Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Love Cachers

Challenge Caches Returning?

Recommended Posts

 

The question is - what % of cachers would be affected (is it around the same 1% mark or is it more?) and to what degree i.e. would they quit caching altogether or just carry on largely as they were in the absence of challenge caches? Of course we don't see the big picture so we don't know the answers - but I imagine Groundspeak have a more rounded view of those stats.

 

 

And that's the million dollar question right there. This is the hypothetical avenue they have to explore to determine what to do in this case.

 

The worst case scenario for them is that they severely underestimate the number of cachers who would quit (if challenge caches were no longer in place), cutting into their ability to make money. They can project and estimate the number that might quit, but it's still just a guess. It's my assumption that most of the cachers who opt to do challenge caches are premium members. My challenge cache finds are by at least 95% premium or charter members, so I'm guessing I'm right. Those ARE stats that they can compile and compare. If challenge caches are found by premium and charter members at a largely disproportionate rate compared to all other types of caches, then you run the risk of alienating the paying customer, which is NOT a good business model to pursue.

 

Another thing they'll have to take into account is those who dislike challenge caches. Are they going to quit because they're still around? It's my guess that the number will be a lower one because they weren't doing them anyway and it shouldn't change how they cache.

 

The best case scenario is that no one quits. They're not going to get more new geocachers because they heard that Groundspeak was getting rid of challenge caches. They'll probably have the same influx of new cachers they currently have.

 

How do you get as close as you can to the best case scenario? That's got to be their overriding question in this case.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The question is - what % of cachers would be affected (is it around the same 1% mark or is it more?) and to what degree i.e. would they quit caching altogether or just carry on largely as they were in the absence of challenge caches? Of course we don't see the big picture so we don't know the answers - but I imagine Groundspeak have a more rounded view of those stats.

 

 

And that's the million dollar question right there. This is the hypothetical avenue they have to explore to determine what to do in this case.

 

The worst case scenario for them is that they severely underestimate the number of cachers who would quit (if challenge caches were no longer in place), cutting into their ability to make money. They can project and estimate the number that might quit, but it's still just a guess.

 

When you put it like that I'm not sure a one year moratorium would give them a particularly accurate estimate of the number of cachers who might quit if no new challenge caches were published - because there's probably enough challenge caches with substantial enough qualification requirements to keep people going for a year - so the atrition rate in that year, even if cachers would quit if they ran out of new challenge caches - will probably be comparatively low.

 

It's my assumption that most of the cachers who opt to do challenge caches are premium members. My challenge cache finds are by at least 95% premium or charter members, so I'm guessing I'm right. Those ARE stats that they can compile and compare. If challenge caches are found by premium and charter members at a largely disproportionate rate compared to all other types of caches, then you run the risk of alienating the paying customer, which is NOT a good business model to pursue

 

And therein lies another million dollar question - because if challenge caches <1% of all caches then it's likely that up to 99% of finds made by those who enjoy challenge caches above and beyond any other type will still be other types by necessity. So how do you isolate from the stats which cachers would likely end up quitting if challenge caches dried up and which would carry on anyway - given that the overwhelming %age of finds by both groups will be non-challenge caches?

Share this post


Link to post

 

And therein lies another million dollar question - because if challenge caches <1% of all caches then it's likely that up to 99% of finds made by those who enjoy challenge caches above and beyond any other type will still be other types by necessity. So how do you isolate from the stats which cachers would likely end up quitting if challenge caches dried up and which would carry on anyway - given that the overwhelming %age of finds by both groups will be non-challenge caches?

 

You can't but Groundspeak has to at least attempt to factor that in to make the most informed decision. That means weighing the pros and cons of both options and then choosing the one that is most likely to cause the least amount of problems/issues for the business model they hope to pursue.

 

It's going to be all guesswork on their part. At least with challenge caches vs. non-challenge caches, you can extrapolate the % of finders of a challenge cache that are premium/charter vs. basic. There's no good way to examine ALL the non-challenge caches to see why they were found. My head hurts just thinking about trying to do that.

