Moratorium update

[+igator210]

I know very well what I'm talking about. Of course a PCG needs a list, but a human being does not.[\Quote]

 

Of course a human being needs a list.

 

If I place a challenge cache that states that someone needs to find cache titles with animal names, I already have a list in my head of what I think is acceptable. Is it a complete list? No. Is it written down? No. But it is a mental list. I wouldn't create a challenge cache requesting something that I didn't have any knowledge on.

[cezanne]

I know very well what I'm talking about. Of course a PCG needs a list, but a human being does not.[/Quote]

 

Of course a human being needs a list.

 

If I place a challenge cache that states that someone needs to find cache titles with animal names, I already have a list in my head of what I think is acceptable. Is it a complete list? No. Is it written down? No. But it is a mental list. I wouldn't create a challenge cache requesting something that I didn't have any knowledge on.

 

If someone comes along with a log, it's early enough for me to see whether it contains items which I do not know and need to look up (either because I do not know whether it's an animal or do not know the word due to a language I do not know).

 

That also fits my idea of a a computer assisted checker if needed at all: The checker would take some input and check whether it's a valid qualification. This input would include more than a list of finds for many sorts of challenge caches.

[+igator210]

I recall reading through that User Insights topic and noting that the majority of 'negative feelings' were around streak and rush (x in a day) challenges. The requirement of a checker will have no effect on those types of challenges, as those seem to be easy to code/tag within PGC. I'm curious to see if there will be other restrictions around challenge 'types' when the final guideline changes are announced.

Someone did mention one effect checkers could have on "streak" and "rush" challenges. Because Project-GC checkers don't have access to Lab Cache information, future streak/rush challenge caches might have to make it clear to geocachers that Lab Caches will not be counted. The "streak/rush" statistics that appear on a geocacher's Statistics page will not match up with the "streak/rush" statistics currently generated by Project-GC challenge checkers.

 

Similarly, the "Find Dates" calendar, "Milestones," and "Find Rate" information on a geocacher's Statistics page also will not match up with the Lab-less data that Project-GC utilizes.

 

This raises an interesting question. What information can a geocacher use to prove they have successfully completed a post-moratorium challenge cache? If the Project-GC challenge cache checker indicates my longest (Lab-less) streak is 47 consecutive days but my Groundspeak Statistics page indicates my longest (Lab-included) streak is 386 days, then can I claim a find on a post-moratorium 100-day streak challenge?

 

There are some indications that post-moratorium challenge caches might have to rely on the Project-GC challenge checkers as being the sole arbiter of successful completions:

 

Earlier in the thread there were a few good posts pointing out that a lab cache not being counted could have other consequences for otherwise valid challenges, like messing up milestones or leaving a gap in a streak if a lab cache was the geocacher's only find for that day. Oh well. Challenge cache hiders and seekers will need to ignore lab caches.

What if an unaware challenge cache owner fails to mention on their challenge cache listing page that Lab Caches are excluded from their post-moratorium challenge and an all-too-human volunteer reviewer fails to catch this omission? When a geocacher who used Lab Caches shows that they have successfully completed the challenge as it was laid out on the listing page (which did not exclude Lab Caches), will Groundspeak Appeals back the "successful" geocacher? Will that challenge cache be subject to archival for having a fallible Project-GC checker? Will the challenge cache listing page be edited to exclude Lab Caches? What about all the geocachers who are in mid-streak when the listing page is edited?

Yeah, I mentioned the discrepancy between geocaching.com statistics and PGC statistics back in post #33, then elaborated on the calendar filling in post #77. igator210 added the note about streaks in post #78. I wonder if a possible solution is to allow cachers to manually add their Lab Cache finds, similar to how Lab Caches are handled on mygeocachingprofile.com, but I'm not sure whether PGC can 'store' such data for a specific cacher or not. If not, then it could be quite onerous for some cachers to manually add their Lab Cache finds every time they want to run a checker where Lab Caches are relevant. A lack of storage would also pose a problem if a CC CO runs the checker for a CC finder, since the CC CO wouldn't be able to manually add of the CC finder's Lab Caches.

 

It seems odd, to me, that PGC statistics will now trump statistics on the geocaching.com website itself. It seems that some simple things that can easily be proven on a profile's Statistics page, such as cache icons or calendars, shouldn't need to rely on PGC checkers. But consider this exchange in post #219:

 

So to get a challenge approved you have to ask project gc to write you a macro first? What about challenges that are easily proven with the statistics provided by geocaching.com?

Or write it yourself, once Project-GC permits applications for new script writers.

 

We’re not going to put reviewers in the position of having to debate with COs about whether or not their challenge cache should require a checker. That would be a nightmare. Therefore, all challenge caches will require checkers.

 

Thanks noncentric for such a thought out response.

 

The fact that Groundspeak doesn't want to open up the API on Lab Caches is up to them. Requiring third parties to reply solely on the API information devalues Lab Caches. The fact the the stats from a third party is more valid then the ones list on Groundspeak is silly. It is like trying to go to third party bank to verify how much money I have at my primary bank. Why over complicate it.

[+thebruce0]

Of course a PCG needs a list, but a human being does not.

The human being does. But it's in the human being's head (or on paper on their desk). It's amendable. The human can also use an external source to verify new requests. The human checking is just like a machine checking, only much quicker and independent. It's not so much about the checking, it's about consistency and accuracy of the challenge requirements with what the checker actually checks ("any animal name" vs "amendable, acceptable list of animal names"). But hey, this has already been repeated numerous times.

 

I do not believe that a challenge cache gets published if no list is provided in the cache description and if the checker gets updated after every find. That would leave too much freedom and would not result in what Groundspeak strives for.

Again, again, again, it would entirely depend on the challenge wording. I don't think there would be a problem if the wording said 'qualification can only being using words in the provided list, but if you have a new word then suggest it and I may add it to the list'. Then there's no dispute, if the CO doesn't allow a word, the checker still denies qualification (just as happens now). If the checker denies qualification but the CO decides to allow the word, then the challenge would be updated and the checker would then confirm qualifcation (right now the CO's 'mental list' is updated). Conceptually it's open-ended, but literally the challenge would be consistent with the checker and thus valid.

Based on my understanding of GS's announcement and intent for CCs thus far, I think it jives well.

But of course, it's still all speculation until we hear more.

[+Team Microdot]

Of course a PCG needs a list, but a human being does not.

The human being does. But it's in the human being's head (or on paper on their desk). It's amendable. The human can also use an external source to verify new requests. The human checking is just like a machine checking, only much quicker and independent. It's not so much about the checking, it's about consistency and accuracy of the challenge requirements with what the checker actually checks ("any animal name" vs "amendable, acceptable list of animal names"). But hey, this has already been repeated numerous times.

 

Can the machine use an external source to verify new requests?

[+coachstahly]

One would need to provide the list of currently accepted words in the cache description and that's restricting creativity a lot.

While I personally would not set up a Christmas challenge cache, I would certainly not start out with a full list in my head just in case I owned such a cache. The nice part would be to see what people come up with.

