Jump to content

Moratorium update


Recommended Posts

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

 

Why would you care? If somebody bothers you to add an attribute or something, feel free to ignore them. I can't imagine the number of people emailing cache owners to add something to their cache page will be significant.

 

I just can't believe that someone is such a whiner that he cared so much about his cache not being involved in challenges that he archived the cache. For me, that doesn't even compute.

 

I can't believe that there are geocachers that think others are obligated to keep a cache active if, for any reason at all, they don't want to continue to maintain it.

 

If someone wants to archive a cache they don't own an explanation to anyone.

 

 

Link to comment

So I submitted my most intense challenge to PGC to see if they could do it. I am a little dismayed at the responses that went completely over my head. I don't know if any one is going to make one for me or if I am going to have to learn the code to figure it out.

 

http://project-gc.co...ow=10134#c10134

 

Truly great challenges that inspire you might very well be a thing of the past with this new requirement. Personally, I am not hopeful for the future of challenges. Especially given Groundspeak had 1 year to get this ironed out and here we are on Year+1Day without a resolution.

 

Challenges drive my caching. See my profile for my list of goals around some truly great challenge caches. http://www.elrojo14.com

 

That great challenges will no longer drive me to go on wonderful cache runs is kind of sad.

 

Well the responses clearly say it's possible to write a checker for it, but because your criteria are very complex then it will need a lot of work to setup. I would expect that it would be up to you to do that work (i.e. you have to supply the areas for all 142 monuments within which a find has to be made to qualify).

 

To be honest, they look so fiddly to work out whether or not I would qualify that I wouldn't consider doing them if they didn't have a checker. I don't want to trawl through a list of 142 locations and work out whether my finds are within some random variable distance of each.

 

Although some of response use terms that only a PGC developer might understand, the suggestion to use a center point for each of the monuments rather than calculate a polygon for each one sounded like a good one.

 

This might actually be a good example which demonstrates how some challenge caches are so complex that, perhaps, maybe they *shouldn't* be published. If a CC is so complex that a PGC can't be written to verify that one has completed it, then perhaps it's too complex to be published.

 

I'm pretty sure that the point of a Challenge caches isn't a contest to see who can create the most complex challenge cache.

 

 

Link to comment

This might actually be a good example which demonstrates how some challenge caches are so complex that, perhaps, maybe they *shouldn't* be published. If a CC is so complex that a PGC can't be written to verify that one has completed it, then perhaps it's too complex to be published.

 

I'm pretty sure that the point of a Challenge caches isn't a contest to see who can create the most complex challenge cache.

 

Actually, that is already the case in the old guidelines. They include this bit of text: "The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document. A lengthy list of "rules" would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published."

Link to comment

So I submitted my most intense challenge to PGC to see if they could do it. I am a little dismayed at the responses that went completely over my head. I don't know if any one is going to make one for me or if I am going to have to learn the code to figure it out.

 

http://project-gc.co...ow=10134#c10134

 

Truly great challenges that inspire you might very well be a thing of the past with this new requirement. Personally, I am not hopeful for the future of challenges. Especially given Groundspeak had 1 year to get this ironed out and here we are on Year+1Day without a resolution.

 

Challenges drive my caching. See my profile for my list of goals around some truly great challenge caches. http://www.elrojo14.com

 

That great challenges will no longer drive me to go on wonderful cache runs is kind of sad.

 

Well the responses clearly say it's possible to write a checker for it, but because your criteria are very complex then it will need a lot of work to setup. I would expect that it would be up to you to do that work (i.e. you have to supply the areas for all 142 monuments within which a find has to be made to qualify).

 

To be honest, they look so fiddly to work out whether or not I would qualify that I wouldn't consider doing them if they didn't have a checker. I don't want to trawl through a list of 142 locations and work out whether my finds are within some random variable distance of each.

 

Although some of response use terms that only a PGC developer might understand, the suggestion to use a center point for each of the monuments rather than calculate a polygon for each one sounded like a good one.

 

This might actually be a good example which demonstrates how some challenge caches are so complex that, perhaps, maybe they *shouldn't* be published. If a CC is so complex that a PGC can't be written to verify that one has completed it, then perhaps it's too complex to be published.

 

I'm pretty sure that the point of a Challenge caches isn't a contest to see who can create the most complex challenge cache.

 

It is only as complicated as you want to make it. You click on the link and it shows you whether you found a cache for that NHL or not. It isn't complicated.

 

What it does is gives someone a desire to visit all 142 National Historic Landmarks in California. I know it is just my opinion, but I would rather do that than find 100 mystery caches or 100 caches with "dog" in the title.

 

The good news is that cache is in. A wise reviewer saw its value and allowed it. People are enjoying the hunt. Bad news is if you wanted to replicate it in your state, better start learning LUA.

Link to comment

That a quality challenge like this that encourages you to go out and see the history and cool places in your own state wouldn't be publishable without some complex checker doesn't seem right to me. A checker that isn't going to help you finish the challenge at all because you are going to be best served to make bookmark lists of the spots you still need to find.

Without a checker, a challenge like this is awfully hard to review, and differences of opinion regarding the achievability of the requirements generally or the fulfillment of the requirements by an individual finder generate a high volume of appeals.

 

All the while Groundspeak really isn't doing anything to solve the problem. ... They took a whole year to not resolve anything.

Adding the checker requirement solves one part of the problem, though not in a way that will please everyone. The rest of the new challenge cache strategy is architected (I'm familiar with it) but the details won't be fully built out for a few more weeks. That is a far cry from not doing anything, and the hope is that the new strategy will go a long way in resolving the problems with challenge caches that led to the moratorium. As a participant in the discussions behind the scenes and as a survey taker, I am familiar with the many hours of hard work that have been put in over the past year.