Share this post


Link to post

And... who on earth here is "denying facts"? dry.gif

We all are. TMD will say everyone who doesn't agree with him is ignoring his "fact" in [whatever number post]. While he is ignoring my "fact" in [another whatever number post].

 

You think I ignored your "fact"?

 

Whether it was a "fact" or a fact - which one do you think I ignored?

Yes, as much as you claim others are ignoring you fact (i.e.. nobody needs CC's). My fact, based on experience, is some people do need CC's. Yet, you continue to "dispel the myth that peopel need CC's", hence you are ignoring a stated fact. Clear enough for you?

Share this post


Link to post

And... who on earth here is "denying facts"? dry.gif

We all are. TMD will say everyone who doesn't agree with him is ignoring his "fact" in [whatever number post]. While he is ignoring my "fact" in [another whatever number post].

 

You think I ignored your "fact"?

 

Whether it was a "fact" or a fact - which one do you think I ignored?

Yes, as much as you claim others are ignoring you fact (i.e.. nobody needs CC's). My fact, based on experience, is some people do need CC's. Yet, you continue to "dispel the myth that peopel need CC's", hence you are ignoring a stated fact. Clear enough for you?

 

I guess then it's going to come as a shock that you were they guy who proved that it was possible to set and complete personal challenges in the absence of a dedicated challenge cache! :o

 

The horse is dead and buried and we've moved on.

 

Feel free to continue in ever decreasing circles - I won't be joining you.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The question is - what % of cachers would be affected (is it around the same 1% mark or is it more?) and to what degree i.e. would they quit caching altogether or just carry on largely as they were in the absence of challenge caches? Of course we don't see the big picture so we don't know the answers - but I imagine Groundspeak have a more rounded view of those stats.

 

 

And that's the million dollar question right there. This is the hypothetical avenue they have to explore to determine what to do in this case.

 

The worst case scenario for them is that they severely underestimate the number of cachers who would quit (if challenge caches were no longer in place), cutting into their ability to make money. They can project and estimate the number that might quit, but it's still just a guess. It's my assumption that most of the cachers who opt to do challenge caches are premium members. My challenge cache finds are by at least 95% premium or charter members, so I'm guessing I'm right. Those ARE stats that they can compile and compare. If challenge caches are found by premium and charter members at a largely disproportionate rate compared to all other types of caches, then you run the risk of alienating the paying customer, which is NOT a good business model to pursue.

 

Another thing they'll have to take into account is those who dislike challenge caches. Are they going to quit because they're still around? It's my guess that the number will be a lower one because they weren't doing them anyway and it shouldn't change how they cache.

 

The best case scenario is that no one quits. They're not going to get more new geocachers because they heard that Groundspeak was getting rid of challenge caches. They'll probably have the same influx of new cachers they currently have.

 

How do you get as close as you can to the best case scenario? That's got to be their overriding question in this case.

Except in these forums, i've never ever came across anyone so disgruntled about challenge cache that they wanted to see them axed. For the most part, they're just too simple to ignore.

 

Money wise, GS needs to figure out how to keep challenge caches going. I'm fairly certain there'd be some revenue loss if GS got rid of challenge caches. On the other hand, keeping them would not cause any loss and in fact, would probably cause some gain instead.

 

Seems a no brainer to me but,,,, we'll see. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope they don't ax them completely. I think the issue is more along the lines of how do you separate challenges out and how do you keep there from being 27 similar challenges in an area. A new icon fixes the first problem. The second question is much more challenging. One challenge type per 250 miles? I would say state but California is rather large.

 

Reading some of the start of this thread has been interesting.

 

I found a way to still do challenge caches. I call them unchallenges.

 

http://coord.info/GC61AYB

 

http://coord.info/GC5RFFX

 

Hopefully soon I will be able to archive them and turn them into real challenges!