 

For some reason, I think you're making a faulty assumption about open ended challenges like the animal challenge (or any word challenge). Open ended lists have neither been banned nor approved. Your arguments are based on the fact that you believe they won't be allowed rather than on the possibility that either outcome is still to be determined. Also, why would a CCO provide a list on the actual cache page when the checker supposedly has an up to date list, regardless of whether or not it's a fixed list or an open ended list? All the CO would need to say on the cache page is that a fixed list has been provided to the checker or an open ended list has been provided and can be amended if the word is verified. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? I'm pretty sure that word lists aren't (and weren't) required in the description portion on challenges like this.

 

IF they're not allowed (should that be the case), that the ONLY words that are acceptable are the ones listed in the checker, and they can't be modified, then you have a valid point and no argument from me. That would be something I would dislike.

 

IF Groundspeak allows open ended word challenges (contrary to your held position but still possible), then the human part is now allowed to be used to adapt the challenge checker to accommodate for different words and creative ideas to add to the current (and expanding) list. Cachers would still be allowed to come up with creative ways to qualify for the challenge, assuming the CO agrees and verifies the provided word. The challenge is still easily verifiable (100 caches with an animal in the title) and has not changed, but the checker is expanding the qualifying words to include those which the CO deems acceptable. It's not a stagnant list that denies creativity and ingenuity, but is instead a list that is allowed to adapt to the human mind that comes up with this stuff. You'd still have to convince the CCO that your word is verifiable and truly in the intent of the challenge (it IS an animal, it IS related to Christmas, etc...), which is a different issue in its own right.

 

This opens up the possibility for more debate and appeals for qualifying for a challenge, but it appears that the debate on qualifying for challenges, while still a workload for volunteers, appears to be less than the workload that was experienced by reviewers in order to get a CC published. Personally, something like this would be too much work on my end and there's no way I'd even consider putting out a challenge like this. I don't mind maintenance, but challenges like this would cost me more time than I'd be willing to put in. Kudos to those willing to do so.

Edited April 26, 2016 by coachstahly

[+ShammyLevva]

It seems there is some discrepancy between what you and pinkunicorn have expressed about how the checker writing/tagging process works. I've bolded/colored the statement from pinkunicorn that basically implies a CC CO should reach out to the original writer/tagger with edit requests. In which case, there is some reliance on the original writer/tagger. At least, there will need to be some way to know whether that original writer/tagger is still active so that a CC CO will know they need to look for help for someone else.

 

If the process of editing checkers doesn't get worked out, then I fear the guidelines will say that checkers cannot be edited and should be infallible from the start or else the CC is subject to archival. It has already been expressed by Rock Chalk that checkers should be infallible or CC's are subject to archival. Again, the details of how this will all work is still unknown. This means that there are some challenges where we can envision it's possible to create checkers, but we still don't know if the as-of-yet announced guidelines will allow them.

 

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant is that yes you would normally contact the original CO although this would be typically done via forum unless you'd specifically exchanged details. However that any checker or tagger can re-tag the script and make changes. Thus you aren't reliant on the original checker which seemed to be your primary concern. Items in the forum queue are usually dealt with very quickly even if the original author is on holiday. So I don't think this will prove a major issue.

[cezanne]

For some reason, I think you're making a faulty assumption about open ended challenges like the animal challenge (or any word challenge). Open ended lists have neither been banned nor approved. Your arguments are based on the fact that you believe they won't be allowed rather than on the possibility that either outcome is still to be determined.

 

My arguments are partly based on what you write, but partly on other aspects. First, I regard it as wasted work to prepare lists and second, it will drive people's mind into certain directions and will reduce creativity - some will still come up with creative ideas, the mass will just do what causes them no effort and that will make reading logs much less enjoyable.

In my experience the log quality for challenges that come along with a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

[cezanne]

Of course a PCG needs a list, but a human being does not.

The human being does. But it's in the human being's head (or on paper on their desk). It's amendable. The human can also use an external source to verify new requests. The human checking is just like a machine checking, only much quicker and independent. It's not so much about the checking, it's about consistency and accuracy of the challenge requirements with what the checker actually checks ("any animal name" vs "amendable, acceptable list of animal names"). But hey, this has already been repeated numerous times.

 

There are other ways to clearly define things than to provide a list. Noone defines the set of natural numbers by listing all its members.

I see no reason to have a partial list of animals in my head or on paper when coming up with such a challenge.

It suffices to have a decision procedure that given a term as input can decide whether or not the term is an acceptable one.No list or set based approach is required for osing so.

Edited April 26, 2016 by cezanne

[+coachstahly]

 

Did you also look into this from a regional point of view? The challenge caches are very unevenly distributed. In my area there are very few challenge caches.

 

Apart from the areas with very few challenge caches, there are also areas with many of them and even challenge cache trails.

 

It would be interesting to know how many challenge caches are logged on average in areas with a resonable number of challenge caches, neither very low nor too high.

 

 

Areas with less challenge caches will probably receive less visitors and will most likely get logged at a rate less than what has been posted. Areas with more challenge caches will most likely get logged at a rate higher than what has been posted. The 2.4% mentioned is the overall average (my assumption) for all challenge cache logs by users and would probably be very close to the norm in an area like you're describing in the last situation. I have 9 challenges (3 adopted) in an area that doesn't have a lot of challenges, IMO. They don't get logged very often. My disclaimer is that they're not all easy challenges to qualify for, so that might be a factor in the frequency in which they are found. Those that are easier to attain, however, aren't logged at a much higher rate either. In southern Indiana, there is a concentrated area with upwards of 100 challenges (my guesstimate), and those get logged on a relatively steady basis.

[+fuzziebear3]

If appeals (either by hiders or by finders) was a big part of the problem, can GS just make a statement that 'we will not become the arbitrator between reviewers, cachers, and cache owners regarding challenge caches'? The reviewer has final say on publishing of caches; cachers and cache owners need to work it out if there is a question on a finders qualifications.

[+coachstahly]

 

My arguments are partly based on what you write, but partly on other aspects. First, I regard it as wasted work to prepare lists and second, it will drive people's mind into certain directions and will reduce creativity - some will still come up with creative ideas, the mass will just do what causes them no effort and that will make reading logs much less enjoyable.

In my experience the log quality for challenges that come along with a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

 

You have to prepare a list to qualify for the challenge. That point holds no water. Just because you view it as wasted work doesn't mean that you can't do it. I understand that this particular type of challenge holds NO interest for you, but for those that qualify, they still have to come up with a list. In fact, the checker (theoretically) now provides the list for you, removing the "wasted work" you dislike.

 

If you're talking about being the CO of such a challenge, the CO MUST come up with a list to provide to the checker or it won't get published, open ended or closed. Seeing as how you like creativity, a list that contains the ONLY words you can use to qualify wouldn't be acceptable. If that's what ends up happening, I'm with you in that this is a compromise I'm NOT going to be as happy with as the option of an open ended list. However, an open ended list IS a lot of work for a CO but it does allow for creativity and the flexibility to adapt to what a human mind can come up with, again assuming it matches the intent of the challenge. Both have their drawbacks, but only one allows adaptation and flexibility.

