Moratorium update

[+ShammyLevva]

.....

 

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

 

In order to claim this cache you must reach 666 Points exactly, No more, No Less.

 

According to the checker, I qualify.. and it gives me a list of the 20 caches I found which show how I qualify. Thing is, I didn't ONLY find 20 caches that day, I found 26.. so the checker has ignored 6 of my finds which would have taken me over the 666 tally.

 

 

I'll have a look, can you provide the link on the project GC forum where you reported the error please?

 

I haven't reported the error anywhere apart from here. I didn't know there was a project GC forum until you asked the question.

 

I read somewhere else that this checker was telling people they qualified when they hadn't.. I thought they were mistaken because I thought it had told me I didn't qualify.. then I realised I had only used the GSAK macro previously. That one works fine.

http://project-gc.com/qa/

[+noncentric]

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.

You are misunderstanding how checkers work. The actual checker code is an open source piece of code that all of the checker authors can see. Multiple caches can be tagged against a script. Someone losing interest has no bearing on the checker as any checker author can simply copy the script and make an edit. Many checker scripts have been improved in this way over the years and thus caches are re-tagged with new improved checkers.

 

Because of this there is no specific activity log for each individual checker that regular users can see.

Yes - thanks, I understood better in a post after the one you quoted. pinkunicorn replied and that helped in my understanding. See this post.

 

Regarding the "Activity Log" - Keystone said we could look at such a page, so that's why I was asking where it was. It sounds like we, the majority of cachers, actually cannot see such pages.

[+noncentric]

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.

The boundaries for ALL islands in the state already exist on Open Street Map no creation necessary.

Are those the "Shapefile" downloads on the OSM website? It's good to know that such data are available.

 

I guess my last sentence (bolded above) would still apply. Challenge cache CO's don't need to learn much to recognize on a map whether a cache in the finder's qualifying list is on an island or not, as they could just go to that cache's page and look on the map. With the new rule, they'd have to figure out how to get the polygons from OSM first before even being able to create the challenge in the first place. I suppose CC CO's could ask checker writers to get the polygons for them, but if the CC CO is supposed to verify that the checkers are correct than they should probably know how to check the polygons themselves.

[+Team Microdot]

Would the new rules permit someone to base a challenge on a defined list of geocaches?

I saw a challenge checker that seemed to do that. It had a a list of qualifying caches (not that every cache in the list had to be found)

I always believed a challenge cache could not require finding a specific list of caches - but this suggests I was misinformed!

 

Depends on what you mean by a "specific list". One type of challenge cache I see frequently along these lines is the "Historical Caches Of [NAME] County", where the challenge is to find X% of the Y oldest caches in the county. That's technically a "defined list" of caches, but one with other objective measures involved.

 

I'd probably describe that as a set rather than a list - or even a subset in your example above.

[+Harry Dolphin]

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

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

Hell's Kitchen's Kitchen!

POPS - Stonehendge

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

[+Team Microdot]

 

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

...

 

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

 

How would YOU program a computer to deal with a list of unknown items?

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

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

...

 

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

 

How would YOU program a computer to deal with a list of unknown items?

 

I guess that's not my problem. It's up to the programmer to come up with the solution. This sounds like "I can't count above ten, so you cannot require more than ten caches." If a programmer cannot come up with the solution, that's the programmers problem. It's a simple Challenge Cache. So far, everyone has supplied the required list.

[+MartyBartfast]

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

 

Sounds like an acceptable sacrifice to me .

 

I don't particularly like challenge caches, and I wouldn't miss them if they were completely abandoned, so given all the grief they caused GS and the reviewers it seems that there are two options:

 

1. Ban all challenge caches and have done with it.

 

2. Allow challenge caches with some limitations, which will by their very nature outlaw some challenges.

 

Given that many people want challenge caches to remain, it seems to me that 2 is a reasonable compromise, or would you, like Cezanne, prefer option 1 ?

Or can you suggest a better solution?

 

Oh, but I would add that it's not "the programmer" (whoever that may be) who is beholden to provide a checker, it's the prospective CC CO.

Edited April 23, 2016 by MartyBartfast

[+dprovan]

Hey I'm right with you. It would be great if we lived in an ideal world where a lax system like that would give rise to no disputes and problems.

We here in the SF bay area do live in such a world, and it is great. Yet GS is now telling us we're too naive and we should leave it.

 

How would YOU program a computer to deal with a list of unknown items?

That's the point: I wouldn't program a computer since a computer can't handle it yet the two people involved can.

 

Yes, the data is likely inclomplete. But how is that different from the past situation? I claim that this cache is on a cemetery: http://coord.info/GC4RNE3 Prove me wrong!

I believe you, so I have no need to prove you wrong.

[+lillfiluren]

Actually, I just saw in the PGC forums that such a checker has been requested a few times. The community could not create a checker though, because "A checker can only examine your logs, so cannot see the last log" and "Checkers has no access to other logs on the cache.". Guess that's something to consider for future challenges, unless Groundspeak enables PGC to see more data when building checkers.

 

The problem is not that the data is not available on the project-gc servers. Clearly all logs are available since any person could run the checker. The reason that the information is not available is that it is a little "expensive" to retrieve this information from the database. This is the same reason that it is not possible to write a checker for a challenge that requires that you have found x% of the caches in a region. The checker scripts have access to the cache info and log details of the caches that have been logged by the person running the script, no other caches.

 

It is possible that this information could be made available to checker scripts in the future, but currently it is not.