Edited by elrojo14

Share this post


Link to post

I guess then it's going to come as a shock that you were they guy who proved that it was possible to set and complete personal challenges in the absence of a dedicated challenge cache! :o

Oh, you mean that post of yours that quoted part of mine out of context so you could "prove" your point? Yeah, I'm that guy.

 

BTW, I've never claimed that it wasn't possible to set and complete goals without a dedicated CC. I've maintained that some people need them sometimes - myself included. Implicit in that statement is the fact that some people don't need them, but "some don't" does not equal "all don't".

 

You are also lumping the goal and the tasks needed to accomplish that goal together, they are not the smae thing.. As an example, the Double Jasmer - the goal wasn't to complete the grid twice - that was the task(s) needed to get to the goal - the goal was to sign the log on the Double Jasmer CC. No CC, no goal - no goal, no motivation to accomplish tasks - no motivation, I'd do something else with my time.

Share this post


Link to post

You are also lumping the goal and the tasks needed to accomplish that goal together, they are not the smae thing.. As an example, the Double Jasmer - the goal wasn't to complete the grid twice - that was the task(s) needed to get to the goal - the goal was to sign the log on the Double Jasmer CC.

 

Well, under the current challenge cache model they are inextricably linked - so it's completely appropriate to treat them as a unit in the context of this discussion :)

 

No CC, no goal - no goal, no motivation to accomplish tasks - no motivation, I'd do something else with my time.

 

Perhaps that something else could be another of those challenges you set for yourself and then completed in the absence of a dedicated challenge - the ones you told us about earlier :)

 

So the goal or objective with a challenge cache is to sign the log at the end. OK. Duly noted.

Share this post


Link to post

I would hope they don't ax them completely. I think the issue is more along the lines of how do you separate challenges out and how do you keep there from being 27 similar challenges in an area. A new icon fixes the first problem. The second question is much more challenging. One challenge type per 250 miles? I would say state but California is rather large.

 

Reading some of the start of this thread has been interesting.

 

I found a way to still do challenge caches. I call them unchallenges.

 

http://coord.info/GC61AYB

 

http://coord.info/GC5RFFX

 

 

Cool - a workable solution exists already - thanks for sharing B)

Share this post


Link to post

I know I am late to this conversation but I do have a view. I have only been caching since May last year so the moratorium was already in effect when I started and I actually knew nothing of it until I recently started considering a challenge cache of my own. One of my most local caches is a double century cache - find 200 caches in one day. With 2 young children who like to come caching with us this is never going to happen but that doesn't bother me as there are still plenty of other caches locally for us to find. Then on new years day we set ourselves our own challenge - to find caches for 100 consecutive days - a challenge which we have just completed. We have thoroughly enjoyed the challenge of finding at least one cache every day and intend to continue to 200 and beyond. Having reached our goal I wanted to set a challenge cache to lay down the gauntlet for other local cachers to try and do the same. I don't see the problem with that. Personally I hope that when I reach the 21st of April I will be able to go out and do just that. I will of course continue putting out regular caches as wel

Share this post


Link to post

I know I am late to this conversation but I do have a view. I have only been caching since May last year so the moratorium was already in effect when I started and I actually knew nothing of it until I recently started considering a challenge cache of my own. One of my most local caches is a double century cache - find 200 caches in one day. With 2 young children who like to come caching with us this is never going to happen but that doesn't bother me as there are still plenty of other caches locally for us to find. Then on new years day we set ourselves our own challenge - to find caches for 100 consecutive days - a challenge which we have just completed. We have thoroughly enjoyed the challenge of finding at least one cache every day and intend to continue to 200 and beyond. Having reached our goal I wanted to set a challenge cache to lay down the gauntlet for other local cachers to try and do the same. I don't see the problem with that. Personally I hope that when I reach the 21st of April I will be able to go out and do just that. I will of course continue putting out regular caches as wel

 

Now that our kid is bigger, he's the one who pushes us to find more caches in a day than we otherwise might!