 

What sort of creativity are you looking for when coming up with a list of 100 caches with an animal in the title? It's either an animal or it's not, slang or regional permutations being the exceptions I can think of off hand.

 

Log quality and reading logs isn't related at all to this discussion about challenge checkers and their viability as it pertains to challenge caches.

Edited April 26, 2016 by coachstahly

[cezanne]

 

Did you also look into this from a regional point of view? The challenge caches are very unevenly distributed. In my area there are very few challenge caches.

 

Apart from the areas with very few challenge caches, there are also areas with many of them and even challenge cache trails.

 

It would be interesting to know how many challenge caches are logged on average in areas with a resonable number of challenge caches, neither very low nor too high.

 

 

Areas with less challenge caches will probably receive less visitors and will most likely get logged at a rate less than what has been posted. Areas with more challenge caches will most likely get logged at a rate higher than what has been posted. The 2.4% mentioned is the overall average (my assumption) for all challenge cache logs by users and would probably be very close to the norm in an area like you're describing in the last situation. I have 9 challenges (3 adopted) in an area that doesn't have a lot of challenges, IMO. They don't get logged very often. My disclaimer is that they're not all easy challenges to qualify for, so that might be a factor in the frequency in which they are found. Those that are easier to attain, however, aren't logged at a much higher rate either. In southern Indiana, there is a concentrated area with upwards of 100 challenges (my guesstimate), and those get logged on a relatively steady basis.

 

It's not the same to compute an average find number/rate for (challenge) caches and to compute an average yearly number of finds of challenge caches per cacher and that's yet something than taking the average number of cachers that have found at least one challenge cache in 2014. The latter two averages will show a much larger variance I guess as areas where almost no challenge caches exist will have a large impact. For challenge caches like this one

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5PJQQ_challenge-primzahl?guid=80b4273e-ca2d-4331-8832-04c7932c6adf

(should be logged as find when your current number of finds is a prime)

the number of finds does not seem to be smaller than for comparable puzzle caches without logging requirement. However if you have already done the existing challenges, there are no further ones to visit and so the "only 2.4% of cachers have logged a challenge cache in 2014" does not say too much about the popularity. If they have no challenge cache available that they have not found and qualify for, then they cannot find one, regardless of whether they enjoy challenge caches or hate them or are indifferent.

Edited April 26, 2016 by cezanne

[+MartyBartfast]

If appeals (either by hiders or by finders) was a big part of the problem, can GS just make a statement that 'we will not become the arbitrator between reviewers, cachers, and cache owners regarding challenge caches'? The reviewer has final say on publishing of caches; cachers and cache owners need to work it out if there is a question on a finders qualifications.

 

No that would be the wrong way round. GS aren't likely to abdicate all control down to the unpaid volunteers, and equally I suspect the volunteers are glad that when the CCOs disagree with their judgement they can refer the matter up to a higher authority who is being paid to take that kind of pain.

 

The idea that cachers and cache owners need to sort it out between themselves is find in theory but often they will be unable to reach an agreement, and that's when you need a referee (GS) to make the final call.

[+thebruce0]

Can the machine use an external source to verify new requests?

If PGC and GS allow the script to do so, yes. I'm talking theoretical capabilities, not technical allowances and feasibility. As I described earlier. If a programmer wanted to, they could build a language analysis tool. If we want to talk practical implementation as of this moment, and still without knowing the full details of the upcoming system, then no. Practically, "any animal name" is allowable by a human because it's much more feasible for a human to emulate a true open ended list because they actually keep a mental list and more easily verify and amend. But technically and literally, "any animal name" is not possible by a human nor a script. And that's the problem. The challenge wording doesn't technically and literally match the checking process.

 

It can be emulated in script, and made consistent, with adjusted wording indicating the accepted list, and the ability for the CO to amend the list as desired (a process that a CO technically does right now).

 

Point being, if the challenge says "any animal name", but a user checks the challenge and it's denied, even though there's an animal name that should be accepted, then if the CO is non-responsive, there's a case for an appeal - the description implies the finder qualifies, but the checker denies it. But if there's a known list, then the finder has no dispute - the list of acceptable words is stated, so a failed check is consistent with the challenge.

 

Also, why would a CCO provide a list on the actual cache page when the checker supposedly has an up to date list, regardless of whether or not it's a fixed list or an open ended list? All the CO would need to say on the cache page is that a fixed list has been provided to the checker or an open ended list has been provided and can be amended if the word is verified.

You know that's a good point. I suppose if the finder really want to know what was acceptable, they could ask the CO for the current list. Only probem is unresponsive COs.

If they run the checker and it's not validated, perhaps the result could include the words that were accepted so the person can determine if there are any other words they think should be included, then just ask the CO. Kind of step back closer to the current actual process. And entirely up to the script writer to include in the output both the list of qualifying caches and which words were verified.

 

IF [word lists] are not allowed (should that be the case), that the ONLY words that are acceptable are the ones listed in the checker, and they can't be modified, then you have a valid point and no argument from me. That would be something I would dislike.

Ditto. I think it would only be an issue if it becomes like a CO constantly changing the challenge requirements and messing people up; but in this case if it's about a word list and the challenge indicates that it's an amendable list based on a category/definition, then it could be considered a 'reasonable' update. Though can open the door for more subjectivity issues like the 'wow factor'.

 

IF Groundspeak allows open ended word challenges... Cachers would still be allowed to come up with creative ways to qualify for the challenge, assuming the CO agrees and verifies the provided word.

Exactly!

 

Personally, something like this would be too much work on my end and there's no way I'd even consider putting out a challenge like this. I don't mind maintenance, but challenges like this would cost me more time than I'd be willing to put in. Kudos to those willing to do so.

Yeah I'm not sure where'd I stand on doing it myself, but I know it leaves it open for COs to be creative and let finders also be creative. And, if a CO ever becomes unresponsive, the challenge and the checker remain consistent with each other and stands on its own; no need for human intervention, because the finder reads the challenge, and the checker does exactly what's expected - this is not true with an "any animal name" challenge with a checker that checks against an explicit amendable word list. Of course, with a non-responsive CO then false Finds could still be posted but cheaters will cheat and only cheat themselves.

 

But at least if a CO wants to publish a high-maintenance fun challenge cache and take active responsibility for it, they have that option. (CCOs of bingo challenges, for example, have responsibility to do the same when target caches get archived and a square needs to be replaced)

 

There are other ways to clearly define things than to provide a list. Noone defines the set of natural numbers by listing all its members.

A list is a form of algorithm. There is a definition of a natural number. If you really wanted to build a challenge based somehow on using a natural number, then yes, you can script an algorithm in some manner to verify a natural number. Whether it's looking up a word in a list, looking up a letter in an alphabet, or mathematically calculating a sum - from now on if you hear/read "list", think "algorithm". An objective means to determine the validity of some input to a definition/category.

Edited April 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+Team Hugs]

Thank you for this thoughtful and respectful post.

 

And thank you for the kind words in return.