[+lillfiluren]

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

 

In order to claim this cache you must reach 666 Points exactly, No more, No Less.

 

According to the checker, I qualify.. and it gives me a list of the 20 caches I found which show how I qualify. Thing is, I didn't ONLY find 20 caches that day, I found 26.. so the checker has ignored 6 of my finds which would have taken me over the 666 tally.

 

 

Yes, that tag is clearly incorrect for the challenge. It is not written by the script author, and is probably not verified by the CO. It sets the parameter "exact"=true, but if you read the source code for the script, that parameter only applies to the caches that are actually counted, not all caches for that day. Under the current guidelines (as of april 2015), the cache would probably not even be publishable since it forces you to stop caching that day once you have reached the goal, but as it is grandfathered, the checker should respect the rules of the cache.

 

One advantage of the mandatory checkers is that they will have to be verified by the CO and imho, the CO should make sure that the output of the checker is a valid log text.

[+noncentric]

Actually, I just saw in the PGC forums that such a checker has been requested a few times. The community could not create a checker though, because "A checker can only examine your logs, so cannot see the last log" and "Checkers has no access to other logs on the cache.". Guess that's something to consider for future challenges, unless Groundspeak enables PGC to see more data when building checkers.

 

The problem is not that the data is not available on the project-gc servers. Clearly all logs are available since any person could run the checker. The reason that the information is not available is that it is a little "expensive" to retrieve this information from the database. This is the same reason that it is not possible to write a checker for a challenge that requires that you have found x% of the caches in a region. The checker scripts have access to the cache info and log details of the caches that have been logged by the person running the script, no other caches.

 

It is possible that this information could be made available to checker scripts in the future, but currently it is not.

Interesting. If a checker can see all logs of all caches I have found, then wouldn't it be able to find the most recent date before my "Found It" log on a specific cache? I've written similar code for transactional data in databases, but I have no idea how such a query would be written in LUA. It certainly takes a bit longer to run such queries, since the script would have to figure out which caches a cacher found, then pull the logs from all cachers for those caches, then do some comparison.

 

Also, note that the italicized statements in my earlier post were comments from people in the Project-GC forums that said it was not possible to look at other logs, only the logs of the cacher running the script. There were a few requests in the PGC QA section where cachers asked about writing checkers for "Lonely Cache" challenges, which would require looking at logs for other cachers (ie, not the cacher running the script). In those topics, the script writers said it was not possible.

[+lillfiluren]

 

In Norway we have several existing challenges requiring various numbers of caches related to churches. And they all have checkers, like this one: http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5CRAC/907

I made that checker, and the way it works is that it simply checks for words like "kirke" (Norwegian for church), "church" etc in the cache name. To get new caches like this published, it's as easy as just requiring xx number of finds of caches containing the word "church" in the name.

 

My checker is generic, and the same checker is already used for other caches, like xx number of bridges, xx number of TB-hotels etc.

 

the drawback of such a checker is that it will often return false positives

 

For example, it lists the following cache as a church-related cache:

2009-10-17:GC1DRPX Botkyrka Hill Climb

but "Botkyrka" is the name of a suburb, not a church-related cache at all (it is on the top of a big pile of subway tunnel left overs I think)

 

In this particular case, the challenge actually said that any cache with the word "kyrka" is eligable, so it should count, but many challenges are significantly more fuzzy about what the rules are. Also, the cache description says: "you can also use words like churches, kapell, domkirke, kirkeveien etc". the problem is that the checker can never implement the "etc" part of the rules. All words will have to be explicitly listed for the checker to find them, so in this case, the checker will return false negatives.

[+noncentric]

 

If so, then it might be a good idea to let CC CO's remove "tags" if the script doesn't work for their challenge and another script is created instead. Not sure if that's feasible or not.

 

Not sure that would be necessary, as the definitive checker for the challenge will be the one linked to on the CC page, therefore all the CC CO needs to do is change the link on their page to the new checker.

There will probably need to be some guideline that a specific checker is only valid as 'proof' of qualification if that checker is linked in the challenge cache.

 

If a cacher uses a checker that isn't the one referenced by the CO in their Challenge Cache, then the cacher can't rely on it and can't appeal if the CO deletes their find. Of course, this type of log deletion would only apply if the 'unauthorized' checker doesn't function correctly OR if the 'Found It' logger just says "the checker says I qualify" and they don't submit their qualifications in any other method for the CO to confirm whether they qualify or not.

 

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

Edited April 23, 2016 by noncentric

[+noncentric]

I don't particularly like challenge caches, and I wouldn't miss them if they were completely abandoned, so given all the grief they caused GS and the reviewers it seems that there are two options:

 

1. Ban all challenge caches and have done with it.

 

2. Allow challenge caches with some limitations, which will by their very nature outlaw some challenges.

There's also:

3. Ban new CC's, but allow existing CC's to remain as-is.

 

I'm not a fan of option #1, but whether I'd opt for #2 or #3 depends on what the rest of the post-moratorium changes entail and how the checker requirement is implemented.

[+lillfiluren]

My 12 year old son has done a little programming in Lua but I haven't done any. It's a language common on some gaming platforms. I plan on downloading the Lua compiler/interpreter and see if I can find a few challenge checkers to see how they're written.

 

All existing challenge checkers are available as sourcecode on project-gc so there is plenty to learn from.

 

Note that the Moratorium update post indicated that Project-GC is *currently* the only place where challenge checkers can be found. If someone wanted to, say, register the challengecheckers.org domain and start writing checkers in Java, Ruby, Python, Perl, PHP, etc. that might be a viable way to get more checkers written.