Share this post


Link to post

I do feel we do not need to be 200 challenges with same objective in a 200 mile radius. But then again I know of over 200 caches that are under lamp skirts with in 50 miles of my house. Does that not make them useless? Same cache over and over. Makes me not want to do lpc's at all. I think they hurt the game more than challenge caches. I really don't go after many challenge caches but when I do i enjoy doing them. How many really go after puzzle caches? Do they hurt the game? Most caches I know won't even try any thing besides png's. I have been told other types take to long.

Share this post


Link to post

I do feel we do not need to be 200 challenges with same objective in a 200 mile radius. But then again I know of over 200 caches that are under lamp skirts with in 50 miles of my house. Does that not make them useless? Same cache over and over. Makes me not want to do lpc's at all. I think they hurt the game more than challenge caches. I really don't go after many challenge caches but when I do i enjoy doing them. How many really go after puzzle caches? Do they hurt the game? Most caches I know won't even try any thing besides png's. I have been told other types take to long.

 

Interesting point.

 

You're aware of a high number of caches which suit most of the cachers you know ( I assume you mean cachers rather than caches) and yet you view that type of cache as harmful to the game. How? (Not that I disagree)

Share this post


Link to post

I do feel we do not need to be 200 challenges with same objective in a 200 mile radius. But then again I know of over 200 caches that are under lamp skirts with in 50 miles of my house. Does that not make them useless? Same cache over and over. Makes me not want to do lpc's at all. I think they hurt the game more than challenge caches.

 

There can be a co-relation between parking lot caches and challenge caches. Quick easy caches are sometimes planted so that people can more easily qualify for challenge caches.

 

Challenges like cache-a-day challenges. Or attribute challenges - LPCs with lots of non-attributes (no horses, no snowmobiles, no poisonous plants, washrooms nearby). The attributes aren't necessary, but added to help people qualify for challenges. These types of LPCs are a fast way to pick up a lot of those obscure attributes.

 

Parking lot caches have become important and popular for filling grids, for streaks and qualifying for challenges. People don't necessarily like the LPC experience, but they like that they help with the numbers aspect of the game. Challenge caches can make them popular, and encourage more LPC, parking lot and roadside caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I do feel we do not need to be 200 challenges with same objective in a 200 mile radius. But then again I know of over 200 caches that are under lamp skirts with in 50 miles of my house. Does that not make them useless? Same cache over and over. Makes me not want to do lpc's at all. I think they hurt the game more than challenge caches. I really don't go after many challenge caches but when I do i enjoy doing them. How many really go after puzzle caches? Do they hurt the game? Most caches I know won't even try any thing besides png's. I have been told other types take to long.

I don't see 200 challenges with the same objective in 200 miles around your home towm. I see less 200 challenges (of any type) within 200 miles of you. So???

 

Any type of hide done over and over and over can get tedious - what another ammo can in a stump? But it's the in thing in the forums to 'hate' LPC's. I don't understand, as there is as wide a variation on LPC containers and stump containers - som good, some bad. But, no, thery are all boring/bad/leaky/not worth it.

 

Everyone geocaches for their own reasons. If you don't like to cache for numbers, maybe you need to find other cahers to hang with (depending on how may are in your neck of the woods). Around here you can find someone who closely matches your interests pretty easily (FTF hounds, TB collectors, hikers, number grabbers, paddlers, bikers, etc..). Even those who like working on challenges...

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm, this is second or third hand info, but I was chatting with a cacher today (at a CITO event) and challenge caches came up. He'd had a talk with the lackey who set up the moritoriam. At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was). New idea's for CC's would be slower to impliment as a new checker would have to be developed.

 

If the checher doesn't give the final co-ords until you qualify, this may halp the "I can't log a cache I know is there because I don't qualify" problem some have with CC's. Would this limit CC power trails? And would that be a good thing or not? (I think the answer(s) to that will as numerous as the cachers who have an opinion!)

