Moratorium update

[+MartyBartfast]

[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?

 

Maybe a CCO who's gone to the effort of creating, or co-operating with someone else to create, a checker is more likely to put the effort into creating a good challenge cache; as opposed to someone who just thought up "find caches containing the names of any animal in any language" which requires no effort to setup.

[+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).

 

 

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

 

Is that really what you meant?

 

Not as a direct effect, but it's a good indicator. Challenges that don't have checkers tend to have vague and subjective conditions or lots of arbitrary and pointless extra conditions, and this tends to discourage checker writers.

 

Good challenge: Complete your D/T matrix

Bad challenge: Complete your D/T matrix using caches of at least five types, with only caches published before <random date>, and make all finds within a year.

 

It's perfectly possible to write checkers for both these (fictitious) challenges, but I wouldn't expect the second one to have one.

[+Team Microdot]

 

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.

 

You're talking about your willingness - or lack of it - to invest the effort required to prove that you've fulfilled the logging requirements.

 

I fail to see how your effort - or lack of it - in this regard has any bearing whatsoever on the quality of the challenge.

[+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?

 

Maybe a CCO who's gone to the effort of creating, or co-operating with someone else to create, a checker is more likely to put the effort into creating a good challenge cache; as opposed to someone who just thought up "find caches containing the names of any animal in any language" which requires no effort to setup.

 

Seems irrelevant to me seeing as someone who just thought up a "find caches containing the names of any animal in any language" can still get their challenge published AND needs a checker - which means that if having a checker were ever any indicator of the quality of a challenge it won't be in the future - because they'll all have them.

[+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?

 

Not as a direct effect, but it's a good indicator. Challenges that don't have checkers tend to have vague and subjective conditions or lots of arbitrary and pointless extra conditions, and this tends to discourage checker writers.

 

Good challenge: Complete your D/T matrix

Bad challenge: Complete your D/T matrix using caches of at least five types, with only caches published before <random date>, and make all finds within a year.

 

It's perfectly possible to write checkers for both these (fictitious) challenges, but I wouldn't expect the second one to have one.

 

So, on that basis, Quality = Simple?

[+thebruce0]

You're talking about your willingness - or lack of it - to invest the effort required to prove that you've fulfilled the logging requirements.

I fail to see how your effort - or lack of it - in this regard has any bearing whatsoever on the quality of the challenge.

Are you implying there's some kind objective way to measure "challenge quality"? Because I'm pretty sure that was ODragon's opinion of what he considers to be quality - personally.

 

I'm no expert - nor a fortune teller

Excellent!

 

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).

Yeah I'd agree (that is, it's my opinion, TM), in concept. I find many challenge caches that don't have one linked the owner could easily find and add one that exists already on PGC. But the vast majority of such listings I've easily made a single sql query to display results from which I can determine if I qualify; in some cases, it might take 2 or 3 queries with temporary data (usually because GSAK's interface has limited query string length and I've resorted to a separate sqlite interface app once or twice).

 

But there have been a couple that I couldn't be bothered to even attempt to write something. The closest I've come to that step on the side of having a checker algorithm is the lonely-distance challenge. A few lines of code for two contexts - to determine A] if I qualify with my finds, and B] a list of current qualifiers I can bookmark and target on road trips.

 

Complex, long, slow calculations, even with a few optimization tricks, requiring a large database of caches all calculated in relation to each other. Still checkable. But not all that practical. The reason I did it for that challenge is because it would actually more work to do it as a human, given current data provided from GS in various manners.

 

But as for quality of challenges, I think it's more like a lesser of two evils... if it's unlikely a checker exists at all for the challenge, it's probably far too complex to think about or attempt to qualify; for me that's not really quality. I really don't mind complexity though, but for me the weight is on technical complexity. If it can have a checker, I'll probably love it anyway because I either get my enjoyment from writing my own verification script, or just enjoy finally gaining the 'right' to log it found, even if by menial LPC-finding for a simplistic alphabet challenge.

 

Good challenge: Complete your D/T matrix

Bad challenge: Complete your D/T matrix using caches of at least five types, with only caches published before <random date>, and make all finds within a year.

 

It's perfectly possible to write checkers for both these (fictitious) challenges, but I wouldn't expect the second one to have one.

Heh, that's a good example of a technically complex challenge I'd love to write a checker for (and actually I have a few similar challenges like that in Ontario already all SQL'd up for checking)

Edited April 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+ODragon]

You're talking about your willingness - or lack of it - to invest the effort required to prove that you've fulfilled the logging requirements.

 

I fail to see how your effort - or lack of it - in this regard has any bearing whatsoever on the quality of the challenge.