 

 

I explained that the appeals volume (to both reviewers and official appeals to HQ) was disproportionately occupied by challenge cache hiders. That the community only saw the challenges which qualified for publication -- in many cases, after hours of work to get them in shape.

Which basically confirms one of my points. We're not seeing the problems you're having. The public statements regarding the problems you're having tell us that you're having problems, but don't really give us insight into what the problems really are. Since, as you note, we only see the finished product, we don't see the effort that goes into getting to that point.

 

And so, as I've said any number of times in these fora over the last year, all of our speculation regarding how to 'fix" the problem really doesn't do much good, because we don't understand the problem.

 

Would it be possible for you (or other reviewers) to share an example with us of this process? That is, a challenge cache that was horribly unacceptable as originally submitted, and then how it evolved to the point that it was accepted for publication? I fully realize that may not be possible --- or desirable --- due to privacy concerns, or simply common courtesy.

[+Team Microdot]

Can the machine use an external source to verify new requests?

If PGC and GS allow the script to do so, yes. I'm talking theoretical capabilities, not technical allowances and feasibility. As I described earlier. If a programmer wanted to, they could build a language analysis tool. If we want to talk practical implementation as of this moment, and still without knowing the full details of the upcoming system, then no. Practically, "any animal name" is allowable by a human because it's much more feasible for a human to emulate a true open ended list because they actually keep a mental list and more easily verify and amend. But technically and literally, "any animal name" is not possible by a human nor a script. And that's the problem. The challenge wording doesn't technically and literally match the checking process.

 

So human checking isn't just like machine checking - that's what I thought and I think that's what Cezanne was getting at.

[+coachstahly]

 

Would it be possible for you (or other reviewers) to share an example with us of this process? That is, a challenge cache that was horribly unacceptable as originally submitted, and then how it evolved to the point that it was accepted for publication? I fully realize that may not be possible --- or desirable --- due to privacy concerns, or simply common courtesy.

 

I can provide an example, but I'm not sure how long or how many back and forth messages there were before the CO got his cache approved, so it might not really provide the truly in-depth answer you're looking for.

 

My friend had/has a challenge he wanted to publish that involved a streak of three years in length. In other words, a cacher had to find a cache every day for three years. The initial question posed by the reviewer is how many people in your area can qualify? I don't think there were very many in our area, but in other areas the total was somewhat higher, but not close enough to warrant publication as written. I can't speak to how many communications were sent back and forth between the two in order to arrive at an acceptable compromise, but finally one was reached. There are now two ways to qualify. One is the original intent, a three year streak. The other is that each day in your calendar has to have 3 finds. This could have been done in a couple emails or it could have gone on for a considerable amount of time. However, the fact is that instead of publishing it right away, extra time and work was needed, above and beyond what is probably required for other types of cache discrepancies, in order to get this particular challenge published. I don't know who posited the final solution or how long it took to get published, but it was finally published. Had this been some other cache, it would have been published (as far as I know) because there were no other issues with it, other than the challenge requirement.

 

I know of another cacher just north of me who wanted to publish a trackable challenge involving name tag trackables. The initial challenge was at 50 discovered. The same question was posed by the reviewer - How many in your area qualify? The CO posted on our FB page and there weren't very many, so a compromise was made to knock it down to 25. Again, I don't know about how many times messages were exchanged but I do know that this one took a few days before it finally was published. If it were some other cache, it would have been published because there were no other issues with it, other than the challenge requirement.

 

Our reviewer (we only have one now) has been extremely helpful and gets caches published in a timely manner. I've had a few questions and one or two issues with a submitted cache, but nothing out of the ordinary, but he's a volunteer, so I don't always feel good about asking him questions because he could use that time to spend with his family, do some caching, or publish other caches without questions being asked by the CO. I appreciate the time he volunteers and anything that might make his job easier would be fine by me.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Would it be possible for you (or other reviewers) to share an example with us of this process? That is, a challenge cache that was horribly unacceptable as originally submitted, and then how it evolved to the point that it was accepted for publication? I fully realize that may not be possible --- or desirable --- due to privacy concerns, or simply common courtesy.

 

I can provide an example, but I'm not sure how long or how many back and forth messages there were before the CO got his cache approved, so it might not really provide the truly in-depth answer you're looking for.

 

My friend had/has a challenge he wanted to publish that involved a streak of three years in length. In other words, a cacher had to find a cache every day for three years. The initial question posed by the reviewer is how many people in your area can qualify? I don't think there were very many in our area, but in other areas the total was somewhat higher, but not close enough to warrant publication as written. I can't speak to how many communications were sent back and forth between the two in order to arrive at an acceptable compromise, but finally one was reached. There are now two ways to qualify. One is the original intent, a three year streak. The other is that each day in your calendar has to have 3 finds. This could have been done in a couple emails or it could have gone on for a considerable amount of time. However, the fact is that instead of publishing it right away, extra time and work was needed, above and beyond what is probably required for other types of cache discrepancies, in order to get this particular challenge published. I don't know who posited the final solution or how long it took to get published, but it was finally published. Had this been some other cache, it would have been published (as far as I know) because there were no other issues with it, other than the challenge requirement.

 

I know of another cacher just north of me who wanted to publish a trackable challenge involving name tag trackables. The initial challenge was at 50 discovered. The same question was posed by the reviewer - How many in your area qualify? The CO posted on our FB page and there weren't very many, so a compromise was made to knock it down to 25. Again, I don't know about how many times messages were exchanged but I do know that this one took a few days before it finally was published. If it were some other cache, it would have been published because there were no other issues with it, other than the challenge requirement.

 

Our reviewer (we only have one now) has been extremely helpful and gets caches published in a timely manner. I've had a few questions and one or two issues with a submitted cache, but nothing out of the ordinary, but he's a volunteer, so I don't always feel good about asking him questions because he could use that time to spend with his family, do some caching, or publish other caches without questions being asked by the CO. I appreciate the time he volunteers and anything that might make his job easier would be fine by me.

 

Interesting.

 

Because potentially, Project GC could calculate how many cachers within a specific radius should qualify for a given challenge - and then it's just a case of setting an acceptable threshold.

 

Of course this would depend on a suitable checker being available in the first instance - so it might be a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario...

[+thebruce0]

Here's an example of what I envision as a basic, valid, "open ended" challenge description structure (optionally requiring more active maintenance on the part of the CO) given what we know of the checker-requirement so far:

 

In order to log this challenge cache as found, you must have found at least 100 caches with an animal name in the title.

The attached checker linked below will determine if you qualify.

 

Detailed rules:

(option 1*)

1. Animal names that are acceptable must be found within the following list, and (may/may not) be embedded within other words:

.....

(option 2*)

1. Animal names are acceptable based on the following criteria:

.....(description of how the checker validates a title)....

(option 3*)

1. I will accept any animal name. However, if the checker declines your qualification then that is the final result, unless rule #2 applies.

 

2. If you have an animal name that you believe is valid but the checker doesn't allow, you must contact me and provide your list of animal names so I can decide whether to accept them as valid. If you receive no confirmation from me that your caches qualify, then the checker result is final.