 

Yes, but such a site would need to do one of the following:

* use the API to download the data for your finds when you want to run a checker (slow if you have a significant number of finds)

* require you to upload your MyFinds PQ (only available to premium members)

* keep an up to date copy of the geocaching.com database for all cachers including logs for all users (not a small task).

 

Lua is not a bad choice for a script language. It is designed to be nicely sandboxed, fairly small, has good documentation and now there is plenty of sample checker code to learn from.

[+lillfiluren]

Disclosure: I am the author of a few of these checkers (including the general calendar checker which is currently servicing 508 different challenges) and also do Project-GC tech support.

 

I'll add my own disclosure. I'm the author of one of the most tagged scripts (if not the most tagged script, with almost 500 tags), "lillfilurens generic checker". It is a little too generic, so while being able to verify all sorts of challenges, it also gives pretty crappy output and the code is almost unreadable and unmaintainable. Once PGC supports locking scripts for new tags, I will have it locked. I have also written other neat checker scripts such as the "Generic map script" used for validating for example DeLorme challenges, and other map-based challenges (with visualization of areas and qualifying caches on a map). I was involved in getting the checkers in place from the start. I was unable to find the first checker, but atleast checker #2 is mine (http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC21X11/2)

[+Team Microdot]

 

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

...

 

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

 

How would YOU program a computer to deal with a list of unknown items?

 

I guess that's not my problem. It's up to the programmer to come up with the solution. This sounds like "I can't count above ten, so you cannot require more than ten caches." If a programmer cannot come up with the solution, that's the programmers problem. It's a simple Challenge Cache. So far, everyone has supplied the required list.

 

I think then you are in for a rude awakening.

[jholly]

I have also written other neat checker scripts such as the "Generic map script" used for validating for example DeLorme challenges, and other map-based challenges (with visualization of areas and qualifying caches on a map).

Are there any Thomas Guide scripts available? I haven't been able to find one. Thomas Guides are maps of smaller areas than Delorme, many times counties or cities.

[cezanne]

How would YOU program a computer to deal with a list of unknown items?

 

The problem here comes from restricting the checker concept to what project-gc currently does: Checkers with no input provided by the cacher who wants to log a find. That's also not the way it works for a human checker. A whole lot more of challenge caches could be checked by a script

if the person has to provide input.

 

One could provide reasonable checkers for such word challenges by requiring the cacher to provide a list with the caches, words and languages (for each word). It still could be that in very rare cases a language is involved where no online dictionary can be found or where this does not contain the provided word, but this would definitely be very rare.

 

Of course such checkers could not be used by those who just want to see for which challenges they might qualify without investing any sort of work. While I'm personally not fond of challenges like "Find at least 20 caches with animal names somewhere in the cache name - not necessearily contiguous", I think that it's part of the challenge to find them. Like solving crosswords-like puzzles with a brute force computer based dictionary approach is lame and not what such puzzles are about, I'd say the same for using automated challenge checkers for such scenarios. If one does not like to invest the work, skip the cache.

[+lodgebarn]

 

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

...

 

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

 

How would YOU program a computer to deal with a list of unknown items?

 

I guess that's not my problem. It's up to the programmer to come up with the solution. This sounds like "I can't count above ten, so you cannot require more than ten caches." If a programmer cannot come up with the solution, that's the programmers problem. It's a simple Challenge Cache. So far, everyone has supplied the required list.

 

I think then you are in for a rude awakening.

Sums up the conundrum quite well. The proposal seems to be to turn challenges from a human view to a computing view. Prospective challenge cache owners need to be happy with writing/testing/responsibility for script checkers. Of course they can ask others to do this for them. Fuzzy logic sums this up quite well, there are things that computers cannot easily do that a human can do in a twinkle of an eye.

[+ShammyLevva]

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

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

Hell's Kitchen's Kitchen!

POPS - Stonehendge

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

CHECKING a list of words is trivial.

PROVIDING the list of words isn't trivial.

 

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

 

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

[cezanne]

The key point is that as a CO for that sort of challenge you could not expect to just lie back and have everyone else do the work you would need to maintain a list of valid words. So the onus for those sorts of caches is entirely on the CO actively maintaining a list of valid words.

 

I do not agree. The approach that would make more sense is that someone who claims to have qualified provides a list of caches, words along with the language they are in in their log. If at some point someone comes along with an animal an Albanian, then check the correctness and not add all animals in Albanian you can think of right from the beginning.

 

There are areas where silly brute force methods are not the best what's available.

 

I'm strictly against the kind of philosophy that is behind certain project gc features like the one where paying members can see a map of challenge caches and automatically can see which they already fulfill.

 

Without computer tools widely available, one would typically limit such word challenges to a much smaller number of caches needed for qualification as selecting caches one can use for qualification will need time and creative thinking. When automatic tools come into play, one will ask for many more such caches and then it's only for those who cache a lot and another incentive to cache a lot. There are already too many challenge caches out there where it is mainly about caching a lot.

Edited April 24, 2016 by cezanne

[+coachstahly]

 

I do not agree. The approach that would make more sense is that someone who claims to have qualified provides a list of caches, words along with the language they are in in their log. If at some point someone comes along with an animal an Albanian, then check the correctness and not add all animals in Albanian you can think of right from the beginning.