To me, one part of how I judge quality is whether I find it fun. Fun isn't always about being in the field. And you did misquoted (or misinterpreted) me; it isn't just for proving I did it; stepping back in the process to even find caches that work for the challenge is not-fun bookkeeping.

[+Team Microdot]

You're talking about your willingness - or lack of it - to invest the effort required to prove that you've fulfilled the logging requirements.

 

I fail to see how your effort - or lack of it - in this regard has any bearing whatsoever on the quality of the challenge.

To me, one part of how I judge quality is whether I find it fun. Fun isn't always about being in the field. And you did misquoted (or misinterpreted) me; it isn't just for proving I did it; stepping back in the process to even find caches that work for the challenge is not-fun bookkeeping.

 

All subjective - what you find find others might hate - so still not a measure of quality.

[cezanne]

Not as a direct effect, but it's a good indicator. Challenges that don't have checkers tend to have vague and subjective conditions or lots of arbitrary and pointless extra conditions, and this tends to discourage checker writers.

 

That is only one of multiple possible reasons.

Write a checker for a challenge like

Find ten multi caches where the stages are accessed via an orienteering map provided in the cache description.

That's very simple, clear and not vague or subjective at all.

 

 

Good challenge: Complete your D/T matrix

 

Ah, good from your personal point of view. For me that's of no interest at all (apart from the fact that it would not be able to accomplish the goal even if I wanted) - too much subjectivity in setting D/T.

[+Team Microdot]

You're talking about your willingness - or lack of it - to invest the effort required to prove that you've fulfilled the logging requirements.

I fail to see how your effort - or lack of it - in this regard has any bearing whatsoever on the quality of the challenge.

Are you implying there's some kind objective way to measure "challenge quality"? Because I'm pretty sure that was ODragon's opinion of what he considers to be quality - personally.

 

No - of course not - I retract my previous statement - the way to tell if a challenge is a quality challenge is if it has a checker

 

Soon they will all have checkers - so they will all, of course, be quality challenges - regardless of the subjective personal opinion of anyone - you, me, even ODragon.

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

You can do your standard semantic tap-dancing, but the checker isn't the final arbiter...it's simply a tool for determining whether something conforms to a somewhat ambiguous requirement. That determination can be overridden by the cache owner (the final arbiter), and the checker's list can be modified to do a better job of determining future claims.

 

Pre-moratorium, Groundspeak appeals was the final arbiter of whether a challenge's requirement was too ambiguous for publication, and Groundspeak appeals was the final arbiter of whether a claimed find met the somewhat ambiguous challenge requirement.

 

In your Option 3's case, Groundspeak appeals is the final arbiter of whether a challenge's requirement is too ambiguous and whether the checker's initial word list is adequate for publication, and the cache owner is the final arbiter of whether a new word meets the somewhat ambiguous challenge requirement.

 

Your Option 3 takes away Groundspeak's final decision about whether a claimed find meets a somewhat ambiguous challenge requirement and gives that final authority to the cache owner. I hope Groundspeak is willing to cede that authority, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Edited April 26, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[cezanne]

 

Maybe a CCO who's gone to the effort of creating, or co-operating with someone else to create, a checker is more likely to put the effort into creating a good challenge cache; as opposed to someone who just thought up "find caches containing the names of any animal in any language" which requires no effort to setup.

 

Writing a checker that for example requires five loops of the D/T grid is trivial and such challenges are not creating any more effort in setting them up as the challenge which asks for animal names. The latter certainly is more time consuming to maintain for the cache owner.

 

While my enjoyment in caching does neither come from grid challenges nor from word challenges, I definitely would prefer reading logs for word challenges with an open ended list as it would be more interesting for me to see what people came up with instead of just seeing a link to the stats of someone which has no signifcance for me and nothing I can learn from it.

Edited April 26, 2016 by cezanne

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Writing a checker that for example requires five loops of the D/T grid is trivial ...

 

Oh and that's the only type of challenge cache which requires a checker is it? Thanks for enlightening me, as I thought there were some quite involved and creative challenges for which checkers have been created but I must be wrong.

[+ChileHead]

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.

 

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

 

Before a challenge can be submitted, the CO needs to create a checker, which forces them to think "How can I verify this?" This part is no different than before the moratorium ... they always had to be verifiable, but the cache owner wouldn't necessarily think through the entire process of how it would be verified.

 

Now they have to look at their requirements, what is accessible from within the framework that project-gc (or others in the future) provide.

 

This will remove the first set of interactions with the reviewer - by the time they submit, they have already worked through whether it's verifiable and how to verify, now they just have to make sure it meets whatever the other requirements are.

[cezanne]

 

Before a challenge can be submitted, the CO needs to create a checker, which forces them to think "How can I verify this?" This part is no different than before the moratorium ... they always had to be verifiable, but the cache owner wouldn't necessarily think through the entire process of how it would be verified.

