statistic, they could also be part of an ALR (though there'd likely be a limit so it's not souvenirs all the way down) eg, earn a souvenir for completing the challenge cache which requires finding (earning souvenirs) for the rest of the challenge caches in the series. Verifiable by user stats

There already are challenge caches that require finding various numbers and/or types of souvenirs (and only souvenirs).

[+K13]

One aspect of CC changing Geocaching is how they affect the placing of caches with a name, attribute, or other criteria which is required of a recent Challenge cache. A Challenge somewhat near me required (among other things) finding caches with 15 attributes on the cache page. Within a week, new cache listings in my area began to have 15 attribute blocks filled, caches from CO who had only filled a couple of the attribute blocks on their cache listings a month earlier.

 

Yes, Challenge caches change caching, many of ur thing these changes are not for the better of the hobby.

[+PlantAKiss]

Couldn't have said it better myself! Thank you NYPC! CCs often seem to become a game in itself to create crazy--let's call it what ithey are--ALRs which exclude a lot of cachers and encourage real-estate-eating spew so people can get the numbers to qualify. Maybe if it can be set up so all can hunt and log a Find and but give those that meet the ALRs 100 gold stars or souvenir or a recognition they feel happy with for meeting the requirements. I think if ALRs are allowed, it's hard to control what encourages spew and what is truly a challenging CACHE. Are the NUMBERS challenging or is the cache itself challenging like a hard puzzle or a D/T 5? I always thought it was terrain and difficulty that made for a challenging cache. I don't really care about numbers, souvenirs, badges, grids...I just like a good hunt, good journey, good location. Maybe at least give CCs their own icon if they are continued.

 

BTW, everyone here is expressing their OPINIONS and have a right to them. No need to be insulting or derogatory if you disagree.