 

3. Any cache type is allowed, there is no date restriction, all past finds are allowed, etc etc

You may verify your qualification using this [CHECKER LINK]

* Option 1: This really would only work if it's literally an exact list of words checked by the script; I mean in regards to plurals and whatnot, they'd all need to be included in the list. Not as practical for an enormous list of words including multiple languages. But it's an option, depending on the theme, specificity, and scope of the list.

 

* Option 2: A little more practical. Language rules could be described if necessary, for things like plurals, accents, etc. But this would essentially be a description of what the checker checks and how. That's the only way anyone can determine if there's a "bug" in the checker (thus the CC is 'subject to archival')

 

* Option 3: Option for least disputes, IMO, and most like the current process of similar existing challenge caches. The difference being that the required checker now is, and will always be, the final arbiter. While there may be (will be) issues if a finder asks for the list of qualifying names (or details of how the checker validates names) and the CO is unresponsive, I think those case would be quite rare (as described earlier in the thread by reviewers; not the most significant taking of appeals' time). More likely, exchanges here would be handled strictly between the CO and finder, if the finder has a new animal they wish to be considered valid. If the CO denies, then there's now no dispute; the checker is final. If the CO allows, the finder can log it, and the CO should amend the checker so it confirms the user's qualification. (or it would be 'subject to archival')

 

 

So human checking isn't just like machine checking

I don't know how you concluded that from what I wrote.

The process for human checking is the same as a script, but it takes a different form, because you know, life and non-life.

But if you want be like that, then no, humans don't run a LUA script in their brain like PGC would, and machines aren't alive. So no, in that case, human checking isn't "just like" machine checking.

Edited April 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

So human checking isn't just like machine checking

I don't know how you concluded that from what I wrote.

The process for human checking is the same as a script, but it takes a different form, because you know, life and non-life.

But if you want be like that, then no, humans don't run a LUA script in their brain like PGC would, and machines aren't alive. So no, in that case, human checking isn't "just like" machine checking.

 

It was when you wrote The human checking is just like a machine checking

[+thebruce0]

It was when you wrote The human checking is just like a machine checking

With the explanation of why.

Context, man.

Edited April 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+OReviewer]

The problem is maintaining the list of valid words that the CO finds acceptable for her/his challenge. So the problem lies with the CO maintaining a list of valid words the problem is NOT with the programmer. How much clearer does that have to be for you to get it?

Maintaining + Caching is always an issue whether in the field or at home.

 

As a Reviewer, I wonder about the Bigcall since my understanding is that it is just a list of acceptable cache owners. That list would need to be maintained as Charter members quit/die/etc. That is the opposite of what most people are doing (adding animals to their lists as an example).

 

A general comment, it does seem like having multiple challenges that are exactly the same, having the checker in there multiple times is both redundant and multiple places for errors to come about (IE, Challenge A owner updates is checker but challenge owner B does not). It seems like it would make more sense to have a http://project-gc.com/Challenges/BigCall-50CM/ rather than http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC56CKN/ + http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5652B/ + others that are exactly the same criteria.

 

I would imagine there are a ton of redundant checkers like that.

[+CanadianRockies]

I don't think there would be a problem if the wording said 'qualification can only being using words in the provided list, but if you have a new word then suggest it and I may add it to the list'. Then there's no dispute, if the CO doesn't allow a word, the checker still denies qualification (just as happens now). If the checker denies qualification but the CO decides to allow the word, then the challenge would be updated and the checker would then confirm qualifcation (right now the CO's 'mental list' is updated). Conceptually it's open-ended, but literally the challenge would be consistent with the checker and thus valid.

Based on my understanding of GS's announcement and intent for CCs thus far, I think it jives well.

But of course, it's still all speculation until we hear more.

While it's still mostly speculation until we hear more, certain comments leave me less optimistic than you about whether future challenge caches will be published if they rely on open-ended, amendable lists.

 

All new challenges will require an online challenge checker -- it's a nice, simple bright line test as opposed to debating about the definition of "easily proven with the statistics."

An open-ended, amendable list doesn't provide a bright-line test about whether challenge completion can be easily proven because disputes can result.

 

It's up to the CO to ensure that the checker is infallible. If it's not, then the cache is subject to archival. The CO certainly has a vested interest, then, in infallibility of the checker.

An open-ended, amendable list is designed to be fallible. It's possible that the checker will return false negative results. That is, the checker sometimes will reject words that rightfully should be included in the list. That means there could be appeals to Groundspeak when challenge cache owners disagree with challenge cache finders. If Groundspeak wants to minimize these types of appeals as much as possible, then they probably shouldn't allow future challenge cache checkers to use open-ended, amendable lists.

 

Personally, I think tolerating some of these kinds of appeals is a worthwhile price to pay for having more interesting and creative types of challenge caches. Remember, it's not just "words from a category" types of challenges that will need open-ended, amendable lists. Many souvenir-category and trackable-category challenge caches also would require open-ended, amendable lists.

 

Although I cannot find the post, I do remember that a reviewer mentioned an undesirable situation where one challenge cache owner apparently enjoyed denying "Found its" to as many geocachers as possible. If these kinds of anecdotes have captured the attention of those who are preparing a new challenge cache framework, then Groundspeak might be further tempted to reject open-ended, amendable lists. My own guess is that these types of challenge cache owners are very, very few in number. And while open-ended, amendable lists cannot force them to be more open-minded about accepting new words, they can force such owners to be consistent. If the owner accepts "filly" as an animal name for one geocacher, then they will have to accept "filly" for all geocachers.

[+Team Microdot]

It was when you wrote The human checking is just like a machine checking

With the explanation of why.

Context, man.

 

What was the why again?

[+dprovan]

Would it be possible for you (or other reviewers) to share an example with us of this process? That is, a challenge cache that was horribly unacceptable as originally submitted, and then how it evolved to the point that it was accepted for publication? I fully realize that may not be possible --- or desirable --- due to privacy concerns, or simply common courtesy.

I, too, would love to see examples, but if the example is one of a challenge cache that was horribly unacceptable, I'd immediately be asking why they wasted any time at all on it instead of just rejecting it and telling the CO to come back when they had something that wasn't horribly unacceptable.

 

Yesterday, up-thread, Keystone, in describing the problem with approving challenge caches, talks about "hours of work to get them in shape", and all I can think is, well, there's your problem! The reviewer should just be saying, it's too complicated (or whatever). He shouldn't be holding someone's hand to fix the problem. It's no wonder why approving challenge caches was a burden, but also obvious how to reduce the burden: just say no, and send them somewhere else for help.

 

And, really, that's exactly what this checker requirement has done: it lets the reviewer reject the cache and, instead of helping, send the CO to the project-gc forums to get a checker. That's exactly like sending them to the GS forums for help, except, aside from being remarkably indirect, it adds -- completely unnecessarily -- this limitation that only requirements that can be checked mechanically are allowed.

[+dprovan]

The idea that cachers and cache owners need to sort it out between themselves is find in theory but often they will be unable to reach an agreement, and that's when you need a referee (GS) to make the final call.