 

 

So rather than let the CO add the word to the list for future use in the checker, you'd rather they have to remember (or research a second, third, fourth time) whether or not the word is valid? If you write it down for future checks, why not add it to the list to make things easier on yourself? This method makes it sound like more work for the CO instead of less work. I'm NOT saying to add all Albanian words for animals, just those that happen to come up when lists are provided. Once it's verified, the CO adds it to the list and doesn't have to worry about translating again.

 

I'm strictly against the kind of philosophy that is behind certain project gc features like the one where paying members can see a map of challenge caches and automatically can see which they already fulfill.

 

Why? Just because it's easier? No one is required to use the service provided, even paying members. We can still do it the "old-fashioned" way and look through our finds to determine if we qualify or not. I'm not a paying member and I go through all my finds to see if I qualify. That doesn't mean I'm against the feature you've mentioned. It's just one more method that can be used to verify whether or not you qualify for a challenge. If they already qualify, there are no extra caches to find, other than the challenges in question. If you're referring to cachers now having the incentive to find more caches in order to qualify for challenges, or more caches to find because they already qualify, read below.

 

Without computer tools widely available, one would typically limit such word challenges to a much smaller number of caches needed for qualification as selecting caches one can use for qualification will need time and creative thinking. When automatic tools come into play, one will ask for many more such caches and then it's only for those who cache a lot and another incentive to cache a lot. There are already too many challenge caches out there where it is mainly about caching a lot.

 

Using a specific example, let's say I've found 84 of 100 caches with an animal name in the title. The old way had cachers sifting through each cache name manually in order to see if it had an animal in the title. I finally get my list of 16, find 15, and DNF 1. I need to go back and sift again, finding the one more I need to qualify. I find it finally and make my find. 16 caches in the found it column (out of a list of 17), getting me to my total of 100 and qualifying me for the challenge. The new search program on the site allows me to let the computer do the work and come up with 74 caches within 50 miles of me that have "dog", "cat" and other animals in the title. I go out and find the 16 I need to qualify for this particular challenge. Both methods have me finding the same amount of caches. The computer search gives me the option to find more but I only needed 16. There's no extra incentive for me to find more.

 

Speaking generically, challenges do require you to find more caches to complete a goal. The thing I don't get is why that matters to anyone. Why does it matter if someone caches a lot more than anyone else? Why should people have to limit their caching to meet someone else's standards or philosophy? Caches are meant to be found (some more than others) and it doesn't matter to me if someone chooses to find 100 a day or 1 every month.

Edited April 24, 2016 by coachstahly

[+dprovan]

Using a specific example, let's say I've found 84 of 100 caches with an animal name in the title. The old way had cachers sifting through each cache name manually in order to see if it had an animal in the title.

One of the interesting features of challenge caches that require a complicated amount of data mining is that they encourage people to actually accept the challenge and go out to find 100 more caches with animals in the name since it's almost as easy and much more fun than sifting through thousands of cache names looking for past finds that fit the requirements.

 

Of course, requiring a checker kills that, too.

[+Team Microdot]

Using a specific example, let's say I've found 84 of 100 caches with an animal name in the title. The old way had cachers sifting through each cache name manually in order to see if it had an animal in the title.

One of the interesting features of challenge caches that require a complicated amount of data mining is that they encourage people to actually accept the challenge and go out to find 100 more caches with animals in the name since it's almost as easy and much more fun than sifting through thousands of cache names looking for past finds that fit the requirements.

 

Of course, requiring a checker kills that, too.

 

Probably more fun but considerably less likely to be almost as easy.

 

Requiring a checker doesn't kill anything - nothing stopping you going out and finding whichever caches you choose.

[+LFC4eva]

Using a specific example, let's say I've found 84 of 100 caches with an animal name in the title. The old way had cachers sifting through each cache name manually in order to see if it had an animal in the title.

One of the interesting features of challenge caches that require a complicated amount of data mining is that they encourage people to actually accept the challenge and go out to find 100 more caches with animals in the name since it's almost as easy and much more fun than sifting through thousands of cache names looking for past finds that fit the requirements.

 

Of course, requiring a checker kills that, too.

 

What really kills challenges of that nature is when someone - usually the CCO or one of their friends - starts spamming the area with x number of micros in rubbish locations with animal names in their title just to bump up the number of finds on their challenge and/or their micro's with animal names in their title. Where is the challenge in that?

 

I suppose one could always avoid the spam and make an effort to find better quality caches with animal names.. but then the location of the challenge cache itself would have to warrant putting in that kind of effort.. and in my experience that's not always the case.

[+CanadianRockies]

Unlike some geocachers, I've always had a fondness for certain types of "word" challenges (e.g., types of animals or foods). I enjoy looking through previous finder's lists and discovering some of the interesting/creative words they come up with that clearly fulfill the challenge requirements. For example, I had no idea that a "jack," "jill," and "joey" are male, female, and baby opossums, respectively. And I tip my hat to the first people who listed an extinct animal (e.g., triceratops or dodo) or a breed (e.g., Newfoundland or Boxer).

 

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

I like your compromise: creating a list of acceptable words but remaining flexible enough to incorporate additional acceptable words as they come to light. I hope Groundspeak's new challenge cache guidelines will allow for such flexibility. Right now, it seems like they view checkers as being the final arbitrators of what is or isn't acceptable.

 

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

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.

I'm hoping the post-moratorium guidelines make it clear that checkers don't have to be infallible, bright-line tests regarding what's acceptable. I'd like to see challenge caches published even if it's known from the very beginning that they might generate false negatives. Sure, that could result in some appeals when cache owners and challenge finders disagree over whether a particular word meets the challenge requirements. But Groundspeak's goal should be to reduce challenge cache appeals -- not to entirely eliminate those appeals.

