Jump to content

Moratorium update


Recommended Posts

What worries me a little is attributes might be abused so that others can qualify for challenges. I'm already seeing caches with lots on non-relevant attributes. The only reason I can think that people are doing this is for challenge caches. Filtering attributes in PQs may become a lot less useful.

But then again, no matter what Groundspeak comes up with, cachers will figure out ways to abuse the system for numbers. It's just the nature of the numbers beast.

 

The more ridiculous a challenge, the more likely somebody is going to come up with a cache that fulfills somebody's need for some obscure combination of cache-name/attribute/diff/terrain/whatever.

 

A challenge's primary purpose should be to set a goal that a cacher aspires to meet, not to provide power for an over controlling cache owner to yield over another.

I do giggle a bit when I see a geocache titled something like $ Parallelogram Wombat Purple Baltic Avenue 3 Z Cemetery Ü Professor Plum.

Link to comment

In the original announcement it was said

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

Okay, the checkers help with the first part, but how is that enforced? It seemed the big problem was the appeals to get them listed. How does the checker help with that problem? The only answer seems to be that if a checker does not exist no listing. So basically the Groundspeak problem will now become a project-gc problem. It's getting to the point that without third party apps, third party software and third party sites you can't use the site anymore.

You'd rather not have new challenge caches at all? 'Cause that option was considered (but obviously, rejected). Then you would not have needed to worry about Project-GC challenge checkers.

Link to comment

Ok, for a change of tone in this thread ---

 

I just played with the challenge checker tools over on project-gc, and I am really impressed.

Many! of the challenges in my area already have checkers assigned to them.

I can view my area (by county) on a map, and see what challenges exist, if they have a checker, which I qualify for and which I dont, and which I have already found.

That is really awesome!

 

I already found 2 nearby challenges that I qualify for and was not even aware of the challenge, nor that I qualified.

 

I do love their ability to map the challenge caches in an area and immediately tell what I qualify for if there is already a checker

 

You can?

 

Oh boy - this might well usher in a new era of challenge cache finds for me...

 

I'll just sign and bookmark any challenge cache I pass by and periodically check and log any I happen to qualify for - all without ever caring about the requirements or meeting them - cool!

Link to comment

That will make the review process much easier and demonstrable, and will make proving to the cache owner that you completed it much easier. The example of night caches ... how else can you determine it's really a night cache other than by an attribute? How does the CO decide it qualifies? The attribute makes it a lot clearer.

 

The CO might e.g. know a cache and know that it is not a night cache and just has wrong attributes.

I know for example a cache that has the Chirp attribute as an attempt of the CO to be funny. Scuba or snowmobile attributes are also often used to make fun or to mark powertrails.

 

Moreover, many of the existing attributes are not clearly defined (which did not matter that much until now) and for many aspects there are no attributes.

 

For the example of long distance multi caches the information typically can be found somewhere in the cache text, but that's nothing that can be used by computers as an it could be anywhere and not every statement with km in it will reflect the cache length.

 

Is it a perfect solution? No.

Is it a solution that GS has determined to be sufficient to allow new challenge caches to be published? Apparently so.

 

So there may be some types of challenge caches for which an automated checker can not be easily implemented. There are likely more than a few people out there that would like to be able to create new challenge caches for which either a checker already exist or can be easily be implemented.

 

Should we wait for a perfect solution (that's never going to happen) before lifting the moratorium or should we see what GS is going to do so that some can start publish new challenges?

 

 

 

Link to comment

Should we wait for a perfect solution (that's never going to happen) before lifting the moratorium or should we see what GS is going to do so that some can start publish new challenges?

 

From an egoist point of view: I cannot think of a single challenge cache that can be published under the new rule and at the same time is interesting/attractive to me.

So I'd rather see no new challenge caches than only challenge caches I do not like.

Link to comment

Should we wait for a perfect solution (that's never going to happen) before lifting the moratorium or should we see what GS is going to do so that some can start publish new challenges?

I am not sure how to make Project-GC checkers for the two unchallenge caches I am waiting to republish as challenges. So this idea that something is better than nothing doesn't seem to be very attractive. Plus, we are still waiting and its been over a year. We have no idea when they are finally going to open them back up.

 

Maybe I will just have to be content publishing unchallenges I guess. And they are still doable.

 

http://coord.info/GC61AYB

 

If you want to publish a challenge to find challenge caches, just be sure the Project-GC checker will still report unchallenge as a challenge and you will be good to go.

Link to comment

I think that the proposal is an excellent compromise. No, it does not preserve every challenge type that I like (e.g. "lonely cache" challenges) but it is an automated way of removing the nonsensical challenges.