 

It would be nice if they would also give them their own icon so they'd be easy to sort out for those that flat out don't like them, but we'll see. At least an attribute which could be also used.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm, this is second or third hand info, but I was chatting with a cacher today (at a CITO event) and challenge caches came up. He'd had a talk with the lackey who set up the moritoriam. At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was). New idea's for CC's would be slower to impliment as a new checker would have to be developed.

 

If the checher doesn't give the final co-ords until you qualify, this may halp the "I can't log a cache I know is there because I don't qualify" problem some have with CC's. Would this limit CC power trails? And would that be a good thing or not? (I think the answer(s) to that will as numerous as the cachers who have an opinion!)

 

It would be nice if they would also give them their own icon so they'd be easy to sort out for those that flat out don't like them, but we'll see. At least an attribute which could be also used.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the moratorium was because the I know it's there but can't log it issue, but rather the long intricate rules to log the cache and the very limited audience that could qualify resulting in high review and appeals workload to get it listed. Namely the listing side was the issue, not the finding and logging side, although some perverted the discussions to that end. It was the review and appeals workload that caused the problem. Most of the threads have dwelled on logging issues and the real estate taken up by what some consider useless caches or caches devoted to the numbers runners.

 

To quote from the announcement

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

 

Bolding is mine.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm, this is second or third hand info, but I was chatting with a cacher today (at a CITO event) and challenge caches came up. He'd had a talk with the lackey who set up the moritoriam. At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was). New idea's for CC's would be slower to impliment as a new checker would have to be developed.

 

If the checher doesn't give the final co-ords until you qualify, this may halp the "I can't log a cache I know is there because I don't qualify" problem some have with CC's. Would this limit CC power trails?

 

If CC caches use bogus coordinates for the published coordinates it seems to me that would just exacerbate the problem that potential cache hiders have with finding a spot to hide a cache, but instead of just having to solve a puzzle or complete a multi the potential CO would have to complete a potentially very difficult challenge.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm, this is second or third hand info, but I was chatting with a cacher today (at a CITO event) and challenge caches came up. He'd had a talk with the lackey who set up the moritoriam. At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was). New idea's for CC's would be slower to impliment as a new checker would have to be developed.

 

If the checher doesn't give the final co-ords until you qualify, this may halp the "I can't log a cache I know is there because I don't qualify" problem some have with CC's. Would this limit CC power trails?

 

If CC caches use bogus coordinates for the published coordinates it seems to me that would just exacerbate the problem that potential cache hiders have with finding a spot to hide a cache, but instead of just having to solve a puzzle or complete a multi the potential CO would have to complete a potentially very difficult challenge.

Kind of a non issue in my area. Just like very difficult CC's, there are equally or more difficult Puzzles. It's pretty much a given that if someone is interested in submitting a Listing in an urban setting, they are going to submit a precheck Listing before placing the cache. That's become the SOP in most urban areas around me.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm, this is second or third hand info, but I was chatting with a cacher today (at a CITO event) and challenge caches came up. He'd had a talk with the lackey who set up the moritoriam. At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was). New idea's for CC's would be slower to impliment as a new checker would have to be developed.

 

If the checher doesn't give the final co-ords until you qualify, this may halp the "I can't log a cache I know is there because I don't qualify" problem some have with CC's. Would this limit CC power trails?

 

If CC caches use bogus coordinates for the published coordinates it seems to me that would just exacerbate the problem that potential cache hiders have with finding a spot to hide a cache, but instead of just having to solve a puzzle or complete a multi the potential CO would have to complete a potentially very difficult challenge.

Kind of a non issue in my area. Just like very difficult CC's, there are equally or more difficult Puzzles. It's pretty much a given that if someone is interested in submitting a Listing in an urban setting, they are going to submit a precheck Listing before placing the cache. That's become the SOP in most urban areas around me.