[+CanadianRockies]

Using a specific example, let's say I've found 84 of 100 caches with an animal name in the title. The old way had cachers sifting through each cache name manually in order to see if it had an animal in the title.

One of the interesting features of challenge caches that require a complicated amount of data mining is that they encourage people to actually accept the challenge and go out to find 100 more caches with animals in the name since it's almost as easy and much more fun than sifting through thousands of cache names looking for past finds that fit the requirements.

 

Of course, requiring a checker kills that, too.

What really kills challenges of that nature is when someone - usually the CCO or one of their friends - starts spamming the area with x number of micros in rubbish locations with animal names in their title just to bump up the number of finds on their challenge and/or their micro's with animal names in their title. Where is the challenge in that?

What really kill such challenges are Groundspeak's current challenge cache guidelines:

 

Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; geocaches found before the challenge geocache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

[+Team Microdot]

Using a specific example, let's say I've found 84 of 100 caches with an animal name in the title. The old way had cachers sifting through each cache name manually in order to see if it had an animal in the title.

One of the interesting features of challenge caches that require a complicated amount of data mining is that they encourage people to actually accept the challenge and go out to find 100 more caches with animals in the name since it's almost as easy and much more fun than sifting through thousands of cache names looking for past finds that fit the requirements.

 

Of course, requiring a checker kills that, too.

 

What really kills challenges of that nature is when someone - usually the CCO or one of their friends - starts spamming the area with x number of micros in rubbish locations with animal names in their title just to bump up the number of finds on their challenge and/or their micro's with animal names in their title. Where is the challenge in that?

 

That sort of practice is just another part of the race to the bottom - caches placed purely for the purpose of bumping up points rather than for some genuine value. Challenge caches fuel poor placements - always have, always will.

 

On top of that the crappy caches placed lead newcomers to the game to think that this is what it's all about and either recoil in disbelief / disgust and give up before they ever discover something worth finding or else go out and place crappy caches of their own - accelerating the race to the bottom at an ever increasing rate.

 

And then - unbelievably - the CC owners complain that the area is rammed with crappy caches.

 

Hopefully whatever GS has come up with will at least rid us of these aspects of challenge caches that drive the game faster and faster into the ground.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Team Microdot

[cezanne]

 

So rather than let the CO add the word to the list for future use in the checker, you'd rather they have to remember (or research a second, third, fourth time) whether or not the word is valid? If you write it down for future checks, why not add it to the list to make things easier on yourself?

 

First, every CO should be allowed to choose what they prefer. Second, I do not believe that a system where words are added over time will be allowed by Groundspeak and a system where the list of words has to be fixed from the beginning, is too inflexible and destroys all chances for creativity.

 

Once it's verified, the CO adds it to the list and doesn't have to worry about translating again.

 

How do you think that such a challenge would be worded? I'm quite convinced that the cache description of future challenge caches will need to be very precise what is allowed and what not.

 

Why? Just because it's easier? No one is required to use the service provided, even paying members.

 

Of course not but as soon some have these tools, the level of difficulty will go up. If you have an exam where pocket calculators allowed, the problems will be set up differently regardless of whether some students decide not to use the calculator.

 

We can still do it the "old-fashioned" way and look through our finds to determine if we qualify or not. I'm not a paying member and I go through all my finds to see if I qualify.

 

It's not a matter of being a paying member. Every member can make 10 checks per day.

 

Speaking generically, challenges do require you to find more caches to complete a goal. The thing I don't get is why that matters to anyone. Why does it matter if someone caches a lot more than anyone else? Why should people have to limit their caching to meet someone else's standards or philosophy? Caches are meant to be found (some more than others) and it doesn't matter to me if someone chooses to find 100 a day or 1 every month.

 

I do have the right to prefer challenges that are not much easier or even trivial (since already done) for cachers that cache a lot (or for a long time in some cases).

 

For example, I have a filled day grid but never worked on it. It's no achievement at all. If I go out and find 10 long distance hiking caches or 10 orienteering caches it does not happen by chance but deliberately.

[+LFC4eva]

Using a specific example, let's say I've found 84 of 100 caches with an animal name in the title. The old way had cachers sifting through each cache name manually in order to see if it had an animal in the title.

One of the interesting features of challenge caches that require a complicated amount of data mining is that they encourage people to actually accept the challenge and go out to find 100 more caches with animals in the name since it's almost as easy and much more fun than sifting through thousands of cache names looking for past finds that fit the requirements.

 

Of course, requiring a checker kills that, too.

What really kills challenges of that nature is when someone - usually the CCO or one of their friends - starts spamming the area with x number of micros in rubbish locations with animal names in their title just to bump up the number of finds on their challenge and/or their micro's with animal names in their title. Where is the challenge in that?

What really kill such challenges are Groundspeak's current challenge cache guidelines:

 

Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; geocaches found before the challenge geocache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

Maybe.. although I note from a previous reply you enjoy looking through lists and finding interesting/creative words..

 

Unlike some geocachers, I've always had a fondness for certain types of "word" challenges (e.g., types of animals or foods). I enjoy looking through previous finder's lists and discovering some of the interesting/creative words they come up with that clearly fulfill the challenge requirements.

 

Couldn't that enjoyment also come from searching through your previous finds and discovering that you already found some caches with interesting creative words which would fulfill the challenge requirements?