 

Do you really think that the average CO can write a checker or even understand for what tasks a checker can be written?

 

The whole burden of the work to explain what cannot be done will be on project gc volunteers in such a scenario.

 

When taking into account what incredible listings get submitted as caches, you will realize how many cachers submit caches without the slightest idea of what the guidelines are about. Not even the simplest things are taken into account.

[cezanne]

 

Writing a checker that for example requires five loops of the D/T grid is trivial ...

 

Oh and that's the only type of challenge cache which requires a checker is it? Thanks for enlightening me, as I thought there were some quite involved and creative challenges for which checkers have been created but I must be wrong.

 

I used that example because pinkunicorn refered to D/T as good challenges when asked about the quality of challenges.

Of course there are involved challenges for which there exist checkers - among the Austrian challenge caches for which a checker exists, there is however not a single one that appeals to me.

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

 

Before a challenge can be submitted, the CO needs to create a checker, which forces them to think "How can I verify this?" This part is no different than before the moratorium ... they always had to be verifiable, but the cache owner wouldn't necessarily think through the entire process of how it would be verified.

 

Now they have to look at their requirements, what is accessible from within the framework that project-gc (or others in the future) provide.

 

This will remove the first set of interactions with the reviewer - by the time they submit, they have already worked through whether it's verifiable and how to verify, now they just have to make sure it meets whatever the other requirements are.

 

Thank you

 

What you describe fits my expectations exactly - that there's no point submitting a challenge cache to a geocaching reviewer unless it already has a checker - but that isn't the order that Palmetto's post says the sequence of events will occur in - hence the related point(s) I raised.

[+thebruce0]

Soon they will all have checkers - so they will all, of course, be quality challenges - regardless of the subjective personal opinion of anyone - you, me, even ODragon.

...No. No one said that.

 

You can do your standard semantic tap-dancing, but the checker isn't the final arbiter...it's simply a tool for determining whether something conforms to a somewhat ambiguous requirement. That determination can be overridden by the cache owner (the final arbiter), and the checker's list can be modified to do a better job of determining future claims.

That's....exactly what I just said. And you confirmed it. The checker is updated so as to be the final arbiter. If it weren't, then the CO could "override" the checker and leave the checker giving an incorrect judgement. In that case, the cache would be subject to archival. No, the checker is the final arbiter -- even though the CO can make changes to the challenge cache, the CO must update the checker so that it produces the valid result, lest the cache be subject to archival. The checker is the final arbiter in this context (amendable lists), it's just not an unchangeable arbiter (presumably, since that's what we all seem to favour, rather than the once-published-no-alteration-else-archival option which makes this entire strand of the discussion moot)

 

Pre-moratorium, Groundspeak appeals was the final arbiter of whether a challenge's requirement was too ambiguous for publication, and Groundspeak appeals was the final arbiter of whether a claimed find met the somewhat ambiguous challenge requirement.

Yes, because there was no objective checker, only how the CO described the challenge, which could produce disagreements with the finder's interpretation. So, appeals.

 

In your Option 3's case, Groundspeak appeals is the final arbiter of whether a challenge's requirement is too ambiguous and whether the checker's initial word list is adequate for publication, and the cache owner is the final arbiter of whether a new word meets the somewhat ambiguous challenge requirement.

No, option 3 is intended to cover a few issues if the finder doesn't qualify and contacts the CCO with a request for a new word:

If the CO doesn't reply, then as long as the challenge description and the checker are consistent, the finder doesn't have a case for an appeal - the checker is the final arbiter.

If the CO says "nope" to any word not already accepted, then as long as the challenge description and the checker are consistent, the finder doesn't have a case for an appeal - the checker is the final arbiter.

If the CO says "okay" to any word not already accepted, then the Find log can stand, and the CO must update the checker so that the user's result shows qualified - the checker is the final arbiter.

 

The checker in every case is the final arbiter. Else the cache is subject to archival.

 

Your Option 3 takes away Groundspeak's final decision about whether a claimed find meets a somewhat ambiguous challenge requirement and gives that final authority to the cache owner who must then update the checker to remain consistent. I hope Groundspeak is willing to cede that authority, but I wouldn't bet on it.

(emphasis added)

I think if they can point to the checker as the final authority instead of debate back and forth interpretations of a challenge description, they would certainly cede that authority. I think they'd rather just deal with complaints about challenges that are subject to archival, with objectively demonstrable evidence that a challenge and its checker are not consistent with each other, whether due to bugs or bad wording (which likely wouldn't have been published by the review publish in the first place) or problem-causing COs.

 

On another note...