 

It's pretty much a non-issue in my area as well. Not only would one rarely run into proximity issued with unknown final locations due the sparcity of caches and the fact that there are very few challenge caches within 100 miles of me. However, I strongly oppose the suggestion that because it's not a problem for me, it's not a problem and I've seen lots of posts here from people trying to place a cache and have it rejected due to proximity to the final of an unknown, multi, or PMO cache.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

However, I strongly oppose the suggestion that because it's not a problem for me, it's not a problem and I've seen lots of posts here from people trying to place a cache and have it rejected due to proximity to the final of an unknown, multi, or PMO cache.

 

On the contrary, I wasn't trying to suggest it's not a problem, but rather an issue that has been around for several years now. Likewise, the workaround of submitting a Listing for a coordinate check has been in place for some time. I'm not sure I buy into the notion that CC's somehow exacerbate an already well known problem to any significant degree.

Share this post


Link to post
1460901486[/url]' post='5577308']

However, I strongly oppose the suggestion that because it's not a problem for me, it's not a problem and I've seen lots of posts here from people trying to place a cache and have it rejected due to proximity to the final of an unknown, multi, or PMO cache.

 

On the contrary, I wasn't trying to suggest it's not a problem, but rather an issue that has been around for several years now. Likewise, the workaround of submitting a Listing for a coordinate check has been in place for some time. I'm not sure I buy into the notion that CC's somehow exacerbate an already well known problem to any significant degree.

 

In my area there are several power trails of CC caches. There are over 250 challenge caches within 49km of Hamilton, ON. 141 CCs within 49km of Toronto ON (which is 70km from Hamilton). About 600 in Ontario. This possible new CC development (coords not at location) could make things worse for hiders.

 

Maybe the submission form should then be a two step process. First mandatory step, a submitter must request a coordinate check. The reviewer checks and 'flips a switch' (and sends an email) if the spot is available. The submitter returns to the form to finish the process of creating the cache listing.

 

If a checker is required, and all those currently without a checker were archived, then in Ontario I'm guessing that at least 1/2 the CCs would disappear. This would open up spots for other caches. But I doubt they'd archive the current CCs that don't have checkers. They will,probably grandfather them.

A temporary disable until the checker is applied might work too. Archive after 1 month if there is no response from the owner.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm, this is second or third hand info, but I was chatting with a cacher today (at a CITO event) and challenge caches came up. He'd had a talk with the lackey who set up the moritoriam. At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was). New idea's for CC's would be slower to impliment as a new checker would have to be developed.

 

If the checher doesn't give the final co-ords until you qualify, this may halp the "I can't log a cache I know is there because I don't qualify" problem some have with CC's. Would this limit CC power trails? And would that be a good thing or not? (I think the answer(s) to that will as numerous as the cachers who have an opinion!)

 

It would be nice if they would also give them their own icon so they'd be easy to sort out for those that flat out don't like them, but we'll see. At least an attribute which could be also used.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the moratorium was because the I know it's there but can't log it issue, but rather the long intricate rules to log the cache and the very limited audience that could qualify resulting in high review and appeals workload to get it listed. Namely the listing side was the issue, not the finding and logging side, although some perverted the discussions to that end. It was the review and appeals workload that caused the problem. Most of the threads have dwelled on logging issues and the real estate taken up by what some consider useless caches or caches devoted to the numbers runners.

 

To quote from the announcement

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

 

Bolding is mine.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. The first paragraph is what I heard about. The second and third were my own thoughts. I'm courious how a CC checker would work - if the co-ords are known, how and when is the checker used? Maybe the checker would keep a list of those who pass, and the CO uses that to allow logs to stand? Or does the CO have to use the checker for each log? Or do you have to pass the checker to enter a log? It'll be interesting to see.

Share this post


Link to post

If a checker is required, and all those currently without a checker were archived, then in Ontario I'm guessing that at least 1/2 the CCs would disappear. This would open up spots for other caches. But I doubt they'd archive the current CCs that don't have checkers. They will,probably grandfather them.

A temporary disable until the checker is applied might work too. Archive after 1 month if there is no response from the owner.