 

I appreciate having a checker will kill that - but only if you use the checker. The guideline states that all new challenges will need to have a challenge checker.. they don't say you have to use it.

 

I have enjoyed a few challenges which have required me to trawl through my previous finds to see if I was already some way toward qualification - and that exercise in itself was enjoyable because it brought back good memories of doing those caches which had long since been forgotten until the challenge was published.

[+coachstahly]

 

For example, I have a filled day grid but never worked on it. It's no achievement at all. If I go out and find 10 long distance hiking caches or 10 orienteering caches it does not happen by chance but deliberately.

 

In other words, it's only an achievement if you do it deliberately and it doesn't happen by chance? What about those who deliberately work to achieve filling in their daily grid? So what if there were a challenge that required you to find 10 long distance hiking caches and, since those are your preferred type of caches, you had already done them and qualified for the challenge?

Edited April 24, 2016 by coachstahly

[+dprovan]

What really kills challenges of that nature is when someone - usually the CCO or one of their friends - starts spamming the area with x number of micros in rubbish locations with animal names in their title just to bump up the number of finds on their challenge and/or their micro's with animal names in their title. Where is the challenge in that?

While it does sound like trash caches are helping kill challenge caches, they don't happen in my area. It's sad that the fact that some areas have COs that will hide garbage -- for whatever reason -- is killing challenge caches in areas without that problem.

 

I like your compromise: creating a list of acceptable words but remaining flexible enough to incorporate additional acceptable words as they come to light. I hope Groundspeak's new challenge cache guidelines will allow for such flexibility. Right now, it seems like they view checkers as being the final arbitrators of what is or isn't acceptable.

Hmmm.... Interesting idea. I'm almost sorry you brought it to everyone's attention. One could satisfy the GS requirement by having a challenge cache requiring animal names, supplying a checker that checks for "dog", "cat", and "cow" to satisfy the GS requirement, then the CO would just manually check the list every time without worrying about the fact that the checker is dismally inadequate. Sounds like a good plan to me, but now that it's on the table, I'm sure the final announcement with have verbiage to guard against this affront to the new standard of antagonistic requirement checking.

[+coachstahly]

 

Hmmm.... Interesting idea. I'm almost sorry you brought it to everyone's attention. One could satisfy the GS requirement by having a challenge cache requiring animal names, supplying a checker that checks for "dog", "cat", and "cow" to satisfy the GS requirement, then the CO would just manually check the list every time without worrying about the fact that the checker is dismally inadequate. Sounds like a good plan to me, but now that it's on the table, I'm sure the final announcement with have verbiage to guard against this affront to the new standard of antagonistic requirement checking.

 

I'm hoping for the best and that a challenge CO will do the most to ensure the validity of the checker, instead of the least, which would mean supplying and adding to a list of acceptable animals.

 

Adding to the part mentioned about people placing "crappy" caches in order to fulfill some challenges, it doesn't happen very often in my area either. I can think of about 10 instances in the past 6 years where D/T was manipulated, attributes added that made no sense, or odd names were given to caches. Perhaps it's because we have challenges, but not to a point where they are taking over the area or creating power trails out of them.

[+Pine and Poplar]

I like your compromise: creating a list of acceptable words but remaining flexible enough to incorporate additional acceptable words as they come to light. I hope Groundspeak's new challenge cache guidelines will allow for such flexibility. Right now, it seems like they view checkers as being the final arbitrators of what is or isn't acceptable.

Hmmm.... Interesting idea. I'm almost sorry you brought it to everyone's attention. One could satisfy the GS requirement by having a challenge cache requiring animal names, supplying a checker that checks for "dog", "cat", and "cow" to satisfy the GS requirement, then the CO would just manually check the list every time without worrying about the fact that the checker is dismally inadequate. Sounds like a good plan to me, but now that it's on the table, I'm sure the final announcement with have verbiage to guard against this affront to the new standard of antagonistic requirement checking.

They almost have to allow something like that though, otherwise a generic animal name challenge couldn't be published. There just isn't any way to ensure every single possible animal name is included on the checker's list. Depending on the number of caches required you would need start with a list of at least that many animals, if not more. Additional animals can be add edmore as finders come up with different names that you didn't originally think of. I don't see a problem with that as long as the CO is actively maintaining the cache and the checker list.

[+CanadianRockies]

Maybe.. although I note from a previous reply you enjoy looking through lists and finding interesting/creative words..

 

Unlike some geocachers, I've always had a fondness for certain types of "word" challenges (e.g., types of animals or foods). I enjoy looking through previous finder's lists and discovering some of the interesting/creative words they come up with that clearly fulfill the challenge requirements.

Couldn't that enjoyment also come from searching through your previous finds and discovering that you already found some caches with interesting creative words which would fulfill the challenge requirements?

 

...I have enjoyed a few challenges which have required me to trawl through my previous finds to see if I was already some way toward qualification - and that exercise in itself was enjoyable because it brought back good memories of doing those caches which had long since been forgotten until the challenge was published.

Yes, when I come across animal/food type word challenges, I usually have already completed them. But I still enjoy going through my existing finds and trying to find creative/interesting words to include in my list of qualifying caches. And if a checker exists for such challenges, it probably would be fun to try to come up with new words that aren't yet incorporated into that checker.

 

What I'm concerned about is that Groundspeak's new challenge cache guidelines might unnecessarily eliminate some of my enjoyment by prohibiting new challenges from being flexible enough to include new words post-publication. I'm concerned that in their effort to reduce disagreements, Groundspeak might get carried away and stifle too many fun, creative challenges. I hope that's not the case.