 

You will probably like some of the guidance that hasn't been announced yet, and dislike other aspects -- just as we're seeing in this discussion focused on challenge checkers. That's the nature of compromise solutions to problems. Compare this process with what happened to other problems that weren't addressed promptly and systemically, like virtual caches.

I think this is what my discontent boils down to. Challenges create all of these issues for reviewers. I don't see those issues. I also pay $30 a year for a product. If you are spending too much time on it, then pay your reviewers. Raise the rates.

 

So when my product provider puts what I enjoy doing on hold for a year and at the end of that year does not have the issue resolved, but instead says wait a few more weeks, I am not impressed. I have no reason to believe you are lying to me that they have carefully thought this through and the rest will drop soon. However, I do have the record of waiting a year not to have an answer to lead me to believe maybe you are.

 

This is all horrible product management. They had a year to get this figured out. They didn't. Instead they put out an announcement that leaves more questions than it answers and leaves the impression that it isn't being handled. Except for you to try and reassure me it is.

 

I guess time will tell. I do appreciate your sharing what you were able to. Just call me skeptical.

Edited by elrojo14
Link to comment

Bad news is if you wanted to replicate it in your state, better start learning LUA.

 

That's not true, the responses to your query on Project-GC said there are already checkers (the LUA code) which will work for you. All you need to do is properly define the area for each zone.

And this is where a proper checker might help eliminate disputes: for example one of your criteria is within 0.3 miles of Lock Historic district, but is that from some nominal centre point - where is the centre?; or within 0.3 miles of the district boundary - where is the boundary line? so there's potential for dispute, a defined checker would eliminate that by forcing you to define precise boundaries for each criteria before setting the cache.

Link to comment

Either

1 look through a list of 25 caches, openning them all up on a map, to see if they covered on all the 25 islands

Or

2 click one link which says "MartyBartfast qualified for this cace on April 1st with these finds ...."

 

2 takes less than a second, 1 takes god knows how long.

I would estimate #1 would take about 5 minutes, max. If the CO's willing, what do you -- and everyone else in the world -- care whether that's how they do it?

Well that was a response to a specific point stating that a checker would be a wast of time, and I was just demonstrating that it would actually be a time saver.

 

As to the "what do you care bit", I don't care as I'm not a fan of challenge cachers anyhow, It's GS who care and they care enough to think something needed to be done. I'm just a bit tired of seeing all the moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth over something for which we only have the vaguest details so far.

Link to comment

Bad news is if you wanted to replicate it in your state, better start learning LUA.

 

That's not true, the responses to your query on Project-GC said there are already checkers (the LUA code) which will work for you. All you need to do is properly define the area for each zone.

And this is where a proper checker might help eliminate disputes: for example one of your criteria is within 0.3 miles of Lock Historic district, but is that from some nominal centre point - where is the centre?; or within 0.3 miles of the district boundary - where is the boundary line? so there's potential for dispute, a defined checker would eliminate that by forcing you to define precise boundaries for each criteria before setting the cache.

Click the link that says .3 miles from the Locke Historic District. It shows you a definite .3 radius from the center point of N 38° 15.034 W 121° 30.587. I already made very definite, specific requirements for this challenge. That challenge literally took me a year to get going with that much research and HTML. I guess I am just not excited to have to try and replicate all of that in LUA language.

Link to comment

As to the "what do you care bit", I don't care as I'm not a fan of challenge cachers anyhow, It's GS who care and they care enough to think something needed to be done. I'm just a bit tired of seeing all the moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth over something for which we only have the vaguest details so far.

I pay $30 a year. I am their customer. Don't stop something I enjoy doing for a year only to give us some partial answer at the end of a FULL YEAR that creates more questions than answers. That is poor business. I know it makes me rather angry this concept that I should be happy with the way this was handled because they could have just dropped challenges all together.

 

If you quit something for a year, it would be best if you had an answer at the end of that year. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people aren't happy you keep telling them to wait while creating more questions in the process.

Link to comment

Well that was a response to a specific point stating that a checker would be a wast of time, and I was just demonstrating that it would actually be a time saver.

 

I meant for a cache owner who is able to do the check much easier it is a waste of time to have to deal with polygon data and that sort of stuff.

For example, for certain type of caches in my region/country I would not need any tool at all - I know the details of those caches by heart (e.g. I'm sure that I'm aware of

all currently existing long distance hiking multi caches in my country).

 

And from the point of view of the finder of a challenge cache: I guess what I liked by far the most about this challenge cache

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4Y7WG_challenge-steiermark-13-bezirke

was preparing my list of qualifying caches and thinking about all the memories that came back.

I did not just list 13 arbitrary caches but tried to list very special ones. Several other cachers also reported how much

they liked this aspect of being remembered about nice caches.

So while one could write a checker for that very challenge cache above, using the checker would take away a lot of the enjoyment brought to me

by the cache (not only with respect to my own visit but in particular with respect to the list presented by the other visitors of the cache).

The output provided my project-gc can of course not take into account personal preferences.

Link to comment

Either

1 look through a list of 25 caches, openning them all up on a map, to see if they covered on all the 25 islands

Or

2 click one link which says "MartyBartfast qualified for this cace on April 1st with these finds ...."

 

2 takes less than a second, 1 takes god knows how long.

I would estimate #1 would take about 5 minutes, max. If the CO's willing, what do you -- and everyone else in the world -- care whether that's how they do it?

Well that was a response to a specific point stating that a checker would be a wast of time, and I was just demonstrating that it would actually be a time saver.