 

For me, getting clever on writing a checker may turn out to be a lot of fun. What kinds of challenges can I design that are both interesting and verifiable? Sounds like a good challenge!

Link to comment

So I wanted to start looking into how to get my historical place challenges checked by Project-GC. I was going to search and see where I could find someone to develop my checkers required. I found this FAQ and basically Project-GC is now pretty much on a moratorium themselves until Groundspeak finally figures out what it is going to do. Please go read this FAQ. It is very informative.

 

http://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#3082063764

Link to comment

but it is an automated way of removing the nonsensical challenges.

 

I disagree. For example, I regard a challenge which asks for a certain number of trackable logs (that of course includes discovery logs that can be made from home)

as nonsensical while I do not regard finding 10 hiking multi caches each with a length of at least 20km nonsensical.

 

For me, getting clever on writing a checker may turn out to be a lot of fun. What kinds of challenges can I design that are both interesting and verifiable? Sounds like a good challenge!

 

The real issue is not that cleverness in writing checkers might be needed but the restrictedness of the available data. A checker for 10 hiking multi caches with length at least 20km would be trivial to write if the data field length or an attribute >20km (and other comparable attributes for other lengths) existed but they don't exist.

Lonely caches should be possible to check, I guess, but I might be wrong.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I do love their ability to map the challenge caches in an area and immediately tell what I qualify for if there is already a checker

...if you pay for a Project-GC membership.

While it's true that the challenge checker map and "do I qualify?" checkmark are features for paying members of Project-GC, I wanted to add that using an individual challenge checker is not restricted to Project-GC paid members (or, for that matter, for Geocaching.com Premium Members). Someone who isn't a Project-GC member can run up to ten challenge checkers per day.

Link to comment

So I wanted to start looking into how to get my historical place challenges checked by Project-GC. I was going to search and see where I could find someone to develop my checkers required. I found this FAQ and basically Project-GC is now pretty much on a moratorium themselves until Groundspeak finally figures out what it is going to do. Please go read this FAQ. It is very informative.

 

http://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#3082063764

 

I think that only means a couple weeks until geocaching makes the rest of the announcement.

Link to comment

I do love their ability to map the challenge caches in an area and immediately tell what I qualify for if there is already a checker

...if you pay for a Project-GC membership.

While it's true that the challenge checker map and "do I qualify?" checkmark are features for paying members of Project-GC, I wanted to add that using an individual challenge checker is not restricted to Project-GC paid members (or, for that matter, for Geocaching.com Premium Members). Someone who isn't a Project-GC member can run up to ten challenge checkers per day.

 

I happened to have a month of membership from a recent promotion, so I didn't realize that this was a paid member perk.

However, I liked the functionality so much, I went and shelled out for an extension because they are running a 'sale' of sorts right now.

I was impressed with what was already in place.

Link to comment

For example, there is a challenge cache in Germany that requires a total length of at least 300km obtained with 20 multi caches. As gc.com does unfortunately not offer a field for

the distance covered and there is only the very rough attribute >10km, such ideas cannot be implemented any longer.

 

I'm surprised that was published in the first place, since the CO has no way to verify the numbers.

Edited by Prime Suspect
Link to comment

For example, there is a challenge cache in Germany that requires a total length of at least 300km obtained with 20 multi caches. As gc.com does unfortunately not offer a field for

the distance covered and there is only the very rough attribute >10km, such ideas cannot be implemented any longer.

 

I'm surprised that was published in the first place, since the CO has no way to verify the numbers.

 

It's much less uncommon that the information on the length provided in a cache description is completely wrong than it happens that attributes are incorrect.

Hardly anyone would write "The cache involves a walk of 35 km" when it involves only 2km.

Link to comment

I do love their ability to map the challenge caches in an area and immediately tell what I qualify for if there is already a checker

...if you pay for a Project-GC membership.

While it's true that the challenge checker map and "do I qualify?" checkmark are features for paying members of Project-GC, I wanted to add that using an individual challenge checker is not restricted to Project-GC paid members (or, for that matter, for Geocaching.com Premium Members). Someone who isn't a Project-GC member can run up to ten challenge checkers per day.

It seems to me that by being allowed to use only the project-gc website, geocachers will either be forced to pay for the service or become limited in their ability to go geocaching by being limited in their ability to verify qualifiers. Don't both of these concepts (pay to use/access information and be restricted in searching for caches) go firmly against policies that Groundspeak argue against? Is this to become an additional revenue generating source for Groundspeak? Will premium accounts be now allowed premium access to statistics on project-gc without additional fees?