 

I appreciate having a checker will kill that - but only if you use the checker. The guideline states that all new challenges will need to have a challenge checker.. they don't say you have to use it.

What's unclear at this point is whether the lists for such checkers will be the only acceptable words or if those lists can be added to as the cache owner becomes aware of additional acceptable words. If challenge cache owners want to avoid disagreements, then I have no problem with them restricting their words to the words that form the initial checker list. But if challenge cache owners want to promote creativity and fun, then I think they should be allowed to add additional acceptable words to their checker's list as they become aware of them.

Edited April 24, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[cezanne]

 

In other words, it's only an achievement if you do it deliberately and it doesn't happen by chance? What about those who deliberately work to achieve filling in their daily grid?

 

I'm not saying that the mainy existing daily grid challenge caches should be archived.

I find them boring - whoever likes them is free to do so.

Those challenges are not endangered by automatic checkers anyway.

 

So what if there were a challenge that required you to find 10 long distance hiking caches and, since those are your preferred type of caches, you had already done them and qualified for the challenge?

 

As there are so few of them I have not yet done even 10 of them. Comment: 20km multi caches are not long distance hiking caches. In some years I do not even manage to get one long distance hiking cache done. Hiking multi caches are my favourites, but for the routine use they should be need to be one day projects without a long trip.

Edited April 24, 2016 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

Hmmm.... Interesting idea. I'm almost sorry you brought it to everyone's attention. One could satisfy the GS requirement by having a challenge cache requiring animal names, supplying a checker that checks for "dog", "cat", and "cow" to satisfy the GS requirement, then the CO would just manually check the list every time without worrying about the fact that the checker is dismally inadequate. Sounds like a good plan to me, but now that it's on the table, I'm sure the final announcement with have verbiage to guard against this affront to the new standard of antagonistic requirement checking.

I'm hoping for the best and that a challenge CO will do the most to ensure the validity of the checker, instead of the least, which would mean supplying and adding to a list of acceptable animals.

Of course, there's also a middle ground. A challenge CO could develop a good (but not comprehensive) list and add new words as they come to light. Personally, I find that to be the "best" solution.

[+Team Microdot]

I like your compromise: creating a list of acceptable words but remaining flexible enough to incorporate additional acceptable words as they come to light. I hope Groundspeak's new challenge cache guidelines will allow for such flexibility. Right now, it seems like they view checkers as being the final arbitrators of what is or isn't acceptable.

Hmmm.... Interesting idea. I'm almost sorry you brought it to everyone's attention. One could satisfy the GS requirement by having a challenge cache requiring animal names, supplying a checker that checks for "dog", "cat", and "cow" to satisfy the GS requirement, then the CO would just manually check the list every time without worrying about the fact that the checker is dismally inadequate. Sounds like a good plan to me, but now that it's on the table, I'm sure the final announcement with have verbiage to guard against this affront to the new standard of antagonistic requirement checking.

They almost have to allow something like that though, otherwise a generic animal name challenge couldn't be published. There just isn't any way to ensure every single possible animal name is included on the checker's list. Depending on the number of caches required you would need start with a list of at least that many animals, if not more. Additional animals can be add edmore as finders come up with different names that you didn't originally think of. I don't see a problem with that as long as the CO is actively maintaining the cache and the checker list.

 

Which means there is a problem if the CO doesn't actively maintain the list.

 

And another problem if 'actively maintains the list' becomes a euphemism for 'disagrees with the finder over an item the finder wants adding to the list'. Then you're back to disputes and possibly even Needs Archived logs on the basis that the CO isn't maintaining the list.

 

As has previously been suggested though, there's nothing stopping CO's who can't be bothered to maintain a checker simply accepting all finds whether they qualify or not. They might even state same on the cache page - editing post publication if necessary.

 

Unless of course there's going to be an interlock between GS and ProjectGC which prevents logging non-qualifying finds - although that wouldn't matter if the CO deliberately used an open-ended checker and accepted all finds - so long as the bare minimum requirements of the checker had been met.

[+CanadianRockies]

As has previously been suggested though, there's nothing stopping CO's who can't be bothered to maintain a checker simply accepting all finds whether they qualify or not. They might even state same on the cache page - editing post publication if necessary.

As your "post publication" comment alluded to, there is something that stops CO's from simply accepting all finds: Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines. According to those guidelines:

 

Importantly, geocache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the geocache requirements have been met.

And even if the listing page is edited post-publication, there's still the "Needs Archiving" log that can be used to stop such mischief.

[+Team Microdot]

As has previously been suggested though, there's nothing stopping CO's who can't be bothered to maintain a checker simply accepting all finds whether they qualify or not. They might even state same on the cache page - editing post publication if necessary.

As your "post publication" comment alluded to, there is something that stops CO's from simply accepting all finds: Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines. According to those guidelines:

 

Importantly, geocache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the geocache requirements have been met.

And even if the listing page is edited post-publication, there's still the "Needs Archiving" log that can be used to stop such mischief.

 

Of course - because everybody complies with all of the guidelines all of the time.

 

And as for NA - the probability given the target audience is virtually non-existent.

 

ETA - the substantiation guideline's main intent is probably just to prevent cache owners wasting valuable reviwer time by submitting challenge caches that have no well formed means of substantiating qualification. I suppose it could be a warning to CO's that they must be able to substantiate claims or else - but I doubt it.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Team Microdot

[+coachstahly]

 

In other words, it's only an achievement if you do it deliberately and it doesn't happen by chance? What about those who deliberately work to achieve filling in their daily grid?