There are some challenge caches for which it would be impossible to create a checker using the existing Project-GC system (and it would be very hard to create a new general checker system that would include them). I think it would be a shame if existing challenge caches were archived because they failed to anticipate a future rule of this sort.

 

There also are some challenge cache owners who aren't very adept at computer programming, even relatively simply macro programming. Again, why should they be punished for not anticipating a future rule of this type? And if you archive existing challenges because their owners cannot or don't want to create a checker, then you also will punish many geocachers who were working on those challenges and suddenly had those caches yanked from them. Some of those geocachers might have been working on those challenges for years.

 

I think there are good reasons why Groundspeak generally grandfathers existing caches when they implement new rules.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

My thoughts on requiring challenge checkers: prior post

 

As much as I think it would be 'cool' to have automatic challenge checkers, I don't think it's likely to happen. If the purpose of the moratorium is to reduce workload for GS and its volunteers, then having GS devs work on building challenge checkers doesn't seem to make sense. Even if challenges end up being reduced to generalized ones that are easy to code for (ie, find caches in 2 different states in the same day), then it's likely that such a checker is already built by the community (ie, Project GC).

 

Personally, I'm against the requirement of accompanying challenge checkers for all challenges. First, it would prohibit non-coding cachers from creating challenge caches. Second, it would restrict the types of challenges that could be created. For example, a relatively easy challenge of "find 10 caches with animals in the cache name" would be difficult to code for and could result in controversy if the CO forgets to include some animal in their checker, and a cacher finds a cache with that animal in its name. Add in the variation of animal names across different languages and dialects, and that checker would need to be quite complex.

 

Some might think that requiring a challenge checker would result in simpler, more straightforward challenges. I'm not sure that would be correct. A code-savvy CO could still create a very difficult challenge. It's much easier to code for "find 10 caches where the cache name starts with the same letter as the cache owner" than it is to code for "find 10 caches that have an animal in their name".

Share this post


Link to post

At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was).

 

I sincerely hope not. I do not want to be required to use a third-party site for any aspect of geocaching, hiding or finding. Since Project-GC relies on pocket queries, this option would block basic members from challenge caches if finders as well as hiders were required to use the checker.

Share this post


Link to post
Since Project-GC relies on pocket queries, this option would block basic members from challenge caches if finders as well as hiders were required to use the checker.

Where did you get that information from? Project-GC uses the Live API, and does not need any pocket query to work.

Share this post


Link to post

At the time, they were looking at having new CC's include a checker (partnering with Project-GC I think it was).

 

I sincerely hope not. I do not want to be required to use a third-party site for any aspect of geocaching, hiding or finding. Since Project-GC relies on pocket queries, this option would block basic members from challenge caches if finders as well as hiders were required to use the checker.

 

I agree regarding a requirement to use a third-party site for any aspect of geocaching, especially when the existence of a third-party site influences whether or not GS decides to implement functionality on the website or its own mobile applications.

 

However, the issue that "it would block basic members from doing challenge caches" makes me wonder if challenge caches are really "basic geocaching". I am guessing that there are more than a few basic members that would like as much functionality as possible without paying for a premium membership but where should the line be drawn?

 

If I were to speculate from a business case point of of view I would think that "basic membership" would be just enough functionality to give users a taste for how the game is played such that it would entice to become a premium members. Too little functionality and users won't really get a test for what the game is about. Too much and basic users won't have much of an incentive to become premium members. As I see it, the ability to create or find challenge caches falls on the other side of the line beyond "basic geocaching".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

And the one-year moratorium started on April 21, 2015. A few days for the news from Groundspeak!

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be without cell signal when the announcement is made. Unfortunate, because I'm interested in what the decision will be. Fortunate, because I'll be out in the forest. We might have a cell signal in some places, since we have a different cell carrier now than the last time we were out there.

Share this post


Link to post

And the one-year moratorium started on April 21, 2015. A few days for the news from Groundspeak!