Link to comment

Someone who isn't a Project-GC member can run up to ten challenge checkers per day.

Yikes, that's something that they should certainly have in their FAQ, but there's no sign of it. I had to go looking at the membership benefits after you pointed this out to find a mention of this restriction.

 

I could see that being a problem. Maybe they'll lift or loosen that restriction now that everyone will need to be using the checkers?

Link to comment

As has already been mentioned more than once - there are checkers in existence which don't work as intended and thus are useless for the purpose of demonstrating qualification...

 

But if I had an idea for a challenge cache for which no checker existed but I was real, real desperate to have it published I might write a checker which was botched - unintentionally or intentionally... just so long as I get my new challenge cache published, who cares if the checker works or not?

 

No doubt there will be excellent quality control and dispute resolution functions in place to stop me doing this?

Link to comment

I am not sure how to make Project-GC checkers for the two unchallenge caches I am waiting to republish as challenges.

 

You might be able to brute force it by creating a separate bookmark list for every area in which a cacher is required to find a cache to log the challenge. I bet you can set up the checker to determine whether a cacher has found a cache within all of those lists.

Link to comment

So I wanted to start looking into how to get my historical place challenges checked by Project-GC. I was going to search and see where I could find someone to develop my checkers required. I found this FAQ and basically Project-GC is now pretty much on a moratorium themselves until Groundspeak finally figures out what it is going to do. Please go read this FAQ. It is very informative.

 

http://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#3082063764

No you are misunderstanding. I am a challenge checker author. If you go to the project GC forum http://project-gc.com/qa/ you can request a checker be written for your cache challenge and one of the team will aim to do this. Typically this is done within 24-48 hours of the request unless the challenge is impossibly difficult.

Link to comment

I am not sure how to make Project-GC checkers for the two unchallenge caches I am waiting to republish as challenges.

 

You might be able to brute force it by creating a separate bookmark list for every area in which a cacher is required to find a cache to log the challenge. I bet you can set up the checker to determine whether a cacher has found a cache within all of those lists.

Not that I know how to program it, but the algorithm is straight forward. Iterate over a list of objects (point, line, polygon). Select list of found caches within X distance from the object. Each select must return at least one cache.

Link to comment

I'm a project GC challenge checker author and have a query for Groundspeak moderator. Do I correctly assume that new challenges will require the CO to have. A checker on the page before a reviewer will publish it? I assume this is the case as it makes it nice and simple for the reviewer. Does it have a checker yes check other things and publish, no reject.

 

One thing that seems to have been missed in the thought process is that ALL checkers at project GC are written then tagged against a cache. This tagging process creates a unique checker ID that is used to validate the checker against that particular cache. This also allows checkers to be reused for similar challenges without having to re-write the code.

 

However there is a catch 22 with your proposal as it currently stands. Assuming I am correct about the review process I outlined above a reviewer will need to have a checker tagged against the cache (so that it has a checker link on the page) before they allow the cache to be published. HOWEVER as a challenge checker author I CANNOT tag a cache if the cache isn't published as it doesn't then appear in the list of published caches.

 

So at present project GC authors cannot tag a checker against a cache until it's published but reviewers cannot publish until a checker is tagged!!!

 

This will require revisiting the API which is LONG LONG overdue and at least allowing the cache ID and name to be available so that the cache can be tagged with a checker. In order to verify the checker works we would also need to see the description text to check the requirements. There will also need to be some form of more detailed CO request system so that COs can provide details of their as yet unpublished challenges that require checkers so that challenge checker authors can work through any such list.

 

Perhaps the API could tag unpublished challenge caches awaiting checkers. Eg some option that the CO does in the cache editing page once they are ready to submit they perhaps tick a box to request checker and that then provides the basic name, GC code and description (but crucially NOT the cache coordinates to prevent abuse). Project Gc would then be able to pick up on this so they could tag the caches with a checker and send back via the API the checker URL for the CO to use.

Link to comment
Also, considering that PGC doesn't 'read' Lab Caches, then challenges based on 'Milestones' will not align between geocaching.com and PGC. So, it looks like challenge ideas that are now 'eliminated' will be: challenges based on Milestones, challenges based on text names (animal names, food names, etc), challenges based on distance or elevation gained (usually proven by noting start/end points in qualifying logs), challenges like the cemetary challenge, what else?

Personally, I'm pretty excited about those limitations. And from what I remember, weren't Lab Caches already excluded from challenges?