It isn't just a theory: it's how everything else in geocaching works, and it works just fine. In my area, it even works fine for challenge caches.

[+palmetto]

And, really, that's exactly what this checker requirement has done: it lets the reviewer reject the cache and, instead of helping, send the CO to the project-gc forums to get a checker.

 

Because a checker requirement has been disclosed, that's all that folks have to talk about. I understand that.

 

But the new challenge cache guidelines aren't going to be, "has project-gc checker = OK".

They'll be some modifications of the existing guidelines, PLUS, must have checker.

Review will be as ever, starts with physical cache meets physical requirements, challenge requirements meets challenge cache guidelines, and has checker.

Edited April 26, 2016 by palmetto

[+dprovan]

IF Groundspeak allows open ended word challenges (contrary to your held position but still possible), then the human part is now allowed to be used to adapt the challenge checker to accommodate for different words and creative ideas to add to the current (and expanding) list. Cachers would still be allowed to come up with creative ways to qualify for the challenge, assuming the CO agrees and verifies the provided word. The challenge is still easily verifiable (100 caches with an animal in the title) and has not changed, but the checker is expanding the qualifying words to include those which the CO deems acceptable. It's not a stagnant list that denies creativity and ingenuity, but is instead a list that is allowed to adapt to the human mind that comes up with this stuff. You'd still have to convince the CCO that your word is verifiable and truly in the intent of the challenge (it IS an animal, it IS related to Christmas, etc...), which is a different issue in its own right.

What you're describing is completely contrary to the original justification for demanding a checker to begin with, which is precisely to prevent COs from making their own decisions after the cache is published. You've essentially reduced the problem to one that is exactly like the CO simply approving lists manually themselves. I, of course, agree that's perfectly reasonable, but if it's reasonable, why make them interact with project-gc to create a checker that they will then ignore?

 

The reason the animal list is such a good example is that there's really no room for arguing about any given list...unless you introduce a checker that can produce results contrary to what any reasonable human would conclude. That introduces instead of prevents the possibility of a CO obnoxiously rejecting lists that should be accepted. All he has to do is refuse to expand the list.

[+CanadianRockies]

Interesting.

 

Because potentially, Project GC could calculate how many cachers within a specific radius should qualify for a given challenge - and then it's just a case of setting an acceptable threshold.

I certainly hope Groundspeak's new challenge cache framework won't approach issues like this one in such a black-and-white manner. Many of my challenge caches are designed to be challenging. Very few geocachers automatically qualify for them simply by finding lots of caches; most geocachers have to make a deliberate effort to complete them.

 

For example, I own A Month of Unknowns Challenge, which requires geocachers to find an Unknown-type cache every day for a month. Before that challenge was published, I don't think anyone in our region had ever accomplished that feat. But it's not terribly difficult if you make a deliberate effort; three geocachers completed it at the end of the first month after publication (and 22 geocachers in total have accomplished it).

 

Fortunately, my reviewer seems to understand that there's a difference between a terribly difficult challenge and a challenge that no one has yet accomplished. They have never asked me to provide a list of, say, 10 geocachers who would pre-qualify for a challenge that I had proposed.

 

I understand that Groundspeak has had problems with some of the subjective decisions that are involved with challenge caches. I just hope that, in fixing the problem, they don't swing too far in the opposite direction and try to eliminate subjective decisions in areas where they should still exist...such as whether a challenge cache is overly difficult for geocachers to complete.

Edited April 26, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

What you're describing is completely contrary to the original justification for demanding a checker to begin with, which is precisely to prevent COs from making their own decisions after the cache is published. You've essentially reduced the problem to one that is exactly like the CO simply approving lists manually themselves. I, of course, agree that's perfectly reasonable, but if it's reasonable, why make them interact with project-gc to create a checker that they will then ignore?

Because without the checker, there's no final arbiter except appeals to make a judgement between what the challenge cache implies and what the fnider wants. With the checker, and with a properly worded challenge, they can just point to the checker as the final arbiter.

[+dprovan]

And, really, that's exactly what this checker requirement has done: it lets the reviewer reject the cache and, instead of helping, send the CO to the project-gc forums to get a checker.

Because a checker requirement has been disclosed, that's all that folks have to talk about. I understand that.

 

But the new challenge cache guidelines aren't going to be, "has project-gc checker = OK".

They'll be some modifications of the existing guidelines, PLUS, must have checker.

Review will be as ever, starts with physical cache meets physical requirements, challenge requirements meets challenge cache guidelines, and lastly, has checker.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this. As I understand it -- which is consistent with what you're saying -- "has project-gc checker = OK" will be one hard requirement. Isn't that true? That's all I'm talking about. So when reaching that last step, instead of the reviewer rejecting the cache for some specific reason, he rejects it because it has no checker, and the CO has to go to project-gc for advice. I'm just suggesting another approach that produces the same results is to reject a checkerless challenge cache for a valid reason and sends the CO to the GS forums for advice. Whenever insiders describe the problem with reviewing challenge caches, it seems to be that the reviewers feel required to give the advice themselves.

 

Yes, I do dread that other restrictions will be added that I don't like, but I don't see how what I said could become invalid when they're published. Perhaps you could be more specific.

[+dprovan]

What you're describing is completely contrary to the original justification for demanding a checker to begin with, which is precisely to prevent COs from making their own decisions after the cache is published. You've essentially reduced the problem to one that is exactly like the CO simply approving lists manually themselves. I, of course, agree that's perfectly reasonable, but if it's reasonable, why make them interact with project-gc to create a checker that they will then ignore?

Because without the checker, there's no final arbiter except appeals to make a judgement between what the challenge cache implies and what the fnider wants. With the checker, and with a properly worded challenge, they can just point to the checker as the final arbiter.

I don't think you're following this conversation. I'm talking about a proposal suggesting that open ended word lists could be expanded by the CO. In other words, the proposal is that the checker isn't the final arbiter. I just wanted to point out to that person that they are depending on qualities in the CO that make the checker unnecessary to begin with.

 

I'm kinda amused by you stressing "and with a properly worded challenge", since your final arbiter will ignore the proper wording of the challenge.

[+ChileHead]

And, really, that's exactly what this checker requirement has done: it lets the reviewer reject the cache and, instead of helping, send the CO to the project-gc forums to get a checker.

Because a checker requirement has been disclosed, that's all that folks have to talk about. I understand that.

 

But the new challenge cache guidelines aren't going to be, "has project-gc checker = OK".

They'll be some modifications of the existing guidelines, PLUS, must have checker.

Review will be as ever, starts with physical cache meets physical requirements, challenge requirements meets challenge cache guidelines, and lastly, has checker.

I'm not sure why you're telling me this. As I understand it -- which is consistent with what you're saying -- "has project-gc checker = OK" will be one hard requirement. Isn't that true? That's all I'm talking about. So when reaching that last step, instead of the reviewer rejecting the cache for some specific reason, he rejects it because it has no checker, and the CO has to go to project-gc for advice. I'm just suggesting another approach that produces the same results is to reject a checkerless challenge cache for a valid reason and sends the CO to the GS forums for advice. Whenever insiders describe the problem with reviewing challenge caches, it seems to be that the reviewers feel required to give the advice themselves.