Can we just skip any further discussion related to "quality of challenges"? That's a subject that is bound to go absolutely nowhere fast, as we know from the "wow factor" debacle. This isn't about our individual opinions of certain types of challenges, it's about what's viable and feasible or not given the new structure and capabilities. (sidenote: measurable popularity of a type of challenge isn't the same as challenge quality)

Edited April 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+CanadianRockies]

Challenges that don't have checkers tend to have vague and subjective conditions or lots of arbitrary and pointless extra conditions, and this tends to discourage checker writers.

 

Good challenge: Complete your D/T matrix

Bad challenge: Complete your D/T matrix using caches of at least five types, with only caches published before <random date>, and make all finds within a year.

 

It's perfectly possible to write checkers for both these (fictitious) challenges, but I wouldn't expect the second one to have one.

I would call the first challenge a "good" challenge and the second challenge an "even better" challenge. One person's "arbitrary and pointless extra conditions" is another person's "interesting and enjoyable hurdles."

 

Among a certain category of more adventurous geocachers, many eventually will complete the first challenge without even being consciously aware of its existence. [Yawn]

 

Even among the above category of geoachers, few will complete the second challenge unless they make a conscious decision to attempt it (and even then, many will fail). [Wow!]

Edited April 26, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Don't forget

- find 10 caches requiring hiking more than 20km

 

Thanks for officially clarifying that process, ChileHead.

Edited April 26, 2016 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Soon they will all have checkers - so they will all, of course, be quality challenges - regardless of the subjective personal opinion of anyone - you, me, even ODragon.

...No. No one said that.

 

No one said what?

[+Team Microdot]

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Don't forget

- find 10 caches requiring hiking more than 20km

 

Thanks for officially clarifying that process, ChileHead.

 

Has he officially clairified it?

 

Does that mean Palmetto had it wrong?

[+Team Microdot]

On another note...

Can we just skip any further discussion related to "quality of challenges"? That's a subject that is bound to go absolutely nowhere fast, as we know from the "wow factor" debacle. This isn't about our individual opinions of certain types of challenges, it's about what's viable and feasible or not given the new structure and capabilities. (sidenote: measurable popularity of a type of challenge isn't the same as challenge quality)

 

I would say that depends on whether or not the personal, subjective views of the checker writers will come into whether or not they write a checker for a particular challenge.

 

As I understand it, volunteer reviewers on geocaching.com are not permitted to review caches for quality - but will PGC checker writers be permitted to do so?

 

It's all well and good saying that a discussion on quality will go nowhere fast - but it starts to look as though personal judgements of quality might need to be taken into consideration - so I think it's a valid point for the discussion on that basis.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Team Microdot

[+dprovan]

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.

What did I say that made you think I didn't understand that?

[+ChileHead]

What you describe fits my expectations exactly - that there's no point submitting a challenge cache to a geocaching reviewer unless it already has a checker - but that isn't the order that Palmetto's post says the sequence of events will occur in - hence the related point(s) I raised.

 

I don't think order is important here. When you come up with a challenge concept, you now need to think about if a checker can be written for it. If not, then you don't bother writing up the challenge cache, and you don't submit it, so therefore there is reduced reviewer load.

[+CanadianRockies]

You can do your standard semantic tap-dancing, but the checker isn't the final arbiter...it's simply a tool for determining whether something conforms to a somewhat ambiguous requirement. That determination can be overridden by the cache owner (the final arbiter), and the checker's list can be modified to do a better job of determining future claims.

That's....exactly what I just said. And you confirmed it. The checker is updated so as to be the final arbiter. If it weren't, then the CO could "override" the checker and leave the checker giving an incorrect judgement. In that case, the cache would be subject to archival. No, the checker is the final arbiter -- even though the CO can make changes to the challenge cache, the CO must update the checker so that it produces the valid result, lest the cache be subject to archival. The checker is the final arbiter in this context (amendable lists), it's just not an unchangeable arbiter (presumably, since that's what we all seem to favour, rather than the once-published-no-alteration-else-archival option which makes this entire strand of the discussion moot)

You're focusing on the easy, non-contentious decisions. The checker decides if a cache title's word matches one of the words on the checker's list. That's a simple, non-contentious decision. The only problems that probably will arise are rare programming bugs or typos, and there will be very little disagreement about how to fix those few problems. If you want to call the checker the "final arbiter" of those non-contentious decisions, then I guess you can.

 

The key, contentious decisions concern whether a word that properly belongs on the checker's list is missing from that list. Does that word meet the challenge cache's somewhat ambiguous requirement? That's what generates disagreements between a challenge cache owner and a challenge cache finder. And the checker remains silent on these key decisions. (Updating the checker's list doesn't mean the checker is making the decision; updating the checker simply implements a decision that already has been made by someone else.)