 

As to the "what do you care bit", I don't care as I'm not a fan of challenge cachers anyhow, It's GS who care and they care enough to think something needed to be done. I'm just a bit tired of seeing all the moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth over something for which we only have the vaguest details so far.

The checker for polygon-based checkers would require a lot of upfront effort on the part of the CO. They would have to define the boundaries of all the areas. In the Island Hopping challenge, which I am also hoping to complete, the CO would have to define the boundaries of ALL islands in the state. The challenge requires finding caches on only 23 islands, but there over 70 islands in WA that could be used as qualifiers. The time spent creating 70+ polygons to enable Option #2 may well exceed the time spent checking each Finder's list of caches in Option #1.

 

More importantly, I think it should be up to the CO which method of verification they want to use. With the new requirement, they'd HAVE TO create the polygons because the polygons are needed to create a checker. Imagine if the challenge was to find caches on 3 islands. The CO would still have to create the 70+ polygons and the incremental time compared to Option #1 would be even greater.

 

Also, consider that Option #1 does not require the CC CO to have the technical ability to define polygons, while Option #2 does require such knowledge.

Link to comment

Either

1 look through a list of 25 caches, openning them all up on a map, to see if they covered on all the 25 islands

Or

2 click one link which says "MartyBartfast qualified for this cace on April 1st with these finds ...."

 

2 takes less than a second, 1 takes god knows how long.

I would estimate #1 would take about 5 minutes, max. If the CO's willing, what do you -- and everyone else in the world -- care whether that's how they do it?

Well that was a response to a specific point stating that a checker would be a wast of time, and I was just demonstrating that it would actually be a time saver.

 

As to the "what do you care bit", I don't care as I'm not a fan of challenge cachers anyhow, It's GS who care and they care enough to think something needed to be done. I'm just a bit tired of seeing all the moaning, wailing and gnashing of teeth over something for which we only have the vaguest details so far.

The checker for polygon-based checkers would require a lot of upfront effort on the part of the CO. They would have to define the boundaries of all the areas. In the Island Hopping challenge, which I am also hoping to complete, the CO would have to define the boundaries of ALL islands in the state. The challenge requires finding caches on only 23 islands, but there over 70 islands in WA that could be used as qualifiers. The time spent creating 70+ polygons to enable Option #2 may well exceed the time spent checking each Finder's list of caches in Option #1.

 

More importantly, I think it should be up to the CO which method of verification they want to use. With the new requirement, they'd HAVE TO create the polygons because the polygons are needed to create a checker. Imagine if the challenge was to find caches on 3 islands. The CO would still have to create the 70+ polygons and the incremental time compared to Option #1 would be even greater.

 

Also, consider that Option #1 does not require the CC CO to have the technical ability to define polygons, while Option #2 does require such knowledge.

 

So, on this challenge, what does one do if the final is on an island among these 70+ islands, but the posted coordinates (mystery/multi) are in the middle of the water or two miles away at the shoreline? Or vise versa? Does the checker tool "know" the ACTUAL final coordinates? Is this not an instance where the checker tool may be inadequate?

Link to comment

Bad news is if you wanted to replicate it in your state, better start learning LUA.

 

That's not true, the responses to your query on Project-GC said there are already checkers (the LUA code) which will work for you. All you need to do is properly define the area for each zone.

And this is where a proper checker might help eliminate disputes: for example one of your criteria is within 0.3 miles of Lock Historic district, but is that from some nominal centre point - where is the centre?; or within 0.3 miles of the district boundary - where is the boundary line? so there's potential for dispute, a defined checker would eliminate that by forcing you to define precise boundaries for each criteria before setting the cache.

Click the link that says .3 miles from the Locke Historic District. It shows you a definite .3 radius from the center point of N 38° 15.034 W 121° 30.587. I already made very definite, specific requirements for this challenge. That challenge literally took me a year to get going with that much research and HTML. I guess I am just not excited to have to try and replicate all of that in LUA language.

I'm a bit perplexed by your response. The checker writers have said that they can create the checker for you based on a radius around a center point, as long as you define the center point. Many of your locations are based on a center point, so you'd only need to create polygons for the ones that are not based on a radius around a center point.

 

You do not need to become a LUA expert and create the checker yourself. You will, however, need to learn how to create polygons to define the boundaries of the locations that are not based on radii.

 

Much of the pushback in the PGC forum is based on the wording of your challenge.

"Rose Bowl - any Geocache within 0.3 miles" can cause some ambiguity because someone might find a cache that is 0.3 miles from the outer wall of the stadium, but is not 0.3 miles from the center point you defined. The PGC writers are suggesting that you make the radii instruction more clear.

Maybe if you say something like "Rose Bowl - any Geocache within 0.3 miles of hyper-linked centerpoint".

Link to comment

Please lets keep the discussion on the viability of checkers, not if you like or dislike certain challenges. One is a technical discussion, the other is a subjective discussion that just goes around in circles.

 

A few of the points brought up are:

 

Lonely caches... checkers can't read additional logs

Attribute caches... checkers are only as good as what other CO's provide

Cache title caches... checkers are only as good as what other CO's provide

Statistical caches... Lab caches, benchmarks and waymarks can't be accounted for

Area caches... how will the polygon checkers be set up.

 

Am I missing any broad category?

I think another category would be 'text based' challenges. Things that involve finding animals, foods, drinks, metals, birds, etc in the cache name. I'm not saying that I do or do not like these, but I do think creating checkers for these would be tough. Especially considering that cachers are usually allowed to use cache names in any language, so the checkers would have to accommodate that.