 

I'm not saying that the mainy existing daily grid challenge caches should be archived.

I find them boring - whoever likes them is free to do so.

Those challenges are not endangered by automatic checkers anyway.

 

 

You missed my point. You made the statement that only things worth deliberately working on are achievements and everything else isn't. What if someone didn't know about the Jasmer challenge but just loved finding old caches from 2000-2001 everywhere they traveled. They come across the challenge and realize that they already qualify for the challenge, without deliberately working on it. Is that an achievement even though they didn't deliberately work toward that challenge?

 

So what if there were a challenge that required you to find 10 long distance hiking caches and, since those are your preferred type of caches, you had already done them and qualified for the challenge?

As there are so few of them I have not yet done even 10 of them.

 

That was a hypothetical question, not a literal one. Hypothetically, what if there were a challenge that required you to find 10 20km multi hiking caches and, since those are your preferred type of caches, you had already done them and qualified for the challenge? Would you still view this as an achievement or not?

[cezanne]

You missed my point. You made the statement that only things worth deliberately working on are achievements and everything else isn't. What if someone didn't know about the Jasmer challenge but just loved finding old caches from 2000-2001 everywhere they traveled. They come across the challenge and realize that they already qualify for the challenge, without deliberately working on it. Is that an achievement even though they didn't deliberately work toward that challenge?

 

Maybe deliberately was not the best word. In any case I was referring to the goal and not the challenge cache itself - so when someone targeted for old caches and it did not just happen by finding many caches or by starting very early, that also would fall within what I meant with deliberately.

 

That was a hypothetical question, not a literal one. Hypothetically, what if there were a challenge that required you to find 10 20km multi hiking caches and, since those are your preferred type of caches, you had already done them and qualified for the challenge? Would you still view this as an achievement or not?

 

As an achievement for me, no.

[+coachstahly]

 

Which means there is a problem if the CO doesn't actively maintain the list.

 

 

Yes it does. That's going to be a part of challenge cache maintenance now, based on the type of challenge that is published. If one's not willing to do the maintenance, perhaps one shouldn't put out the cache in the first place. I'm pretty sure that goes for ANY cache, not just challenge caches.

[+coachstahly]

You missed my point. You made the statement that only things worth deliberately working on are achievements and everything else isn't. What if someone didn't know about the Jasmer challenge but just loved finding old caches from 2000-2001 everywhere they traveled. They come across the challenge and realize that they already qualify for the challenge, without deliberately working on it. Is that an achievement even though they didn't deliberately work toward that challenge?

 

Maybe deliberately was not the best word. In any case I was referring to the goal and not the challenge cache itself - so when someone targeted for old caches and it did not just happen by finding many caches or by starting very early, that also would fall within what I meant with deliberately.

 

That was a hypothetical question, not a literal one. Hypothetically, what if there were a challenge that required you to find 10 20km multi hiking caches and, since those are your preferred type of caches, you had already done them and qualified for the challenge? Would you still view this as an achievement or not?

 

As an achievement for me, no.

 

You actively targeted those 20 Km multi caches because you like them (you've mentioned this type in other threads as well). Therefore it's deliberate and not random chance, according to what you wrote in the first part of your reply. Now you're saying the opposite?

[+Team Microdot]

 

Which means there is a problem if the CO doesn't actively maintain the list.

 

 

Yes it does. That's going to be a part of challenge cache maintenance now, based on the type of challenge that is published. If one's not willing to do the maintenance, perhaps one shouldn't put out the cache in the first place. I'm pretty sure that goes for ANY cache, not just challenge caches.

 

Absolutely - people who aren't going to maintain caches as and when required shouldn't put them out at all - there's no perhaps about it.

 

But who is going to care if the checker list isn't updated as long as their find stands?

[cezanne]

You actively targeted those 20 Km multi caches because you like them (you've mentioned this type in other threads as well). Therefore it's deliberate and not random chance, according to what you wrote in the first part of your reply. Now you're saying the opposite?

 

I never said that actively targeting for something is my only criterion to decide whether something is an achievement for me personally.

 

The 10 hiking multi caches of length at least 20km (or something similar, so not nail me on 10 and 20) is a type of challenge I would decide to put out if I ever would put out a challenge cache. For me personally, it would not be challenging.

Edited April 24, 2016 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Would the new rules permit someone to base a challenge on a defined list of geocaches?

 

I saw a challenge checker that seemed to do that. It had a a list of qualifying caches (not that every cache in the list had to be found)

 

I always believed a challenge cache could not require finding a specific list of caches - but this suggests I was misinformed!

 

I don't believe that a challenge cache can require that one find a specific list of caches, but I've seen a few find "N" caches from a specific cache owner, or published during a specific time from. A checker which had all caches were owned by a specific person or published during a specific time from would just be a qualifying list from which one could find "N" caches to qualify. The difference is somewhat subtle but the checker would just be checking finds which were on a qualifying list.

 

 

[+ChileHead]

I find it funny how many posts here talk about word challenges, as they are mostly pretty mundane. Their checkers should be pretty easy to write and maintain, but requires effort on the CO to come up with the initial set of acceptable words. I haven't used lua, but am proficient in dozens of other langues (my background is compiler & language design), so I expect that a language like lua should be able to easily check if a cache title contains one word in a list.

 

I'd be more interested in seeing what sorts of challenges that currently exist can't have checkers written for them, and what would have to change either on the GC side or on the project-gc side to make the viable.