 

Groundspeak appeals currently is the final arbiter regarding these key decisions. Under Option 3 of your proposal, the challenge cache owner will be the final arbiter regarding these key decisions. And if the challenge cache owner starts making arbitrary and capricious judgments on these key decisions (e.g., accepting "typewriter" but not accepting "pig"), then Groundspeak probably will hear about it from some denied challenge finders. Will Groundspeak want to correct these "unfair" situations or will they prefer to ignore them by explaining that the challenge cache owners are the final arbiters? I'm putting my money on the former, although I wouldn't object to the latter. ETA: Actually, I'm starting to have serious doubts about the latter.

 

Now, go ahead and resume your semantic tap-dance.

Edited April 27, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+ChileHead]

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.

What did I say that made you think I didn't understand that?

 

I'm sure I read the following incorrectly then:

As I understand it -- which is consistent with what you're saying -- "has project-gc checker = OK" will be one hard requirement

 

Has project-gc checker doesn't mean it's OK (because of the other TBD guidelines), but I think you meant "one" as "one of the requirements" not "the one requirement"

[+dprovan]

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.

Then you should respond to the person that proposed bending the rules to allow open ended lists, not to me.

 

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.

It's true I haven't been reading the stuff about how to write various checkers because my main point continues to be that requiring checkers is not a good idea regardless of what they can do. But I don't know how reading your position on that would change my amusement, since no matter how you slice it, the checker is not paying the slightest attention to the description.

 

Otherwise, appeals!

Appeals are not bad. We already deal with appeals. I cannot believe that appeals caused by a clearly expressed category requirement such as animal names are a significant burden on the system.

[+dprovan]

I'm sure I read the following incorrectly then:

As I understand it -- which is consistent with what you're saying -- "has project-gc checker = OK" will be one hard requirement

Has project-gc checker doesn't mean it's OK (because of the other TBD guidelines), but I think you meant "one" as "one of the requirements" not "the one requirement"

It is one requirement, but there are other additional requirements. I shouldn't have quoted your equality, since I see now you were using it as an equivalence, while I was thinking about it only as one line in a checklist.

Edited April 26, 2016 by dprovan

[+Harry Dolphin]

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.

 

As far as I can tell, PGC only has access to my data if I give it permission to look at my data. So, it could only calculated how many cachers who have given their permission to inspect their data would qualify?

[+dprovan]

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.

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.

[+Team Microdot]

What you describe fits my expectations exactly - that there's no point submitting a challenge cache to a geocaching reviewer unless it already has a checker - but that isn't the order that Palmetto's post says the sequence of events will occur in - hence the related point(s) I raised.

 

I don't think order is important here. When you come up with a challenge concept, you now need to think about if a checker can be written for it. If not, then you don't bother writing up the challenge cache, and you don't submit it, so therefore there is reduced reviewer load.

 

I'd say order is fundamentally important.

 

When I come up with a challenge concept, how should I think about if a checker can be written for it - given that I have no idea where to begin?

 

Should I contact a volunteer checker writer (or whatever we're calling them) and spend a lot of our time coming up with a checker only to discover that the reviewer rejects the cache on some other basis?

 

Or should I contact volunteer reviewer and spend their time only to later discover that a checker cannot be written?

 

Whose time is more important? Who has more time to work with me to enable my challenge cache ideas?

 

Or maybe I should take your advice and just not bother because I really don't want to waste anybody's time - including my own, if I'm honest. That seems to be what you think I should do.

[cezanne]

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.

 

As far as I can tell, PGC only has access to my data if I give it permission to look at my data. So, it could only calculated how many cachers who have given their permission to inspect their data would qualify?

 

No. You can do project-gc challenge checks also for those who have blocked their stat page on project gc and to do so you need no special powers. Everyone can do it.

BTW: Also if you block the stat page, the data base at project gc always will contain all caches and all cachers by design. GS has given project gc the permission to access the data.

Edited April 26, 2016 by cezanne

[+noncentric]

* 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')

If a word list checker is created using a 'tag', then any cacher can see the list of allowable words without relying on the CO to provide it to them. For example, go this this checker and click the 'Show' button next to "Tag config:". That will display the list of animals that that checker recognizes as valid for the challenge. As the PGC experts have mentioned in this thread several times, most of the checker creation for individual challenges will be based on 'tagging' existing scripts, rather than creating new scripts. Since it seems that checkers for future word challenges will likely be created by 'tagging', then the allowable words will likely be viewable by clicking on the 'Show' button I mentioned above. The CC finder doesn't need to wait for the CC CO to provide them with the list and, I hope, the entire list doesn't need to be included in the cache description. Of course, if PGC changes access to the "Tag Config: Show" button in the future, then what I've just written is moot. ETA: If someone more familiar with PGC finds that what I've written above is incorrect, then please mention the error.