 

For example, I tested a checker a few months ago that didn't recognize 'goat' or 'whale' or 'ape' or 'antelope' or 'shark' or 'squirrel' as animals, but did recognize 'jack' and 'queen' and 'kid' as animals. Personally, I wouldn't use 'jack' or 'queen' as qualifiers for an 'animal name' challenge and using 'kid' seems marginal.

Link to comment

So when my product provider puts what I enjoy doing on hold for a year and at the end of that year does not have the issue resolved, but instead says wait a few more weeks, I am not impressed. I have no reason to believe you are lying to me that they have carefully thought this through and the rest will drop soon. However, I do have the record of waiting a year not to have an answer to lead me to believe maybe you are.

Posts like this disincent me from responding to questions in the forums. What I'll do here is not respond further to you, but to continue responding to others.

Link to comment

.....

 

Checkers aren't infallible....

 

Lots of challenge checkers simply say if a user has qualified or not. I would request that checkers provide a list to the user of how they qualified...

 

and even when they do provide a list to the user of how they qualified.. they are not guaranteed to be correct.

 

This one for example..

 

http://coord.info/GC3GEPV

 

No piece of software is ever guaranteed to be %100correct. But as the Challenge cache owner will be involved in writing, or choosing, the checker at the start, they have the opportunity to make sure it will accurate (as far as reasonably possible). Then if deficiencies are found in the checker then they will receive the feedback, via false qualification claims, and will have the incentive to either correct it, or ask the checker writer to correct it.

 

The example you gave was written long after the Challenge cache was published, and maybe had no input from the CO, but the error in the code is easy to fix. It's only been used by 5 people who qualified, so the likelyhood of that bug being noticed is low. If this had been linked on the cache page from the start then I suspect that bug would have been noticed early on, with the opportunity to fix it.

 

For what it's worth I did that Challenge by planning a day's caching to specifically hit 666, and as such even if the checker was available I wouldn't have used as I already had my evidence worked out by pen and paper :-)

I looked at a few of the "found it" logs for that challenge cache and several of the cachers had other finds on their qualifying days that would actually put them over the points requirement. I'm assuming this cache was published before the "One should not have to 'give up' finding other geocaches to achieve a challenge cache's requirements." guideline, so don't want to argue the validity of the challenge itself. I think plenty of cachers use the PGC checker to see if their qualify for this challenge, even if they don't mention the PGC checker in their log entry. I don't think counting how many logs mention the PGC checker accurately reflects how many logs were based on the checker.

 

This also brings up the issue of controlling challenge checkers. With the new rule, will challenge checkers ONLY be allowed on the Project-GC site WITH APPROVAL of the challenge owner? I'm not sure how many of the existing challenge checkers were created in conjunction with the CC CO. If the CO has to allow Finds based on Checkers, then those Checkers shouldn't be tagged to the CC without the CC CO's approval.

Link to comment

So, on this challenge, what does one do if the final is on an island among these 70+ islands, but the posted coordinates (mystery/multi) are in the middle of the water or two miles away at the shoreline? Or vise versa? Does the checker tool "know" the ACTUAL final coordinates? Is this not an instance where the checker tool may be inadequate?

 

The checker system only has access to the posted coordinates for caches.

Link to comment

So, on this challenge, what does one do if the final is on an island among these 70+ islands, but the posted coordinates (mystery/multi) are in the middle of the water or two miles away at the shoreline? Or vise versa? Does the checker tool "know" the ACTUAL final coordinates? Is this not an instance where the checker tool may be inadequate?

 

The checker system only has access to the posted coordinates for caches.

For this particular challenge, the cache icon needs to be on the island and the challenge mentions this. A cache doesn't qualify if the icon in the water, even if the final is on the island.

Link to comment

Quite a variety of comments, thus far. Some are insightful. Others…

 

Anyway, I’ll try to answer a few of them.

 

I mean seriously, you couldn't get this figured out in a year?

Seriously. We’re terrible.

 

The new set-up however excludes almost all of the challenge caches that I found attractive

You haven’t seen the new framework, so I’m not sure how you know that it excludes almost all the challenges that you found attractive. But if it does, then that’s an unfortunate reality.

 

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

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

 

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

 

This is weak. I've run several checker tools that are not foolproof and fail to pick up finds that still qualify. If this is the biggest change, shame on Groundspeak for making a big controversy with such a weak solution.

You do live up to your username.

 

What if a cacher provides evidence that a checker's result is wrong?

Then the cache would be subject to archival.

 

I think there ought to be some exception for quality challenges. Of course we all know there is absolutely no way to agree on what is a quality challenge.

Your second sentence answered the first one.

 

Obviously there's more to the solution they haven't shared yet, but as it stands, it hardly seems like this is any sort of real solution.

Seems odd to pass judgement on a solution when you acknowledge not knowing yet what the entire solution looks like.

 

If cachers couldn't figure out whether or not they qualified for a challenge, then they should've just not logged the challenge. Reminds me of the 'participation trophy' mentality.

I really don't see a correlation between the checker aspect of the new framework and 'participation trophy' mentality. The point of a challenge cache should be to encourage geocaching achievement, not to see how difficult a CO can make it to prove qualification.

 

That presumes the checkers are infallible. As noted before, I've seen several instances where they were not...

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

 

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?

+1 (with my player hat on)

Link to comment

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

That seems rather selfish.

 

We have no idea when they are finally going to open them back up.

As was stated in the announcement, within a few weeks.

 

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.

The new framework can’t and won’t be all things for all people. But it’s a best intentioned effort to preserve a type of geocache that a lot of people like. I hope people try to see that. The percentage of naysayers in this thread is something I would've expected, but it’s still disappointing.

 

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?