I was not referring to challenges that require X Lab Cache finds, but instead fairly straightforward challenges like:

-- Have at least 1 find for each of 10+ different cache types. This is very easy to confirm by looking at geocaching.com profile statistics. And since Lab Cache is a 'cache type' then having a find in this line of your profile would count as one of the 10.

-- Have at least 6 different cache icons as Milestones. This is also very easy to confirm by looking at the Milestones tab on your geocaching.com profile. Since Lab Caches have a different icon, then having a lab cache as a milestone would count as one of the 6. Looking at a cacher's profile, if they have any Lab Cache finds, will show a difference between their "Milestones" on their geocaching.com profile compared to their PGC profile. It's not a huge issue, but it does present a disconnect that may or may not have been considered.

 

The Lab Cache discrepancy can also affect the numerous 'fill find date calendar' challenges. Calendars on the geocaching.com profile page will have a date filled in for Lab Cache finds, but if the cacher didn't find another cache type that day then their PGC calendar will not have that date filled in. If people have several Lab Cache finds and they want to fill their calendar, then they'd have to check their calendar on PGC because they can't determine from geocaching.com's calendar which days 'count'. I suppose a possible solution is to enable self-reporting of Lab Caches on PGC, similar to how Lab Caches can be self-reported on mygeocachingprofile.com

Link to comment

Lab Caches also affect streaks. On Project-GC my longest streak is around 100 days, but on Geocaching,com my streak is over 200 days. I had a couple of days where I just got a lab cache. At least on MyGeocachingProfile,com you can enter the lab caches and it can adjust some of the information.

Link to comment

So I wanted to start looking into how to get my historical place challenges checked by Project-GC. I was going to search and see where I could find someone to develop my checkers required. I found this FAQ and basically Project-GC is now pretty much on a moratorium themselves until Groundspeak finally figures out what it is going to do. Please go read this FAQ. It is very informative.

 

http://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#3082063764

Yep - That is the Project-GC FAQ that was linked in Rock Chalk's original post and in the Moratorium update announcement.

Link to comment

So I wanted to start looking into how to get my historical place challenges checked by Project-GC. I was going to search and see where I could find someone to develop my checkers required. I found this FAQ and basically Project-GC is now pretty much on a moratorium themselves until Groundspeak finally figures out what it is going to do. Please go read this FAQ. It is very informative.

 

http://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#3082063764

No you are misunderstanding. I am a challenge checker author. If you go to the project GC forum http://project-gc.com/qa/ you can request a checker be written for your cache challenge and one of the team will aim to do this. Typically this is done within 24-48 hours of the request unless the challenge is impossibly difficult.

The FAQ says we have to wait. Maybe I misunderstood as we have to wait for any new challenges. I just submitted a question with four challenges. Hopefully I will get some help! Thank you!

Link to comment

On the plus side, maybe it will get cache owners to revisit their attributes.

 

It will certainly get cachers bugging owners to revisit their attributes.

 

I think Challenge caches are a total waste of time. For that reason I have not really commented on the issue. Not my problem. Please leave innocent cache owners out of this debate, and do not suggest that we should customize attribute selection for Challenge cache checking. My GPS does not display attribute information, so attributes are also a non issue for me.

Link to comment

On the plus side, maybe it will get cache owners to revisit their attributes.

 

It will certainly get cachers bugging owners to revisit their attributes.

 

I think Challenge caches are a total waste of time. For that reason I have not really commented on the issue. Not my problem. Please leave innocent cache owners out of this debate, and do not suggest that we should customize attribute selection for Challenge cache checking. My GPS does not display attribute information, so attributes are also a non issue for me.

With the previous Challenge Caches, cache owners that did not care about Challenge Caches could just ignore them. No harm, no foul.

With the 'challenge checker required' change to Challenge Caches, those CO's that were previously ambivalent about CC's may become irritated by them when cachers start bugging them to alter their caches' attributes, creating a new group of anti-CC cachers. Hhmmm. Unintended consequences?

 

Of course, we still haven't seen the full suite of changes to Challenge Caches.

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

As has already been mentioned more than once - there are checkers in existence which don't work as intended and thus are useless for the purpose of demonstrating qualification...

 

But if I had an idea for a challenge cache for which no checker existed but I was real, real desperate to have it published I might write a checker which was botched - unintentionally or intentionally... just so long as I get my new challenge cache published, who cares if the checker works or not?

 

No doubt there will be excellent quality control and dispute resolution functions in place to stop me doing this?

Yes - it will be interesting to see how well the checker requirement works and whether PGC will change this statement that's currently on the Challenge Checker page: Not all checkers are 100% accurate and most are probably not created by the author of the challenge itself. You therefore have to make sure that the result actually is correct before you log the challenge caches as found.