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be without cell signal when the announcement is made. Unfortunate, because I'm interested in what the decision will be. Fortunate, because I'll be out in the forest. We might have a cell signal in some places, since we have a different cell carrier now than the last time we were out there.

Just be very quiet and listen for the inevitable uproar.

Share this post


Link to post

Just be very quiet and listen for the inevitable uproar.

Ironically, this could be true either way the cookie crumbles :P

Share this post


Link to post

Word is the site maintenance involved breaking off a portion to develop a 'challenge cache' sister site.

 

#lateaprilfool

Share this post


Link to post

Not all words are true. :tired:

 

And not all readers see the light colored text.

Share this post


Link to post

Word is the site maintenance involved breaking off a portion to develop a 'challenge cache' sister site.

"We've broken off challenge caches into their own separate website and dubbed them 'Geocaching® Challenges'. These should not be confused with the former 'challenge caches' or 'Geocaching Challenges'. Let's make better mistakes tomorrow!"

:laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Word is the site maintenance involved breaking off a portion to develop a 'challenge cache' sister site.

"We've broken off challenge caches into their own separate website and dubbed them 'Geocaching® Challenges'. These should not be confused with the former 'challenge caches' or 'Geocaching Challenges'. Let's make better mistakes tomorrow!"

:laughing:

 

And this came from ????

Share this post


Link to post

Word is the site maintenance involved breaking off a portion to develop a 'challenge cache' sister site.

"We've broken off challenge caches into their own separate website and dubbed them 'Geocaching® Challenges'. These should not be confused with the former 'challenge caches' or 'Geocaching Challenges'. Let's make better mistakes tomorrow!"

:laughing:

And this came from ????

The wonderfully twisted mind of The A-Team

Share this post


Link to post

I do feel we do not need to be 200 challenges with same objective in a 200 mile radius. But then again I know of over 200 caches that are under lamp skirts with in 50 miles of my house. Does that not make them useless? Same cache over and over. Makes me not want to do lpc's at all. I think they hurt the game more than challenge caches. I really don't go after many challenge caches but when I do i enjoy doing them. How many really go after puzzle caches? Do they hurt the game? Most caches I know won't even try any thing besides png's. I have been told other types take to long.

 

Interesting point.

 

You're aware of a high number of caches which suit most of the cachers you know ( I assume you mean cachers rather than caches) and yet you view that type of cache as harmful to the game. How? (Not that I disagree)

yes I meant " most cachers". No thought put into 99.9 percent of them. like someone else said. A lot are hidden just so they can have a certain name so a buddy can complete a challenge. If ya get a bunch of throw downs placed for you does this really make the person feel good about completing that challenge? Did you complete the challenge in the way it was intended? Just like a cacher asked me if they could log my 365 consecutive day of finding a cache. My response was " Did you find a cache every single day?" Knowing they had changed dates and doctored logs all the time. There response was "No, but I have over 365 consecutive days of logging caches. I just use challenge caches to fill in days when I don't feel like going out and getting one". Then they told me" this how I play the game, and that is how you play the game". I kinda see there point. A lot of people have all kinds of opionons and mine is just one.

Share this post


Link to post

And the one-year moratorium started on April 21, 2015. A few days for the news from Groundspeak!

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be without cell signal when the announcement is made. Unfortunate, because I'm interested in what the decision will be. Fortunate, because I'll be out in the forest. We might have a cell signal in some places, since we have a different cell carrier now than the last time we were out there.

Just be very quiet and listen for the inevitable uproar.

Guess I will be online for the big announcement. Had a foot injury this morning while preparing for the weekend trip, so now I'm stuck with RICE treatment and can't go play in the forest. :sad:

 

This gives me time to work on puzzles and also to check my progress on several challenge caches. Although maybe I'll wait until after the announcement before working on the latter.

Share this post


Link to post

Just be very quiet and listen for the inevitable uproar.

Ironically, this could be true either way the cookie crumbles :P

 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×