If the checker doesn’t work, the cache is subject to archival. And if it was found that a CO knowingly submitted a cache with a faulty checker, then I imagine their future submissions would be more heavily scrutinized.

 

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

Actually, if you read through the User Insights Forum, you'll see cache owners complaining about how their caches were valued for challenges more than for the intrinsic value of finding a cache. I don't think the new framework will cause additional burden.

 

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?

The answer to your first two paragraphs is yes.

 

Well, that is better than no challenges at all, but I personally like the ones that would probably be difficult to program for.

There were two possible results for the moratorium: get rid of challenges completely or else bring them back with a new framework that hopefully allows them to stay around a long time. We’re choosing option B. If the community decides it doesn’t like option B, then we may have to someday look at option A. As someone who enjoys challenge caches, I hope it doesn’t come to that.

Link to comment

Oh boy. I think all this goes to show that, as it stands right now, Groundspeak really hasn't helped themselves much in reducing the potential for disputes.

Like I said before, I know, we’re terrible.

 

Perhaps there are other aspects to the change they have not explained that takes care of these issues...

Yes.

 

Color me unimpressed. Yet, Groundspeak knows they have me over a barrel. I won't cancel my premium membership or stop teaching a Geocaching summer school class over their lack of service to what many of us here consider a very fun aspect of their product. Basically taking a year off to have no solution should be unacceptable. Yet, here we are.

Just because the solution isn’t what you wanted doesn’t mean it’s not a solution.

 

The status quo wasn't an option. The “solution” was to find the best alternative to getting rid of challenge caches. We’ve rolled out part of the solution, with the rest coming in a few weeks. It's discouraging that more than one person in this thread has a "my way or the highway" attitude.

 

Yes, but the point is that the checker requirement prevents those things, things I consider quite laudable.

It does and it doesn’t. You could still do all of those laudable things. You just wouldn’t have an extra cache to find when you’re done.

 

But, again, would you rather not have challenges at all? That's the alternative.

 

This is all horrible product management. They had a year to get this figured out. They didn't. Instead they put out an announcement that leaves more questions than it answers and leaves the impression that it isn't being handled. Except for you to try and reassure me it is.

If I were you, and I was this unhappy with a provider, then I'd stop paying them. I don't say that to be provocative. Rather, I truly don't understand why you'd continue patronizing a company that you hold in such contempt.

 

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...

No matter what the result is, I don’t think it’s possible for it to be better than the forum regulars think it will be. We could announce that we're sending a barrel of money to every active geocacher, and I'd be preparing for a riot here about some aspect of the plan to distribute free money.

 

But what I can promise is a result that is the best that we could come up in order to keep challenges while reducing the burden on reviewers. I do hope people will give it a real chance before bringing out the torches and pitchforks.

Link to comment

The new set-up however excludes almost all of the challenge caches that I found attractive

You haven’t seen the new framework, so I’m not sure how you know that it excludes almost all the challenges that you found attractive. But if it does, then that’s an unfortunate reality.

 

What I wrote was an implication of the fact that it has been announced that new challenge caches have to be automatically checkable. I understood this is a definitive decision which will not be revised.

 

The only way to alleviate things instead of further constraining it by the part of the new framework that has not been announced would be if Groundspeak were willing to add many more attributes (and continue so over time whenever the need arises) and add data fields like length, elevation and provide project-gc with access to all logs (to allow lonely cache challenges) etc While I indeed do not know the new framework, I guess these additions will hardly happen, or am I wrong?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

If cachers couldn't figure out whether or not they qualified for a challenge, then they should've just not logged the challenge. Reminds me of the 'participation trophy' mentality.

I really don't see a correlation between the checker aspect of the new framework and 'participation trophy' mentality. The point of a challenge cache should be to encourage geocaching achievement, not to see how difficult a CO can make it to prove qualification.

It's a bit of a loose correlation, but it's something along these lines:

Participation trophy - someone gets a trophy just for playing in a game, even if they don't do well in that game.

Challenge checker requirement - cachers can qualify for a challenge if they fulfill the challenge requirements, even if they couldn't understand what the challenge requirements were.

Link to comment

No matter what the result is, I don’t think it’s possible for it to be better than the forum regulars think it will be. We could announce that we're sending a barrel of money to every active geocacher, and I'd be preparing for a riot here about some aspect of the plan to distribute free money.

 

But what I can promise is a result that is the best that we could come up in order to keep challenges while reducing the burden on reviewers. I do hope people will give it a real chance before bringing out the torches and pitchforks.

 

Come on - it's not all doom and gloom - the honest feedback you receive here must be of value?

Link to comment

 

That presumes the checkers are infallible. As noted before, I've seen several instances where they were not...

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

 

Ouch. So a non-programming CO has one of the PGC script writers write a script for his cache. Then discovers that after a few logs there is a logic error in the script and he gets his cache archived? That seems a bit harsh,especially since the CO did not introduce the error. If your going with the checker being the end all then seems your going to need to work out a way to recover from programming errors.

Link to comment

Like any other issue, such as landowner permission, "subject to archival" presumably means that a problem that is left unaddressed may be archived at some later point in time. I would think that the challenge cache CO would work with the scripter/tagger both upfront and to address post-publication bugs through edits. Take a look at the "Activity Log" on the Project-GC challenge checker page and you will see a pattern of regular maintenance and improvements of the checkers.

Link to comment

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

A Chirp battery runs out and doesn't get replaced replaced by the CO = Archive

 

A Wherigo Cartridge doesn't work for some reason = Archive

 

A PGC Checker doesn't validate = (you fill in the blank)

 

Basic cache maintenance, right down to the individual parts, is not a new concept.