 

There are plenty of challenge checkers that don't function correctly. I can see this resulting in more appeals in such instances:

-- A challenge checker erroneously shows that someone qualifies for a challenge, but the CO looks through their find history and sees that they actually did not qualify. Can the CO delete the 'Found It' log? If a CO deletes such a find, then will Groundspeak uphold that deletion on appeal?

-- A challenge checker erroneously shows that a cacher does not qualify for a challenge, but the cacher logs a 'Found It' and lists their finds that show they actually do qualify. Can the CO delete the 'Found It' log? If a CO deletes such a find, then will Groundspeak uphold that deletion on appeal?

 

Let's keep in mind that, in most cases, the challenge checker writer will not be the CO. Who then becomes the owner of the 'challenge' when the checker is such an integral part of whether a "found it" can be logged on that CC or not.

 

I think having Challenge Checkers is great and can be very useful, but relying on them and having them as a requirement is not a good idea, IMO.

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

So I wanted to start looking into how to get my historical place challenges checked by Project-GC. I was going to search and see where I could find someone to develop my checkers required. I found this FAQ and basically Project-GC is now pretty much on a moratorium themselves until Groundspeak finally figures out what it is going to do. Please go read this FAQ. It is very informative.

 

http://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#3082063764

No you are misunderstanding. I am a challenge checker author. If you go to the project GC forum http://project-gc.com/qa/ you can request a checker be written for your cache challenge and one of the team will aim to do this. Typically this is done within 24-48 hours of the request unless the challenge is impossibly difficult.

The FAQ says we have to wait. Maybe I misunderstood as we have to wait for any new challenges. I just submitted a question with four challenges. Hopefully I will get some help! Thank you!

I meant if you have the details of what the challenges are we can write/tag checkers for them now so they are good to go day one.

Link to comment

Challenges alreayd had to be qualifiable to be published. If it's quantifiable, a checker can do it automatically, once programmed to do so.

This is incorrect. Challenge caches already had to be "verifiable" -- not "qualifiable/quantifiable." And just because something can be verified by a human doesn't mean that it can be verified by a Project GC checker.

Link to comment

As has already been mentioned more than once - there are checkers in existence which don't work as intended and thus are useless for the purpose of demonstrating qualification...

 

But if I had an idea for a challenge cache for which no checker existed but I was real, real desperate to have it published I might write a checker which was botched - unintentionally or intentionally... just so long as I get my new challenge cache published, who cares if the checker works or not?

 

No doubt there will be excellent quality control and dispute resolution functions in place to stop me doing this?

Yes - it will be interesting to see how well the checker requirement works and whether PGC will change this statement that's currently on the Challenge Checker page: Not all checkers are 100% accurate and most are probably not created by the author of the challenge itself. You therefore have to make sure that the result actually is correct before you log the challenge caches as found.

 

There are plenty of challenge checkers that don't function correctly. I can see this resulting in more appeals in such instances:

-- A challenge checker erroneously shows that someone qualifies for a challenge, but the CO looks through their find history and sees that they did not qualify. Can the CO delete the 'Found It' log? If a CO deletes such a find, then will Groundspeak uphold that deletion on appeal?

-- A challenge checker shows that a cacher does not qualify for a challenge, but the cacher logs a 'Found It' and lists their finds to show they do qualify. Can the CO delete the 'Found It' log? If a CO deletes such a find, then will Groundspeak uphold that deletion on appeal?

 

Let's keep in mind that, in most cases, the challenge checker writer will not be the CO. Who then becomes the owner of the 'challenge' when the checker is such an integral part of whether a "found it" can be logged on that CC or not.

 

I think having Challenge Checkers is great and can be very useful, but relying on them and having them as a requirement is not a good idea, IMO.

 

So now I can't publish a challenge cache unless I learn to code Lua or manage to find an existing coder who is willing to write a checker for me - and I have to be able to trust that the coder has properly understood the nature of my challenge and has correctly translated that in the associated code so that the checker functions correctly. In fact as things stand the option to code myself doesn't exist as there's a moratorium on new coders joining...

 

So now I'm reliant on a volunteer coder who I've never met being the arbiter of whether my challenge cache can be published or not...

 

How long before coders offer their services to the highest bidder?

Link to comment

I would just hate to have to keep bugging CO's with messages like "can you please add this attribute" or conversely "can you please remove this attribute"

 

I guess in many cases such requests will not help at all anyway. On the contrary the new system also provides a nice way for cache owners of certain cache types to opt out so that their caches are not useful for qualifying for certain challenges they do not appreciate.