 

One thing to consider if whether there is a limit to how many words can be included in the 'tag'. I seem to recall one of the PGC folks mentioning a limit in a prior post, but that was a few pages back and I don't recall what the limit was. Of course, if there's any 'limit' then by definition it's not 'open-ended'.

 

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.

I've been reading the comments about how people maintain lists in the head, mental lists. Actually, I think the way word challenges are processed by humans is a bit different than checking against a list. If someone tells me a word, then I don't take that word and compare it to a mental list of animals in my head. Instead, I take that word, think of what it represents, and then decide if what it represents is an animal or not. Maybe I do things differently, but I know I can't keep an open-ended list of animals in my head. This is really tangential to the challenge checker issue though.

Edited April 26, 2016 by noncentric

[+noncentric]

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.

Yes - this thread has been a great distraction while I nurse a foot injury that's kept me home on crutches.

[+Team Hugs]

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.

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.

 

That assumes that the submitter(s) accept the rejection of the challenge by the reviewer without complaint. From what I gather, there are at least some people in this sport who would complain ...

[+noncentric]

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.

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.

 

That assumes that the submitter(s) accept the rejection of the challenge by the reviewer without complaint. From what I gather, there are at least some people in this sport who would complain ...

Am I the only one that wonders what the 'complainers' think about the moratorium and the checker requirement? I mean, I'm pretty sure that those of us commenting in this thread were not the cachers causing all the hassle in the first place. I hope the 'complainers' recognize that all of this moratorium work was due to their actions and maybe they'll curb their whining in the future. But I'm sure that's unlikely and they'll probably continue to complain and be unreasonable and give the reviewers and appeals department grief. Sad.

 

ETA: Just to clarify, when I say 'complainers' in this post, then I'm referring to the cachers that caused all the hassle that led to the moratorium. I am not referring to any 'complaining' about the checker requirement or any 'complaining' that a moratorium was issued.

Edited April 27, 2016 by noncentric

[+noncentric]

I don't want to belabor the issue of whether specific challenges are 'quality' challenges or not, but just wanted to point out something about the existing challenge checkers. Many, and I'd wager most, of the challenge checkers that currently exist for pre-moratorium challenge caches were not created by the CO. When I look at checker requests, I often see that the requests have been made by challenge finders. Presumably because they want to log a find on a challenge, but they don't want to do the work required to prove their qualifications.

 

So, just because a checker exists for a pre-moratorium challenge, that doesn't mean the CO was involved in creating it.

 

Maybe a CCO who's gone to the effort of creating, or co-operating with someone else to create, a checker is more likely to put the effort into creating a good challenge cache; as opposed to someone who just thought up "find caches containing the names of any animal in any language" which requires no effort to setup.

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).

[+ChileHead]

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.

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.

 

That is rarely how it goes. It starts that way, and then turns into a lot of email back and forth. Often followed by appeals.

[Nomex]

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.

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.

 

That is rarely how it goes. It starts that way, and then turns into a lot of email back and forth. Often followed by appeals.

10 seconds assumes the only thing you are looking at is the Challenge portion of the Listing. Chances are, there are more issues besides the Challenge portion. I often had to refer to the Help Center article (and will probably do so in the future), just to make sure I wasn't missing something. As far as "stock answer's" go, if it's not a Proximity issue and a handful of common pitfalls, the vast majority of my notes are specifically crafted for each Listing. 10 seconds? Not even close

Edited April 27, 2016 by Nomex

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'll wait and see how the challenge checker works on Noah's Ark Challenge (find thirteen pairs of caches wit a animal's name in the title.)

Will the checker be able to find the 'hen' in:

Hell's Kitchen's Kitchen!

POPS - Stonehendge

If it cannot, then LUA must be a shockingly poor programming language. In most languages, it's actually harder to find "hen" as a complete word.

The problem with this sort of challenge is not finding a word in a name that's trivial a CanadianRockies says. The problem is that the "list" of possible animals is endless, what language is the animals names in? What constitutes an animal, do birds, insects etc count? Challenges that have open ended lists are IMPOSSIBLE to write a comprehensive checker for. You can write a checker that does a decent job but it's only ever going to be as good as the list the checker author puts on the cache.

 

Thus open list challenges will almost certainly not be allowed as they cannot have a verifiable checker. To fix this a CO would need to define a list of valid words.

 

Wow. That's sad. A fun and interesting would be disallowed because the list is open-ended. Sounds like programmer error to me.

The nearby challenge cache asks for thirteen cache names which would cause a phobia problem: Example: Uranophobia: Fear of Heaven for: Pamachapura: Stone From Heaven.

So some fun challenges would not be acceptable because the programmer is incapable of providing a checker? Wow!

NO NO NO NO NO! The programmer is PERFECTLY CAPABLE of writing the checker. You have completely and utterly failed to understand what I wrote.