Link to comment

The new set-up however excludes almost all of the challenge caches that I found attractive

You haven’t seen the new framework, so I’m not sure how you know that it excludes almost all the challenges that you found attractive. But if it does, then that’s an unfortunate reality.

 

That's rather sad.

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

Link to comment

Seems pretty simple to me.

 

A Chirp battery runs out and doesn't get replaced replaced by the CO = Archive

 

A Wherigo Cartridge doesn't work for some reason = Archive

 

A PGC Checker doesn't validate = (you fill in the blank)

 

Basic cache maintenance, right down to the individual parts, is not a new concept.

I think the distinction is that the CO doesn't really 'own' the Challenge part of the Challenge Cache anymore. Pre-moratorium, the CO was the 'weakest link' in whether a challenge cache could continue to exist or not. Post-moratorium, at least in terms of the check requirement, the checker author becomes the 'weakest link'. Unless the CC CO learns to code in LUA, then s/he'll have to rely on the checker author and the checker authors will need to commit to maintenance.

Link to comment

Quite a variety of comments, thus far. Some are insightful. Others…

Thanks for responding.

 

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

As I've said from the beginning, you can prevent debate by forbidding it, which is much simpler, easier to implement, and just as effective. Instead, you're intent on making debate literally impossible, and the result is that the reviewer himself is no longer free to agree with the CO that a challenge cache's requirements can be verified legitimately even though a checker would be impossible.

 

But, again, would you rather not have challenges at all? That's the alternative.

The problem here is that you're solving problems you think are so serious that if not solved, challenge caches would have to be banned, yet I've seen no evidence of any significant problem with the challenge caches I've looked at, certainly no problems that compare with their popularity in my area. That makes it hard for me to view your ultimatum sympathetically.

Link to comment

Color me unimpressed. Yet, Groundspeak knows they have me over a barrel. I won't cancel my premium membership or stop teaching a Geocaching summer school class over their lack of service to what many of us here consider a very fun aspect of their product. Basically taking a year off to have no solution should be unacceptable. Yet, here we are.

Just because the solution isn’t what you wanted doesn’t mean it’s not a solution.

 

The status quo wasn't an option. The “solution” was to find the best alternative to getting rid of challenge caches. We’ve rolled out part of the solution, with the rest coming in a few weeks. It's discouraging that more than one person in this thread has a "my way or the highway" attitude.

It's discouraging that you had a year to handle this and didn't. Then rolled it out in a horrible fashion. So now we have to accept your solution or else. So you too are saying your way or the highway.

 

This is all horrible product management. They had a year to get this figured out. They didn't. Instead they put out an announcement that leaves more questions than it answers and leaves the impression that it isn't being handled. Except for you to try and reassure me it is.

If I were you, and I was this unhappy with a provider, then I'd stop paying them. I don't say that to be provocative. Rather, I truly don't understand why you'd continue patronizing a company that you hold in such contempt.

 

I wish I could. That is what I find so distasteful about all of this. You know we are going to keep caching whether you treat us like garbage or not. Really that leaves us only one choice...cache war!

 

Ok, I have made my feelings known. I will step away and just wait to see if you will meet this next timeline or postpone it some more.

Link to comment

Quite a variety of comments, thus far. Some are insightful. Others…

Thanks for responding.

 

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

As I've said from the beginning, you can prevent debate by forbidding it, which is much simpler, easier to implement, and just as effective. Instead, you're intent on making debate literally impossible, and the result is that the reviewer himself is no longer free to agree with the CO that a challenge cache's requirements can be verified legitimately even though a checker would be impossible.

 

But, again, would you rather not have challenges at all? That's the alternative.

The problem here is that you're solving problems you think are so serious that if not solved, challenge caches would have to be banned, yet I've seen no evidence of any significant problem with the challenge caches I've looked at, certainly no problems that compare with their popularity in my area. That makes it hard for me to view your ultimatum sympathetically.

That's an understandable response from someone that doesn't work the Appeals desk at Groundspeak, although I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the time spent on this issue by the Groundspeak staff was starting to have an impact. I mean, wasn't that stated from day 1 of the moratorium?

Link to comment

Quite a variety of comments, thus far. Some are insightful. Others…

Thanks for responding.

 

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

As I've said from the beginning, you can prevent debate by forbidding it, which is much simpler, easier to implement, and just as effective. Instead, you're intent on making debate literally impossible, and the result is that the reviewer himself is no longer free to agree with the CO that a challenge cache's requirements can be verified legitimately even though a checker would be impossible.

 

But, again, would you rather not have challenges at all? That's the alternative.

The problem here is that you're solving problems you think are so serious that if not solved, challenge caches would have to be banned, yet I've seen no evidence of any significant problem with the challenge caches I've looked at, certainly no problems that compare with their popularity in my area. That makes it hard for me to view your ultimatum sympathetically.

That's an understandable response from someone that doesn't work the Appeals desk at Groundspeak, although I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the time spent on this issue by the Groundspeak staff was starting to have an impact. I mean, wasn't that stated from day 1 of the moratorium?

It really is the crux of the issue. Cachers enjoy them and don't see them as a big deal. Reviewers are being inundated, but cachers don't see that.

 

I think it is more of a communication issue. The average person doesn't know the mess challenges are creating. Or maybe everyone who has had to follow the crazy dictates of a reviewer leaves them not caring.

 

So now all of the work gets shifted to the cache planter. It is understandable why they would be upset from not seeing an issue to it suddenly being their issue.

Link to comment

I think it is more of a communication issue. The average person doesn't know the mess challenges are creating. Or maybe everyone who has had to follow the crazy dictates of a reviewer leaves them not caring.