 

How would a CO who doesn't want their cache used to qualify for a challenge, opt out?

Link to comment

I don't even know what Project GC is. I suspect there are a lot of cachers who don't, either.

Will there just be a link (like Geochecker) on the challenge cache page that allows a cacher to see if they qualify?

 

We love challenge caches, but aren't all that tech savvy. If we have to learn a new program to log challenge caches, it will be hard for us.

Link to comment

I don't even know what Project GC is. I suspect there are a lot of cachers who don't, either.

Will there just be a link (like Geochecker) on the challenge cache page that allows a cacher to see if they qualify?

I'm assuming that each new challenge cache will require having a link to the requisite challenge checker.

 

We love challenge caches, but aren't all that tech savvy. If we have to learn a new program to log challenge caches, it will be hard for us.

Using a challenge checker is, currently, very easy. Assuming the challenge checker is linked, then you'll just have to click a button on the linked page to run the checker and have it tell you whether or not you've qualified for the challenge.

Here's an example of a challenge checker for a challenge you've found before: click here.

Link to comment

So now I'm reliant on a volunteer coder who I've never met being the arbiter of whether my challenge cache can be published or not...

 

How long before coders offer their services to the highest bidder?

 

You're already relying on volunteer reviewers (whom you may have never met) who are the arbiters of whether your cache (challenge or not) can be published or not.

 

In the case of Earthcaches, you're also relying on a whole other set of volunteer reviewers who are the arbiters of whether your Earthcache can be published or not.

 

Somehow, relying on volunteers seems to work out pretty well, most of the time.

 

How would a CO who doesn't want their cache used to qualify for a challenge, opt out?

 

If the challenge checker requires that certain attributes be set on the cache, then a CO who chooses not to set those attributes effectively opts out of that challenge.

 

No, such an "opt out" isn't universal for all challenges.

 

Will there just be a link (like Geochecker) on the challenge cache page that allows a cacher to see if they qualify?

 

On some existing challenge caches, I've seen links to the appropriate ProjectGC checker. Once it's set up, it's actually simpler than using geochecking services.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure that having a challenge checker will not be the only requirement to getting a challenge cache published. At least, I hope it's not the only requirement. There are plenty of challenges where a checker could be created, but that several cachers have objected to. If having a checker is the only standard of whether a challenge cache can be submitted or not, then I'd be sorely disappointed.

For example, it would be relatively easy to create a checker for something like "find 26 caches where the first letter of the cache name matches the first letter of the cache owner, A-Z" or "find caches in 5 different countries on the same day". It would also be easy to create checkers and challenge caches for "find 20 caches in a day", "find 30 caches in a day", "find 40 caches in a day", etc. Would having a trail of such challenge caches be good for the game, just because checkers can be created for them?

 

So now I'm reliant on a volunteer coder who I've never met being the arbiter of whether my challenge cache can be published or not...

 

How long before coders offer their services to the highest bidder?

 

You're already relying on volunteer reviewers (whom you may have never met) who are the arbiters of whether your cache (challenge or not) can be published or not.

 

In the case of Earthcaches, you're also relying on a whole other set of volunteer reviewers who are the arbiters of whether your Earthcache can be published or not.

 

Somehow, relying on volunteers seems to work out pretty well, most of the time.

I think it's different to compare the Reviewers' roles with the Checker Writers' roles.

-- Once a Reviewer publishes a cache, then the CO becomes responsible for regulating finds on the cache.

-- Once a Checker Writer creates a checker for a challenge cache, then that Checker Writer would need to be involved in debugging any issues with that challenge checker. The CO has to rely on the Checker Writer to regulate finds on the cache. There are plenty of checkers currently on PGC that do not work correctly. The CC CO will remain reliant on the Checker Writer for as long as the CC is active.

Link to comment

On the plus side, maybe it will get cache owners to revisit their attributes.

 

It will certainly get cachers bugging owners to revisit their attributes.

 

I think Challenge caches are a total waste of time. For that reason I have not really commented on the issue. Not my problem. Please leave innocent cache owners out of this debate, and do not suggest that we should customize attribute selection for Challenge cache checking. My GPS does not display attribute information, so attributes are also a non issue for me.

 

I don't think cache owners should feel obligated to do anything to appease challenge cache nonsense. Cache owners should aim to add useful attributes to their caches for the benefit of finders.

 

Unfortunately, cache owners likely will face some nuisance requests over attributes if they become more crucial to challenge caches. Pointing this out is not the same as willing it to happen.