 

CHECKING a list of words is trivial.

PROVIDING the list of words isn't trivial.

 

So as a CO if you provide a list of valid words that meet your challenge then the checker can easily be written. If the list is open ended and the CO cannot provide a list of valid words then the checker will be incomplete.

 

The best compromise here is that the CO provides a long list of valid words and the list gets added to as enterprising cachers come up with new ones the CO sees as valid. These new words are then added to the checker. This is extra work but is achievable. The key point is that as a CO for that sort of challenge you could not expect to just lie back and have everyone else do the work you would need to maintain a list of valid words. So the onus for those sorts of caches is entirely on the CO actively maintaining a list of valid words.

 

Sounds to me that the programmer is incapable of providing the checker. As someone said: human minds work differently than computers. The programmer is incapable of providing the required checker. "Sorry. That challenge will not be approved because our programmers are incapable of providing the required checker."

Sad.

Sorry what part of the checker can easily be written do you not understand???

 

The problem is NOT writing the checker!!

The problem is NOT writing the checker!!

The problem is NOT writing the checker!!

The problem is NOT writing the checker!!

 

Is that clearer perhaps??

 

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?

 

Well, if you're going to yell!

Yes. I comprehend. You are incapable of writing the checker.

Shall I yell back?

You are INCAPABLE OF WRITING THE CHECKER.

Is that clearer?

What do I not understand? That you are incapable of writing the checker! So, many interesting Challenge Caches will no longer be approved because you are incapable of writing the checker. Seems clear to me.

Doh!!!

 

The checker is ALREADY written. all that it needs is the list of valid words. This is a very very simple concept why are you struggling to understand?

 

I don't understand what you don't understand. You claim to have a checker that works. But it doesn't work. That seems fairly simple. So why do you claim that it does, when it doesn't?

Check my found cache list for the names of animals.

Sorry. Cannot do that. Need a list of acceptable words.

Doh!!! (Do people actually still use that word?) Then your checker does not work! Seems simple to me. I I do not understand why you keep claiming that you have a checker for this, when your checker fails abysmally.

What a complete failure! Yet you keep claiming you have a checker that works, when you do not.

[+ShopCrazy]

For that type of cache the checker is already written, but the challenge would be maintaining and adding to a list of acceptable words to work with the checker. It would just be the CO adding a word to the word list to allow the new word to be accepted by the checker.

Or you say you want caches with the following words.

The more open ended the challenge, in other words the "any animal name in the title" just means more work for the CO in deciding what names/ words are going to be accepted by the checker

[+dprovan]

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.

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.

That assumes that the submitter(s) accept the rejection of the challenge by the reviewer without complaint. From what I gather, there are at least some people in this sport who would complain ...

It assume that it will only take the person handling the appeal 20 seconds to handle it, too. Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?

[+noncentric]

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.

I would be concerned about having multiple checkers tagged for the same challenge. I agree that the only 'official' checker would be the one that the CO links in the cache description, but I'm sure there will be cases where cachers use outdated checkers and then claim they qualify for the challenge.

 

Also consider that many cachers won't know the distinction between pre-moratorium and post-moratorium CC's. A cacher may see that some CC's have links to PGC checkers, then they come across a CC that doesn't link to a checker. They don't realize the reason is that the CC is pre-moratorium. So, the cacher goes to PGC and searches for a checker based on GC code. They may use that checker and assume that the checker's determination is final. However, maybe that checker doesn't work, maybe it's an old copy (tags), maybe the CO wasn't involved in its creation. However, the new guidelines are written, it should make clear that PGC checkers are not the 'bright line test' for Challenge Caches created before 2016.

 

An interesting question, though, is how multiple checkers work with the automatic checkers. For paying users of Project-GC, all challenge checkers are run regularly. This is done so that all maps can display a red X or a green checkbox in the corner of the challenge icon on all maps so that you see easily which challenges you are allowed to log. I'm not sure how this works if there are multiple checkers for the same challenge (which is perfectly possible) but they report different results.

This is a good point and I think it's another valid reason to avoid having multiple checkers tagged to the same CC. If there are 3 checkers for a single CC, then that will waste resources for the automatic checking that cachers get with their PGC membership. If 1 checker says the cacher qualifies, but the other 2 checkers say the cacher doesn't qualify, then what will the map display?

 

IMO, having duplicate checkers are not a good idea. I can't think of a valid reason to have multiple checkers for the same challenge cache. When I say duplicate, I'm referring to multiple checkers with the same GCxxxxx in the name of the checker. If GCxxxxx is associated to a checker in some other way besides 'tagging', then maybe I'm not using the correct terminology, but hopefully what I'm trying to communicate is still getting across.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but there probably needs to be some way for checkers/tags to be 'deleted'. Maybe allow CC CO's to request that checkers be deleted for their CC's? Someone on the PGC side would need to be able to delete. Maybe the 'power' to delete a checker would be restricted to the tagger of that checker or an Admin, in case the tagger is unresponsive.