If you consider yourself an expert on communication skills, your high school guidance counselor has done you a serious disservice.

 

Signed,

A Crazed Reviewer who arbitrarily imposes his will on challenge cache creators and grooves on that.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Quite a variety of comments, thus far. Some are insightful. Others…

Thanks for responding.

 

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

As I've said from the beginning, you can prevent debate by forbidding it, which is much simpler, easier to implement, and just as effective. Instead, you're intent on making debate literally impossible, and the result is that the reviewer himself is no longer free to agree with the CO that a challenge cache's requirements can be verified legitimately even though a checker would be impossible.

 

But, again, would you rather not have challenges at all? That's the alternative.

The problem here is that you're solving problems you think are so serious that if not solved, challenge caches would have to be banned, yet I've seen no evidence of any significant problem with the challenge caches I've looked at, certainly no problems that compare with their popularity in my area. That makes it hard for me to view your ultimatum sympathetically.

That's an understandable response from someone that doesn't work the Appeals desk at Groundspeak, although I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the time spent on this issue by the Groundspeak staff was starting to have an impact. I mean, wasn't that stated from day 1 of the moratorium?

It really is the crux of the issue. Cachers enjoy them and don't see them as a big deal. Reviewers are being inundated, but cachers don't see that.

 

I think it is more of a communication issue. The average person doesn't know the mess challenges are creating. Or maybe everyone who has had to follow the crazy dictates of a reviewer leaves them not caring.

 

So now all of the work gets shifted to the cache planter. It is understandable why they would be upset from not seeing an issue to it suddenly being their issue.

An understandable response from someone who has not been on the receiving end of a wrathful cache owner who doesn't understand why their listing was rejected, let alone the Guidelines. Seriously, you need to broaden your horizons to the possibilities.

Link to comment

If a CC is so complex that a PGC can't be written to verify that one has completed it, then perhaps it's too complex to be published.

Some challenge caches are quite easy for humans to verify but quite complex for a Project GC checker to verify. How about a challenge cache to find at least 10 challenge caches? A human should be able to verify a claimed find in less than five minutes, but good luck trying to write a Project GC checker that can verify it.

Link to comment

I think it is more of a communication issue. The average person doesn't know the mess challenges are creating. Or maybe everyone who has had to follow the crazy dictates of a reviewer leaves them not caring.

If you consider yourself an expert on communication skills, your high school guidance counselor has done you a serious disservice.

 

Signed,

A Crazed Reviewer who arbitrarily imposes his will on challenge cache creators and grooves on that.

I thought you were done talking to me?

 

If I set a moratorium for a year, I would certainly not take more time at the end of that year. I can tell you that much.

 

And make snarky replies all you want, there are still plenty of people who don't understand the time reviewers were spending on these issues. Assuming that is actually the case.

 

And anyone who has spent time planting caches can attest to difficulty getting caches approved due to moderators and their interpretations.

 

Hell at this point, if I were a moderator, I would want to get paid. Or maybe the lure of being an "insider" and having power over others is payment enough.

 

Anyway, I said I was going to step away. My feelings are known, now it is time to wait and see what the "compromise" is. Hopefully I will be proven wrong. Talk is cheap.

Link to comment

If a CC is so complex that a PGC can't be written to verify that one has completed it, then perhaps it's too complex to be published.

Some challenge caches are quite easy for humans to verify but quite complex for a Project GC checker to verify. How about a challenge cache to find at least 10 challenge caches? A human should be able to verify a claimed find in less than five minutes, but good luck trying to write a Project GC checker that can verify it.

Even simpler. Find 10 caches with an animal in the title. The PGC checkers I've seen for this do not do this well.

 

Conversely, just because a PGC checker can be written doesn't mean the challenge is not complex.

Link to comment

Quite a variety of comments, thus far. Some are insightful. Others…

Thanks for responding.

 

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

As I've said from the beginning, you can prevent debate by forbidding it, which is much simpler, easier to implement, and just as effective. Instead, you're intent on making debate literally impossible, and the result is that the reviewer himself is no longer free to agree with the CO that a challenge cache's requirements can be verified legitimately even though a checker would be impossible.

 

But, again, would you rather not have challenges at all? That's the alternative.

The problem here is that you're solving problems you think are so serious that if not solved, challenge caches would have to be banned, yet I've seen no evidence of any significant problem with the challenge caches I've looked at, certainly no problems that compare with their popularity in my area. That makes it hard for me to view your ultimatum sympathetically.

That's an understandable response from someone that doesn't work the Appeals desk at Groundspeak, although I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the time spent on this issue by the Groundspeak staff was starting to have an impact. I mean, wasn't that stated from day 1 of the moratorium?

It really is the crux of the issue. Cachers enjoy them and don't see them as a big deal. Reviewers are being inundated, but cachers don't see that.

 

I think it is more of a communication issue. The average person doesn't know the mess challenges are creating. Or maybe everyone who has had to follow the crazy dictates of a reviewer leaves them not caring.

 

So now all of the work gets shifted to the cache planter. It is understandable why they would be upset from not seeing an issue to it suddenly being their issue.

An understandable response from someone who has not been on the receiving end of a wrathful cache owner who doesn't understand why their listing was rejected, let alone the Guidelines. Seriously, you need to broaden your horizons to the possibilities.

No I can understand. I do see it from your perspective. Somehow you need to let others see that perspective. Or maybe its like customer service in a retail operation. You just have to grin and bear it.

Link to comment

I would think that the challenge cache CO would work with the scripter/tagger both upfront and to address post-publication bugs through edits.

If a checker is written and that checker writer becomes inactive, maybe they become busy with other things or are otherwise unable to continue as a checker writer, then can another checker writer 'take over' the checker?