 

As for innocent cache owners joining the debate, I don't recall inviting or forcing anyone to visit the forum or the thread. It appears your participation in the, uh, "debate" is voluntary.

Link to comment

I would just hate to have to keep bugging CO's with messages like "can you please add this attribute" or conversely "can you please remove this attribute"

 

I guess in many cases such requests will not help at all anyway. On the contrary the new system also provides a nice way for cache owners of certain cache types to opt out so that their caches are not useful for qualifying for certain challenges they do not appreciate.

 

How would a CO who doesn't want their cache used to qualify for a challenge, opt out?

 

It would be great if there was a "no challenge" attribute that removed a cache from being counted.

Link to comment

I would just hate to have to keep bugging CO's with messages like "can you please add this attribute" or conversely "can you please remove this attribute"

 

I guess in many cases such requests will not help at all anyway. On the contrary the new system also provides a nice way for cache owners of certain cache types to opt out so that their caches are not useful for qualifying for certain challenges they do not appreciate.

 

How would a CO who doesn't want their cache used to qualify for a challenge, opt out?

 

They archive their cache.

Link to comment

So now I'm reliant on a volunteer coder who I've never met being the arbiter of whether my challenge cache can be published or not...

 

How long before coders offer their services to the highest bidder?

 

You're already relying on volunteer reviewers (whom you may have never met) who are the arbiters of whether your cache (challenge or not) can be published or not.

 

In the case of Earthcaches, you're also relying on a whole other set of volunteer reviewers who are the arbiters of whether your Earthcache can be published or not.

 

Somehow, relying on volunteers seems to work out pretty well, most of the time?

 

So far, generally, yes.

 

But now we find ourselves in uncharted waters, although I suppose we could just sail blindly on without applying a little thought to what might be different, couldn't we?

 

Somehow, relying on things to work themselves out is what leads to most train wreck situations?

Link to comment

So now I'm reliant on a volunteer coder who I've never met being the arbiter of whether my challenge cache can be published or not...

 

How long before coders offer their services to the highest bidder?

 

You're already relying on volunteer reviewers (whom you may have never met) who are the arbiters of whether your cache (challenge or not) can be published or not.

 

In the case of Earthcaches, you're also relying on a whole other set of volunteer reviewers who are the arbiters of whether your Earthcache can be published or not.

 

Somehow, relying on volunteers seems to work out pretty well, most of the time.

 

 

Is Project-GC prepared to handle the volume of requests that are going to come in after challenge caches go live again? Challenge cache owners quickly spiraled out of control with the amount of tedious and stat heavy challenges they created and caused the moratorium with the onslaught of appeals. There is no reason to believe they won't do the same thing but this time, the bottleneck will be Project-GC trying to keep up with the demand. It's not hard to fathom PGC getting to the point of making a cache owner pay to have a checker written.

Link to comment
Challenges already had to be qualifiable to be published. If it's quantifiable, a checker can do it automatically, once programmed to do so.

No true, at least not in every region. noncentric and I have mentioned examples of existing challenges that a checker cannot check automatically as the gc.com database does not contain the information in a manner that a computer can make use of (such things are easy to check for humans however).

Yes but when were they published? More recently (last year or two of CCs) reviewers would not publish (should not publish, as they often described it as a challenge cache thing, not a localized reviewer-specific thing) a challenge that cannot be verified by some quantifiable metric but instead by some subjective judgement that can differ from cacher to cacher (and cause more headaches). If they did publish it, it would have been an exception to the rule (of course without setting any precedent).

 

I do not regard finding 10 hiking multi caches each with a length of at least 20km nonsensical.

How is that verifiable? It's not. It's entirely subjective and up to personal judgement and integrity (Cacher: "yes, I hiked 20km and didn't just go to the final with coordinates I was given", CO: "Yes, this cache hike is actually 20km, and cannot be done in <2km by knowing where the final is", etc).

 

I'll just sign and bookmark any challenge cache I pass by and periodically check and log any I happen to qualify for - all without ever caring about the requirements or meeting them - cool!

Yep. You can do this now. I do this and have done this. I have bookmark lists for CCs found but not qualified, qualified but not found, and nearing qualification but not yet found. Am I in the area? I may find it, sign it, and log a note online or just bookmark it, and when qualified, log the Find. Or, did I find a new challenge cache listing, and am already qualified? Great! Find it, sign it, log it online (or note the qualification right away and find it months later). That's exactly how the (current) system is intended to work.

 

I think that the proposal is an excellent compromise. No, it does not preserve every challenge type that I like (e.g. "lonely cache" challenges) but it is an automated way of removing the nonsensical challenges.