 

Yes, I do dread that other restrictions will be added that I don't like, but I don't see how what I said could become invalid when they're published. Perhaps you could be more specific.

 

Negative accomplishments were previously not permitted. I assume this will continue to be true.

 

So while you could write a checker saying "go 90 days without finding a cache", that fails other challenge guidelines.

[cezanne]

[

 

Because a checker requirement has been disclosed, that's all that folks have to talk about. I understand that.

 

But the new challenge cache guidelines aren't going to be, "has project-gc checker = OK".

They'll be some modifications of the existing guidelines, PLUS, must have checker.

Review will be as ever, starts with physical cache meets physical requirements, challenge requirements meets challenge cache guidelines, and lastly, has checker.

 

Like dprovan I have difficulties in understanding why you and also RockChalk insists on we have to wait for the new guidelines in reply to posts that discuss issues caused by the checker requirement.

Any additional restrictions can of course change what needs to be done to get a challenge cache published but they cannot change that only challenge caches will be possible for which a project gc checker

can be set up (and runs within reasonable time), right?

 

Additional rules might help to reduce the number of appeals and might make some cachers enjoy challenge cachers more, but they will certainly not alleviate the issues discuss here - I'd speculate rather that they add new issues as new limitations will be announced.

[+thebruce0]

I don't think you're following this conversation. I'm talking about a proposal suggesting that open ended word lists could be expanded by the CO. In other words, the proposal is that the checker isn't the final arbiter. I just wanted to point out to that person that they are depending on qualities in the CO that make the checker unnecessary to begin with.

Yes I am, and I'm saying that since the intent of GS is to make the checker the final arbiter, then the challenge description must accurately describe what the checker checks. Otherwise, appeals! So, it's impossible to have an "open ended" challenge description - that is, a no-limit challenge where there is either no list (mental or scripted), or no description of the checker's process - because that becomes completely subjective.

 

With an "open ended list", and by that I mean an explicit list per the challenge which is at any point in time accurate to what the checker checks but can also be amended, then it doesn't matter that the list can be amended - the challenge and the checker at any point in time are in sync, so the checker can still be the considered final arbiter. There's no arguing interpretation of the challenge vs results of the checker.

 

I'm kinda amused by you stressing "and with a properly worded challenge", since your final arbiter will ignore the proper wording of the challenge.

Yep, sounds like you skipped my other comments specifically working through the issues of using "any animal name" wording in various challenge description contents.

[cezanne]

 

Yes, I do dread that other restrictions will be added that I don't like, but I don't see how what I said could become invalid when they're published. Perhaps you could be more specific.

 

Negative accomplishments were previously not permitted. I assume this will continue to be true.

 

So while you could write a checker saying "go 90 days without finding a cache", that fails other challenge guidelines.

 

Noone here said that they believe that every challenge that allows a checker will be published.

Imagine a 2 step selection process for a position. The people rejected in the first round will not be taken into consideration in the second. If someone gets rejected in the first round, this cannot be repaired by the rules applied in the second step. (In the challenge cache example the order first and second is not important.)

[+elrojo14]

I just wanted to say it is crazy that you guys are so into word challenges that you are still going on about this!

 

Glad you are passionate.

[+Team Microdot]

And, really, that's exactly what this checker requirement has done: it lets the reviewer reject the cache and, instead of helping, send the CO to the project-gc forums to get a checker.

 

Because a checker requirement has been disclosed, that's all that folks have to talk about. I understand that.

 

But the new challenge cache guidelines aren't going to be, "has project-gc checker = OK".

They'll be some modifications of the existing guidelines, PLUS, must have checker.

Review will be as ever, starts with physical cache meets physical requirements, challenge requirements meets challenge cache guidelines, and lastly, has checker.

 

I have to admit that this comes as something of a surprise and I don't see how, in this case, requiring the checker will reduce the workload for the reviewer.

[+CanadianRockies]

In order to log this challenge cache as found, you must have found at least 100 caches with an animal name in the title.

The attached checker linked below will determine if you qualify.

 

Detailed rules:

...

(option 3*)

1. I will accept any animal name. However, if the checker declines your qualification then that is the final result, unless rule #2 applies.

 

2. If you have an animal name that you believe is valid but the checker doesn't allow, you must contact me and provide your list of animal names so I can decide whether to accept them as valid. If you receive no confirmation from me that your caches qualify, then the checker result is final.

 

3. Any cache type is allowed, there is no date restriction, all past finds are allowed, etc etc

You may verify your qualification using this [CHECKER LINK]

* Option 3: Option for least disputes, IMO, and most like the current process of similar existing challenge caches. The difference being that the required checker now is, and will always be, the final arbiter. While there may be (will be) issues if a finder asks for the list of qualifying names (or details of how the checker validates names) and the CO is unresponsive, I think those case would be quite rare (as described earlier in the thread by reviewers; not the most significant taking of appeals' time). More likely, exchanges here would be handled strictly between the CO and finder, if the finder has a new animal they wish to be considered valid. If the CO denies, then there's now no dispute; the checker is final. If the CO allows, the finder can log it, and the CO should amend the checker so it confirms the user's qualification. (or it would be 'subject to archival')

Although you claim that, under Option 3, the checker is always the final arbiter, it sometimes isn't. In your Rule #1, you note that the checker makes the final decision "unless rule #2 applies." And Rule #2 spells out a situation when the cache owner is the final arbiter, namely when the challenge finder believes the checker's list isn't inclusive enough. If the challenge cache owner agrees with the finder, then the checker's result is overridden and the finder is awarded a smiley (despite the checker's rejection).

 

While I don't have a problem with giving the challenge cache owner the final decision on whether an open-ended list needs to be amended, Groundspeak might object. To date, Groundspeak has never given cache owners the final say over what is or is not a find, since finders can appeal owner decisions to Groundspeak. So, I'm doubtful that they will make this exception for challenge cache owners.

 

Again, I wouldn't object to challenge cache owners having final authority over what is or isn't part of their challenge checker lists. I think most owners would be reasonably accommodating. And even if some owners weren't very amenable, the challenge cache "finders" wouldn't be any worse off than those in Groundspeak-sanctioned situations where the challenge checker list was set in stone from the very beginning.

 

ETA: I guess one concern I might have is that feuding challenge cache owners and finders might turn a challenge cache's logs into a forum argument over who is right.

Edited April 26, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

And, really, that's exactly what this checker requirement has done: it lets the reviewer reject the cache and, instead of helping, send the CO to the project-gc forums to get a checker.

Because a checker requirement has been disclosed, that's all that folks have to talk about. I understand that.

 

But the new challenge cache guidelines aren't going to be, "has project-gc checker = OK".

They'll be some modifications of the existing guidelines, PLUS, must have checker.

Review will be as ever, starts with physical cache meets physical requirements, challenge requirements meets challenge cache guidelines, and lastly, has checker.