 

Take a look at the "Activity Log" on the Project-GC challenge checker page and you will see a pattern of regular maintenance and improvements of the checkers.

Is there an Activity Log for each individual checker? Can you point out where to find that, as I'm having a hard time finding such a link? Not sure I'm looking in the right place. Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

I also pay $30 a year for a product. If you are spending too much time on it, then pay your reviewers. Raise the rates.

 

I'd support raising the rates in this way: Charge $5 (or whatever) for each challenge cache submitted, regardless of whether it was published or not. Don't raise rates so the players who are not interested in challenges have to pay more.

 

This is all horrible product management. They had a year to get this figured out. They didn't.

 

They did. It's been figured out, and the final details are being worked. The first announcement here makes it clear they are coming back very very soon. If they weren't coming back, the announcement would have been quite a bit shorter.

Link to comment

So when my product provider puts what I enjoy doing on hold for a year and at the end of that year does not have the issue resolved, but instead says wait a few more weeks, I am not impressed. I have no reason to believe you are lying to me that they have carefully thought this through and the rest will drop soon. However, I do have the record of waiting a year not to have an answer to lead me to believe maybe you are.

Posts like this disincent me from responding to questions in the forums. What I'll do here is not respond further to you, but to continue responding to others.

 

Is there a like button in these forums?

Link to comment

there are still plenty of people who don't understand the time reviewers were spending on these issues. Assuming that is actually the case.

 

Your doubts are becoming tiresome. The announcement from day one of the moratorium were pretty clear about the time reviewers spent, appeals spent, and the angst caused by cachers and cache owners.

 

And anyone who has spent time planting caches can attest to difficulty getting caches approved due to moderators and their interpretations.

 

I think you mean reviewers, not moderators.

 

Yes, the interpretations are part of the problem. The challenge cache checker removes most/all(?) the interpretations. You should be happy for that if that bothered you.

 

Hell at this point, if I were a moderator, I would want to get paid.

 

And that's why you aren't a moderator or reviewer.

Link to comment

Rock Chalk, you rock!

 

Thank you for joining the discussion, providing some answers and a good laugh.

 

I see that a lot of the negativity towards the checkers and the info that is not available to them is based on lack of knowledge of Project-GC.

Project-GC already have access to a lot of the data mentioned here, like old logs, elevation data etc (how do you think all the stats about elevation, logs etc. are made?). Project-GC just have to find a way to make it available to the challenge checkers. I guess that's going to happen rather quickly now.

 

Here in Norway, several challenge caches have been denied because they were too difficult to verify without using PGC (not necessarily because it was complicated, but because PGC have a lot of information available). This change will limit some challenges, yes, but it will also create new possibilities for challenges we've never seen before. You just have to think outside the box. That can be your challenge as a challenge cache creator.

 

Personally, I see this as a start on what I hope will result in updates to the API. Maybe we next year have lab cache finds in PGC? The game is evolving, let's evolve together with it!

Link to comment

Even simpler. Find 10 caches with an animal in the title. The PGC checkers I've seen for this do not do this well.

 

What's an animal? Just a mammal, or any of the tens of thousands of insects? Who decides? What language? Can I use qen/pas/gos/pas/pes/hund/hond/koira/chien/can/kutya/hundur/cane/etc ... as they are all dog in other languages?

 

Forcing the use of a checker removes all doubts.

Link to comment

 

Yes, the interpretations are part of the problem. The challenge cache checker removes most/all(?) the interpretations. You should be happy for that if that bothered you.

 

I like challenges but accept that things will change and that you certainly won't be able to please everybody. What will be will be, assuming old challenges will be grandfathered, I still have a few hundred I qualify for to find so that will keep me busy for ever.

 

Now to the big but. On the quoted statement, you are actually changing a human interpretation to a bit of computer code that is highly likely to have its own set of problems. Sometimes this is not for the better as we will surely find out.

Link to comment

Even simpler. Find 10 caches with an animal in the title. The PGC checkers I've seen for this do not do this well.

 

What's an animal? Just a mammal, or any of the tens of thousands of insects? Who decides? What language? Can I use qen/pas/gos/pas/pes/hund/hond/koira/chien/can/kutya/hundur/cane/etc ... as they are all dog in other languages?

 

Forcing the use of a checker removes all doubts.

Classic case of computer problem where this is indeed very hard. For most humans this is easy to work out whether they have qualified. I would conjecture there is rarely a dispute since it is not an exam and folks are likely to qualify by a considerable margin. It is no problem for a reviewer since they do not have to know all the animals to say this is an ok challenge.

 

I don't think the computer removes doubts since we are now beholden to the developer.

Edited by lodgebarn
Link to comment

There were many reviewers that were so frustrated with reviewing they threw in the towel. Areas that had multiple reviewers saw that there might only be a few that would handle challenges. The bulk of caches that reviewers discussed in our forums were problematic challenge caches. Multiple reviewers have said that they were difficult here in the forums and ate up a lot of time, yet some still doubt.

 

I thank HQ for their work. I love challenges, and have found many, with many that I look forward to. Sadly some will go away, thats ok if it cleans up the garbage that I see as a player, and more of what I see as a reviewer. We have to start somewhere, the other option is that they go away forever. It seems childish that some have said that if they will not have it their way they will take their toys and go somewhere else.

 

Remember that there was input. Many put their thoughts into the poll that asked peoples likes and dislikes. Many reviewers and lackeys have worked hard to come up with ideas and thoughts to make things work. It is funny how many discount the work because of what they have seen. This is not one or two people coming up with an answer and solution, this is very much a story of many people, and many groups going through the data that people provided.

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