[+Lil Devil]

Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?

ROFL! The fact that this thread has reached 11 pages should be evidence that it's a lot.

 

Seriously, you'd be surprised how often cache owners ignore the guidelines and say "But it's a great cache. Can you make an exception?"

[Nomex]

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.

Requiring a checker will be the first barrier to having challenges submitted like:

- find 20 caches with a child

- find 10 caches with your dog

- find 1000 caches that are part of geoart

- find 200 caches in cemeteries

- find 10 library caches

- find 50 caches between 6am and noon

Since it would take a reviewer 10 seconds to identify this problem, and 10 more seconds to send his stock answer, there'd have to be a lot of these submitted for it to be a big part of the burden problem.

That assumes that the submitter(s) accept the rejection of the challenge by the reviewer without complaint. From what I gather, there are at least some people in this sport who would complain ...

It assume that it will only take the person handling the appeal 20 seconds to handle it, too. Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?

I don't know how fast you can type a response, but 20 seconds? I just checked, and I can average about 50 words per minute. So tell me, would you be satisfied with a 20 second response from Appeals, amounting to about 15-20 words in length? Just a wild guess, but I think most people would consider that rather abrupt, if not downright rude. Of course, if everyone was as congenial as you, and just accepted a two letter response of "NO", then it would go much faster.

[+Gill & Tony]

My understanding is that there is a single checker which handles "word list" challenges and that this checker takes parameters for the number of caches required, whether or not the word can be embedded in another word or must be stand-alone; whether each word can be used more than once for the challenge and the list of acceptable words. So, if there are several "animal name" challenges, the only thing which would change would be the parameters.

 

Would it make sense to have a single "Animal Name" list maintained centrally rather than each CO providing their own list? Obviously, someone would have to provide the initial list, but I'm sure that there are many lists already within the PGC system. There could be several lists "Animal names in English", "Animal names in French" etc. plus "Insect names" "Mammal names" "Australian Animals", "African wildlife". This could also encompass "Christmas words", "parts of the body" or any other list of words one could imagine. The CO would then simply select the "Generic word list checker", the "Animal Names in English" list, 25 caches, embedded words allowed but only one cache per word".

 

If someone tries to qualify for the challenge and finds an apparently allowable word is missing (s)he would submit the request through the normal PGC request mechanism and all challenges using that list would be updated.

[+pinkunicorn]

[it assume that it will only take the person handling the appeal 20 seconds to handle it, too. Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?

 

Have you ever worked any kind of customer support? People would appeal the laws of nature if they only know where to send the complaint to.

[+pinkunicorn]

As I understand it, volunteer reviewers on geocaching.com are not permitted to review caches for quality - but will PGC checker writers be permitted to do so?

 

There's a fundamental difference here between "volunteer reviewers" and "volunteer checker writers". Reviewers are "employed" by Groundspeak to do a specific task. It's not a paying job but they do have specific tasks and process requests at least more or less in order. In comparison, there is nothing like that for checker writers. Each checker writer may look at requests for new checkers, or they may not. A checker writer may simply get checker-writing privileges for writing a checker for a personal challenge and then never creating another checker. If your challenge looks convoluted or the checker writer doesn't have time right then, no checker is likely to get done. There is no expectation of things being processed in any special order, or even of any specific request even getting a response. Consider the checker writers you see in the PGC forum the same as the guy you meet at an event. He's probably happy to help you answer questions, but it's not his job to answer any and all of your questions.

[+lodgebarn]

My understanding is that there is a single checker which handles "word list" challenges and that this checker takes parameters for the number of caches required, whether or not the word can be embedded in another word or must be stand-alone; whether each word can be used more than once for the challenge and the list of acceptable words. So, if there are several "animal name" challenges, the only thing which would change would be the parameters.

 

Would it make sense to have a single "Animal Name" list maintained centrally rather than each CO providing their own list? Obviously, someone would have to provide the initial list, but I'm sure that there are many lists already within the PGC system. There could be several lists "Animal names in English", "Animal names in French" etc. plus "Insect names" "Mammal names" "Australian Animals", "African wildlife". This could also encompass "Christmas words", "parts of the body" or any other list of words one could imagine. The CO would then simply select the "Generic word list checker", the "Animal Names in English" list, 25 caches, embedded words allowed but only one cache per word".

 

If someone tries to qualify for the challenge and finds an apparently allowable word is missing (s)he would submit the request through the normal PGC request mechanism and all challenges using that list would be updated.

What a lot of faffing about for something simple.