 

For me, getting clever on writing a checker may turn out to be a lot of fun. What kinds of challenges can I design that are both interesting and verifiable? Sounds like a good challenge!

This. All of this.

Lonely Cache challenges could technically be checked as well. I have a few lines of GSAK SQL queries that filter and play around with cache data (all caches in Ontario that i've downloaded to GSAK) to determine two things: which caches have no active cache within 'lonely' distance, to catalogue qualifying cache targets; and which found caches had no active caches within lonely distance at the time of the Find log (that is, ignoring caches published nearby after the Find; of course there's no way to know if there was an active cache nearby that's now archived, via PQs/API). This process could in theory be entirely automated with the API. Though it's not a quick routine to execute...

 

Challenges already had to be qualifiable to be published. If it's quantifiable, a checker can do it automatically, once programmed to do so.

This is incorrect. Challenge caches already had to be "verifiable" -- not "qualifiable/quantifiable." And just because something can be verified by a human doesn't mean that it can be verified by a Project GC checker.

Then change my word from qualifiable to verifiable. My point remains - the CO has to be able to look and see by cache properties, profile properties - somewhere where the recorded data can prove that qualification is valid. And in theory, yes, if a human can simply look at data that's reported and presented to them, then a checker can retrieve that data and check automatically. "In theory" - GS of course has to allow that data to be retrieved by the checker.

 

As an example, a challenge to "hike a total of 100km for caches" is not verifiable by human eyes nor a checker (and wouldn't/shouldn't be published), as there is no quantifiable property to verify that the cacher has actually hiked 100km to qualify; the challenge itself is fundamentally unverifiable. But "find 10 caches with the >10km attribute" certainly is, even though that's still not a guarantee that the person has hiked >100km. The challenge cannot be for something that is not verifiable. If it is verifiable, then it uses data that a checker can, in theory, parse.

 

Unfortunately, cache owners likely will face some nuisance requests over attributes if they become more crucial to challenge caches. Pointing this out is not the same as willing it to happen.

This same issue happens right now though. Pre-moratorium, people qualifying could list off caches with the attribute, but if the CO finds one without the attribute, it's within their right to deny the Find/qualification. Maybe some CO decided to remove an attribute; the challenge cacher might be able to convince the CO that it had the attribute and convince the Find to remain (case in point, that just happened with a challenge I just qualified for, where my DT total for the month dropped below the target because one CO changed their cache rating; but I'd archived the state of all the caches for reference specifically because of that potential, so the challenge owner kept my qualification). And I didn't ever feel the need to get a hold of that cache owner to demand they reinstate their old DT rating.

 

Requiring challenge checkers won't change the fact that this issue has happened and will continue to happen... but, it might happen a little more since qualification or not will be more readily apparent. =/

 

--------

All that said, the topic of requiring challenge checkers was discussed quite a lot in previous CC threads as well. And for the record, I'm definitely not on board with this as the best option (I concluded long ago that it wouldn't really solve the problems, but it would be a nice feature to have built-in checkers; it just means creativity and user-friendliness could suffer, and if they're required, could end up causing more headaches than soothing).

And, it doesn't look like anyone in this thread has yet been completely gung-ho about how great and amazing this solution will be for challenge caching :P

 

Here's really hoping that the next few weeks and everything else as yet unannounced will mean the result will be better than we think it will be...

Link to comment

And then there's the question of who actually decides if my challenge cache gets published - is it the volunteer reviewer? Is it Groundspeak? Is it Project GC?

 

I wonder if with so many hoops to jump through people might give up trying to publish challenge caches at all.

It's starting to sound like unless you have a link to the challenge checker on your cache page it is an automatic rejection. If you have the link and other things check out it is a go.

 

But I wonder what happens if the volunteer script writer blows the logic and after being published the CO starts to delete non-compliant logs? I'm sure it will be the CO's responsibility to get PGC to fix the bad logic, but what about the logs that never should have happened? Does the CO get to delete them or do they have to stay?

 

And how does the CO know the log is from a valid find? Do we have a second ALR, the one to complete the challenge and the che3cker generated log message?

Link to comment

And how does the CO know the log is from a valid find? Do we have a second ALR, the one to complete the challenge and the che3cker generated log message?

Perhaps on running the checker and being qualified a unique code would be generated that can be verified by the CO at PGC. ...but then it would probably also be desireable to have a record of which caches and which properties were checked, stored with that code, so that the evidence is recorded about what was actually qualified at that recorded check, if things have changed with the challenge since.

ick it's messy.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...