I have to admit that this comes as something of a surprise and I don't see how, in this case, requiring the checker will reduce the workload for the reviewer.

Some currently acceptable challenges (see earlier in this thread) will be too difficult/impossible to have checkers written for them. Presumably, these types of challenges will not be submitted to reviewers in the future (or will be quickly dismissed by reviewers).

 

As well, overly vague challenges will not be suitable for checkers unless they are clarified. Presumably, it will be the writers of Project-GC checkers (rather than Groundspeak reviewers) who will expend most of the time working with challenge cache owners to clarify the challenge requirements.

Edited April 26, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+Team Microdot]

And, really, that's exactly what this checker requirement has done: it lets the reviewer reject the cache and, instead of helping, send the CO to the project-gc forums to get a checker.

Because a checker requirement has been disclosed, that's all that folks have to talk about. I understand that.

 

But the new challenge cache guidelines aren't going to be, "has project-gc checker = OK".

They'll be some modifications of the existing guidelines, PLUS, must have checker.

Review will be as ever, starts with physical cache meets physical requirements, challenge requirements meets challenge cache guidelines, and lastly, has checker.

I have to admit that this comes as something of a surprise and I don't see how, in this case, requiring the checker will reduce the workload for the reviewer.

Some currently acceptable challenges (see earlier in this thread) will be too difficult/impossible to have checkers written for them. Presumably, these types of challenges will not be submitted to reviewers in the future (or will be quickly dismissed by reviewers).

 

As well, overly vague challenges will not be suitable for checkers unless they are clarified. Presumably, it will be the writers of Project-GC checkers (rather than Groundspeak reviewers) who will expend most of the time working with challenge cache owners to clarify the challenge requirements.

 

Well that's going to be awkward for the checker writers - because they'll then come under the full pressure of prospective challenge owner who has been given a green light by the reviewer that the challenge can be published.

 

I wouldn't want to be in the checker writer's shoes...

[+thebruce0]

Although you claim that, under Option 3, the checker is always the final arbiter, it sometimes isn't. In your Rule #1, you note that the checker makes the final decision "unless rule #2 applies." And Rule #2 spells out a situation when the cache owner is the final arbiter, namely when the challenge finder believes the checker's list isn't inclusive enough. If the challenge cache owner agrees with the finder, then the checker's result is overridden and the finder is awarded a smiley (despite the checker's rejection).

Note the rest of the point:

"If you receive no confirmation from me that your caches qualify, then the checker result is final. ... If the CO allows, the finder can log it, and the CO should amend the checker so it confirms the user's qualification. (or it would be 'subject to archival')"

 

Kind of significant there, as that specifically means that the checker remains the final arbiter. If the CO makes a change to the challenge, the checker has to reflect that change.

Otherwise, you run into situations where person #1 may not get green on the checker but the CO allows it - person #2 with the same qualifiers complains because they don't qualify either but the CO doesn't allow it. Or maybe person #1 passes the checker but the CO doesn't allow it. In both these cases I believe that falls into "subject to archival" because the checker is not consistent with the challenge.

 

So, the checker is still the final arbiter, even if the CO decides to amend a new word -- they have to update the checker.

 

While I don't have a problem with giving the challenge cache owner the final decision on whether an open-ended list needs to be amended, Groundspeak might object. To date, Groundspeak has never given cache owners the final say over what is or is not a find, since finders can appeal owner decisions to Groundspeak. So, I'm doubtful that they will make this exception for challenge cache owners.

Right, but I think in the case of challenge caches that's been an exception - the qualification needed to be verifiable by some method by the CO and/or the finder. The CO wasn't required to actually verify every find, but the CO had the right to decide whether (at least in these 'creative' challenge) the finder qualified. In such subjective diagreements, they might go to appeals, but that seems to have been a small segment of appeals. It sounds to me like GS is leaning towards an objective immediate arbiter, trying to reduce and/or remove subjectivity - thus the checker requirement. And as long as the challenge description and checker are in sync, appeals has less work to do. So I think that allows them the room to grant the CO the right to make changes to a challenge (within reason) as long as the checker is also kept in sync.

 

ETA: I guess one concern I might have is that feuding challenge cache owners and finders might turn a challenge cache's logs into a forum argument over who is right.

heh, which would be a different problem, and might cause the listing to get locked and/or be subject to archival if a reviewer is made aware (since that sort of thing happens already anyway)

 

I wouldn't want to be in the checker writer's shoes...

Good thing then that you don't have to, and people the who do want to, well, want to.

Edited April 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

I wouldn't want to be in the checker writer's shoes...

Good thing then that you don't have to, and people the who do want to, well, want to.

 

But for how long

[+thebruce0]

I wouldn't want to be in the checker writer's shoes...

Good thing then that you don't have to, and people the who do want to, well, want to.

But for how long

Who knows, doesn't matter, as long as there are still writers. And I'm pretty confident there will always be script writers. Unless you want to run around convincing them the sky is falling and they believe you.

[+Team Microdot]

I wouldn't want to be in the checker writer's shoes...

Good thing then that you don't have to, and people the who do want to, well, want to.

But for how long

Who knows, doesn't matter, as long as there are still writers. And I'm pretty confident there will always be script writers. Unless you want to run around convincing them the sky is falling and they believe you.

 

I'm no expert - nor a fortune teller - but it did fall far enough and hard enough that is was wasting enough reviewer time to trigger a twelve month moratorium

[+pinkunicorn]

[in my experience the log quality for challenges that come along with a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

 

I'd say that in my experience the challenge quality of challenges that come along without a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

[+Team Microdot]

[in my experience the log quality for challenges that come along with a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

 

I'd say that in my experience the challenge quality of challenges that come along without a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

 

 

So the quality of a challenge depends on whether or not there's a checker for it?

 

Is that really what you meant?

[cezanne]

[in my experience the log quality for challenges that come along with a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

 

I'd say that in my experience the challenge quality of challenges that come along without a checker is worse (not always and not without exceptions, but in the majority of cases).

 

That's of course depends on how you define challenge quality. For power cachers checkers are of course of utmost importance - their typical logs are typically not taking into account the individual cache.

 

When reading logs for challenge caches I'm not interested into that someone qualified but how and I prefer if representative caches have been listed. For example, if I had to find multi caches in a number of different countries, I would not just list the first or an arbitrary multi cache I found in the respective country, but try to select special caches - that's of course only a human being can do and not a machine.

[+ODragon]

 

So the quality of a challenge depends on whether or not there's a checker for it?

 

Is that really what you meant?

I will definitely say that for me, if I have to spend more time trying to figure out what qualifies and compile some detailed list than it takes to actually find the cache and sign the log then yes. So based on that, a checker can definitely change my opinion of a challenge's quality.

 

I've always felt that people who took the time to create a checker (be it GSAK or Project-GC or something else), cared more about their challenge and the people who were trying to qualify than the person who didn't (assuming of course it isn't a super easy challenge).

 

There are ones I've skipped that I qualify for but I just don't care to do the bookkeeping aspect of it.

Edited April 26, 2016 by ODragon